This is ridiculous

[opebo]

Just to clarify my position on the matter of attacks on Mormonism (or any religious or ideological belief, for that matter):

Rational, reasoned arguments about the merits, or lack thereof, of a belief system are strongly encouraged.

Sweeping generalizations about the sanity or character of those who ascribe to a belief system, especially if made alone with no supporting evidence, do not contribute to intellectual discourse and are infractable.

So any correlation between belief and insanity is disallowed.  You may as well say we may not discuss the subject of sanity at all.

The point is not the merits of the belief system (no doubt they are mostly very useful, for certain awful purposes), but the abdication of sanity represented by the act of faith itself.

[Badger]

There are some conflicting things in this thread, and I figured I throw my thoughts in as well. There are a number of infraction categories, at least two of which have been mentioned so far: personal attack and discrimination/hatefulness. The infraction was for the latter of those two, so to avoid confusion in my post I'll deal first with the former.

I treat personal attacks as being those directed at another poster. Attacks on political figures or others in the news may get moderated for other reasons, but I would shy away from calling that a personal attack. Public figures are subject to ridicule within reason, but for a well-run forum ridicule should be constrained among posters.

A statement directed at a public figure can cross the line into discrimination. The more public the figure the more cutting a comment can be and probably not cross that line. Statements that accuse a policy of racism are fairly ordinary and can be worthy of debate. An accusation that a person is racist based on a set of policies goes a step further, but can be defended. For me the line usually appears when a public figure is attacked not for their policies or actions but merely by being a member of a group. By saying that X is a member of group G and is therefore racist implies that the syllogism's premise was that all G are racist. In context that can be discriminatory and subject to moderation IMO.

Stop being rational this minute, sir, or you will be expelled from teh ForumDrama forthwith!

[Nym90]

Just to clarify my position on the matter of attacks on Mormonism (or any religious or ideological belief, for that matter):

Rational, reasoned arguments about the merits, or lack thereof, of a belief system are strongly encouraged.

Sweeping generalizations about the sanity or character of those who ascribe to a belief system, especially if made alone with no supporting evidence, do not contribute to intellectual discourse and are infractable.

So any correlation between belief and insanity is disallowed.  You may as well say we may not discuss the subject of sanity at all.

The point is not the merits of the belief system (no doubt they are mostly very useful, for certain awful purposes), but the abdication of sanity represented by the act of faith itself.

Assuming you were offering evidence for your position, that would be perfectly acceptable. I'm referring to stating something like that as fact without offering any defense.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The few LDS folks with whom I interact, or have interacted, are upper middle class, and we just don't discuss religion. It's not polite, and it would be even less polite to probe into whether they really believe this or that about their religion. They do get some ribbing for belonging to "the cult" and take it with good nature, and laugh. I had a lawsuit where the other side was represented by the nephew of Senator Crapo, and he was a pleasure to deal with - unusual in the litigation world. I try to interact with folks as individuals, as opposed to filtering them based on their background or beliefs or whatever. Humans are just a lot more complex than that. I find my interactions to be just so much richer and more interesting that way.

Yes, the LDS does have some cult-like tendencies, but I don't consider them evil. Sure they have strange beliefs, but for skeptics, most of these leaps of faith in any religion embracing the supernatural and miracles and so forth are kind of bizarre. You reflect however an animus towards the LDS that is fairly widespread. It would be nice if we had a bit more tolerance, and more of a live, and let live, attitude, rather than just demonizing the other. Among other things, in my experience, it makes one a happier person. We all have our own little unique journeys in life, and our own constraints, and inherited support groups and the like.

I'd certainly have this opinion if they weren't my close friends and just mild acquaintances but deeper interactions with their families and seeing how they're manipulated to follow the herd disturbs me greatly. If they were just a few dudes I liked talking to, I wouldn't care but I see them being lead astray by their faith into acting like irrational idiots and it bugs me. The faith serves some well and it serves others horrendously and forces them on an uncomfortable path that they're forced on by their family members. This bugs me.

[So the Heroes Fall]

EMD remInds me of the ex-Catholics in my family, or Mikado on religious Judaism. A case where having more of an interaction with something makes one more opposed to it.

Mikado is a lapsed Jew?

He doesn't identify as Jewish anymore, so no.

EMD's last post just basically proved my hypothesis.

[ModerateCoward]

The few LDS folks with whom I interact, or have interacted, are upper middle class, and we just don't discuss religion. It's not polite, and it would be even less polite to probe into whether they really believe this or that about their religion. They do get some ribbing for belonging to "the cult" and take it with good nature, and laugh. I had a lawsuit where the other side was represented by the nephew of Senator Crapo, and he was a pleasure to deal with - unusual in the litigation world. I try to interact with folks as individuals, as opposed to filtering them based on their background or beliefs or whatever. Humans are just a lot more complex than that. I find my interactions to be just so much richer and more interesting that way.

Yes, the LDS does have some cult-like tendencies, but I don't consider them evil. Sure they have strange beliefs, but for skeptics, most of these leaps of faith in any religion embracing the supernatural and miracles and so forth are kind of bizarre. You reflect however an animus towards the LDS that is fairly widespread. It would be nice if we had a bit more tolerance, and more of a live, and let live, attitude, rather than just demonizing the other. Among other things, in my experience, it makes one a happier person. We all have our own little unique journeys in life, and our own constraints, and inherited support groups and the like.

I'd certainly have this opinion if they weren't my close friends and just mild acquaintances but deeper interactions with their families and seeing how they're manipulated to follow the herd disturbs me greatly. If they were just a few dudes I liked talking to, I wouldn't care but I see them being lead astray by their faith into acting like irrational idiots and it bugs me. The faith serves some well and it serves others horrendously and forces them on an uncomfortable path that they're forced on by their family members. This bugs me.

I have a friend that lives in Eastern Idaho and he pretty much would explain it the same way.

[bgwah]

I responded to this thread with this:

He's white.

Ernest gave me five points for it. lol.