Anti-Mormon bigotry on the Atlas

[Mechaman]

Obviously Option 2.

I am always amazed, and rather disgusted, by the comments I hear from some of our "liberal" posters that blanket an entire faith and it's followers with negative connotations.  There are liberal Mormon posters on here who oppose homophobia.  I had several liberal Mormon friends growing up.  This country has even had Mormons who supported Civil Rights, Environmentalism, defending the rights of American Indians, and battling the nuclear arms buildup.

You people should seriously be ashamed of yourselves.

EDIT:

THis is what motivated me:

If Willard does run again, I hope we get to see his tax returns this time.

Absolutely - I think one of the first things he needs to do this time is release his tax returns for the last five years. Mitt has learned from his mistakes.

Really he just needs to start drinking.

No, no. Without the support of the morman cabal Mitt is nothing.

[RR1997]

I agree with you completely Mechaman. Most of the anti-Mormon bigotry comes from Lief. Now don't get me wrong, I think that Lief is one of my favorite users on this forum,but I thought liberals were all about love and tolerance.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, that's stupid.

[tik 🪀✨]

As far as Atlastian bigotry is concerned, the Mormon variety isn't one that blips my radar.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I doubt Lief is against Kristen Synema or anyone else who renounced Mormonism. It's an identity by choice so it's not like race or gender. This accusation is like calling someone "bigoted" towards Republicans or Democrats.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I doubt Lief is against Kristen Synema or anyone else who renounced Mormonism. It's an identity by choice so it's not like race or gender. This accusation is like calling someone "bigoted" towards Republicans or Democrats.

So it's OK to be bigoted against Muslims or Jews? After all, they have a choice too don't they?

[Franzl]

What does it matter whether one is something by choice or not?

Respect should be given to all human beings, and absent doing something horrible that has a negative effect on others, this includes all personal traits. If a gay, black, Republican, cross-dressing man decides he wants to be Mormon, more power to him.

[afleitch]

What does it matter whether one is something by choice or not?

Respect should be given to all human beings, and absent doing something horrible that has a negative effect on others, this includes all personal traits. If a gay, black, Republican, cross-dressing man decides he wants to be Mormon, more power to him.

If he's gay, black and a cross-dresser and he wants to be a Mormon he'll probably need it.

[Franzl]

What does it matter whether one is something by choice or not?

Respect should be given to all human beings, and absent doing something horrible that has a negative effect on others, this includes all personal traits. If a gay, black, Republican, cross-dressing man decides he wants to be Mormon, more power to him.

If he's gay, black and a cross-dresser and he wants to be a Mormon he'll probably need it.

You may have a point there....

But my point was the matter of choice always gets brought into these debates, particularly regarding homosexuality. Obviously I don't think there's any choice involved, but even if there were, it wouldn't change my opinions on LGBT rights.

[afleitch]

What does it matter whether one is something by choice or not?

Respect should be given to all human beings, and absent doing something horrible that has a negative effect on others, this includes all personal traits. If a gay, black, Republican, cross-dressing man decides he wants to be Mormon, more power to him.

If he's gay, black and a cross-dresser and he wants to be a Mormon he'll probably need it.

You may have a point there....

But my point was the matter of choice always gets brought into these debates, particularly regarding homosexuality. Obviously I don't think there's any choice involved, but even if there were, it wouldn't change my opinions on LGBT rights.

Choice rarely gets brought into these debates when it concerns religion.  We seem to give religious belief a privilege status over all other personal beliefs and ideologies (including, at times, lack of religious belief), whether it’s someone’s politics, or someone’s philosophy. At the end of it all, religious belief is a choice belief; it is not an inherent characteristic and yet at times it is elevated even above that. There should never be a situation where religious preference trumps the rights of women, yet it constantly happens and tacit excuses are often made.

I think you have the right to mock the beliefs of others, even if as a person you and I would refrain from doing so,  because the beliefs of others are not immutable. If it isn’t a right, then this thread; https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=195697.0, is an exercise in 'offending' people who believe in astrology (which of course, it isn’t)

[Franzl]

Ah but I think there's a difference between mocking the beliefs a person holds and mocking the person himself.

I think Mormon beliefs are extremely questionable, but I don't think that's a good reason to feel negatively about individual Mormons.

Although I would also question how much of a choice actually is involved in religion. Sure, those that are wealthy and relatively well educated make a concious choice whether to follow a religion (like me) or not to (like you), but I'm not sure one can go to a rural town in Oklahoma and say everyone made a concious decision.

Although it's not a biological reality in the sense sexuality is, it's still a central part of one's identity.

[afleitch]

Ah but I think there's a difference between mocking the beliefs a person holds and mocking the person himself.

I think Mormon beliefs are extremely questionable, but I don't think that's a good reason to feel negatively about individual Mormons.

Although I would also question how much of a choice actually is involved in religion. Sure, those that are wealthy and relatively well educated make a concious choice whether to follow a religion (like me) or not to (like you), but I'm not sure one can go to a rural town in Oklahoma and say everyone made a concious decision.

Although it's not a biological reality in the sense sexuality is, it's still a central part of one's identity.

I think it’s highly debatable to suggest, as you say that if you mock the beliefs a person holds, you are not by extension mocking the person. Some take that better than others of course

In terms of religion not necessarily being a conscious decision then of course, there is an element of that person being ‘religion x’ because parents were also x and society is generally x. So when the person goes on a spiritual quest, nine times out of ten they land up in ‘x’ anyway because it’s what they have internalised. Indeed, we are tuned to be suspect of people who don’t do that and go off to become a white Muslim in Kentucky or declare that everyone else has got religion wrong and it’s something brand new. So you cannot say everyone in rural Oklahoma made a conscious decision about being a Christian nor can you say that they made a conscious decision in thinking that Arabs are a bit weird because they have ‘rags on their heads’ and write funny or that Democrats are communists (and I’m deliberately playing to stereotypes here) But they are still beliefs. That's all they are. You could argue that they are still part of someone’s identity, but simply having an identity formed by belief, is not cause to have that part of your identity that isn’t an immutable characteristic, protected from negative views towards it. Immutable characteristics are 'true', beliefs are not always.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I doubt Lief is against Kristen Synema or anyone else who renounced Mormonism. It's an identity by choice so it's not like race or gender. This accusation is like calling someone "bigoted" towards Republicans or Democrats.

So it's OK to be bigoted against Muslims or Jews? After all, they have a choice too don't they?

Well, remember that BRTD is pretty anti-Catholic (most infamously in his absolute bafflement as to why many--not all!--lapsed Catholics continue to think of themselves as culturally distinct from other non-Catholics--I do kind of wonder if this extends to assimilated secular Jews, actually), although not to the same extent of unseemliness that Lief is anti-Mormon.

BRTD, the fact that you view religion as more closely analogous to political opinion than to race or gender explains a lot about the way you see the world. I don't mean that in an entirely bad way. I suppose it was already pretty easy to tell that this was the case if one sat down and thought about your views, but this is the first time to my knowledge you've been so explicit in stating it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I agree with you completely Mechaman. Most of the anti-Mormon bigotry comes from Lief. Now don't get me wrong, I think that Lief is one of my favorite users on this forum,but I thought liberals were all about love and tolerance.

This isn't a liberal or conservative thing.  This is strictly about Lief's anti-Mormon bigotry and the attempts by certain sycophantic members of his personality cult (in this case BTRD) to rationalize it.  However, as others have said, there are a number of forms of bigotry that are far more common on the forum.  Sexism is obviously the first that comes to mind and I don't really see that changing, sadly.  There is a bit of semi-concealed racism, some anti-Semitism, and a little bit of general anti-religious bigotry, but it is often hard to distinguish when those three are trolling and when they are reflective of certain posters' actual beliefs (ex: I don't think Snowstalker is really an anti-Semite, he's just the second most incompetent troll on the forum after Mr. Pollo).  On the other hand, I think more often than not the sexist posts on the forum are reflective of genuine bigotry.

[afleitch]

BRTD, the fact that you view religion as more closely analogous to political opinion than to race or gender explains a lot about the way you see the world. I don't mean that in an entirely bad way. I suppose it was already pretty easy to tell that this was the case if one sat down and thought about your views, but this is the first time to my knowledge you've been so explicit in stating it.

It's consistent I would say to view religious belief as analogous to politicical/philosophical belief for the same reason it is inconsistent to view religious superstition as different, or hold it to a higher regard to non religious superstition, on an evidential basis. That is why I noted upthread that if people were consistent about that, then the thread on astrology is an exercise not in the rightful dismissal of a belief system without evidence but one attempting to deliberately 'offend' people who believe in astrology.

[Oakvale]

Why are you acting as if Romney's desire to fulfil the White Horse prophecy isn't relevant to the fact he ran for President?

[RR1997]

I agree with you completely Mechaman. Most of the anti-Mormon bigotry comes from Lief. Now don't get me wrong, I think that Lief is one of my favorite users on this forum,but I thought liberals were all about love and tolerance.

This isn't a liberal or conservative thing.  This is strictly about Lief's anti-Mormon bigotry and the attempts by certain sycophantic members of his personality cult (in this case BTRD) to rationalize it.  However, as others have said, there are a number of forms of bigotry that are far more common on the forum.  Sexism is obviously the first that comes to mind and I don't really see that changing, sadly.  There is a bit of semi-concealed racism, some anti-Semitism, and a little bit of general anti-religious bigotry, but it is often hard to distinguish when those three are trolling and when they are reflective of certain posters' actual beliefs (ex: I don't think Snowstalker is really an anti-Semite, he's just the second most incompetent troll on the forum after Mr. Pollo).  On the other hand, I think more often than not the sexist posts on the forum are reflective of genuine bigotry.

I know it is not a liberal or conservative issue, all I'm saying is that Lief is a liberal, so it is a bit hypocritical that he is anti-Mormon, even though liberals are the people who always preach about  love and tolerance of all religions. I realize that there are plenty of conservatives who are anti-Mormon as well. I also hate to sound like a type of conservative who says things like "hur dur, those dern liburuls" since I am liberal on many issues. As a Hindu, I understand how it feels like being made fun of because of your religion, so I don't think what Lief does is right, even though Lief is still overall a great user, but not all users are perfect.

[memphis]

Contempt for people who hold crazy belief systems is not bigotry. By that standards, holding ill will toward Communists would also be bigotry. The Religious Privilege implicit in the thread title is breathtaking.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

BRTD, the fact that you view religion as more closely analogous to political opinion than to race or gender explains a lot about the way you see the world. I don't mean that in an entirely bad way. I suppose it was already pretty easy to tell that this was the case if one sat down and thought about your views, but this is the first time to my knowledge you've been so explicit in stating it.

It's consistent I would say to view religious belief as analogous to politicical/philosophical belief for the same reason it is inconsistent to view religious superstition as different, or hold it to a higher regard to non religious superstition, on an evidential basis. That is why I noted upthread that if people were consistent about that, then the thread on astrology is an exercise not in the rightful dismissal of a belief system without evidence but one attempting to deliberately 'offend' people who believe in astrology.

Oh, it's certainly consistent, and like I said, I don't think it's entirely a bad thing--it makes BRTD, at least, a really good, useful gadfly in certain situations (this is a function that I actually hold in pretty high regard! I've never shared others' dislike for BRTD, in this respect or as it relates to some of his odder fixations). I don't think it demonstrates what I'd consider a (subjectively?) correct sociological understanding of how different types of group marker operate, especially as it relates to minority groups, but it's far from an inconsistent or nonsensical point of view.

_______

I don't have to read memphis's post in detail because I know what he said; I don't have to respond because he knows what I'd say.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Pretty horrible

[Joe Republic]

Contempt for people who hold crazy belief systems is not bigotry. By that standards, holding ill will toward Communists would also be bigotry. The Religious Privilege implicit in the thread title is breathtaking.

^ Just because LDS got a 100 year head start on Scientology (to add another example) doesn't mean they aren't both weird cults invented by charlatans, and should be viewed equally as such.

[memphis]

Good to see that Nathan thinks he's my soulmate. I don't agree with his statement, but his creative strategies for formulating dismissive non-rebuttals continue to impress.

[IceSpear]

Am I missing something? That post wasn't bigoted in the least. Mitt's presidential runs were/would be heavily supported by both Mormon donors and voters, and yes, he would depend on them for his base of support. Just like Obama depended on blacks for his base of support.

Now, Lief may have made other anti-Mormon posts that I'm unaware of, but there's certainly nothing wrong with that one.

Also, that's assuming making jokes about someone's religious beliefs is "bigotry". Last time I checked, nobody is actually trying to impose second class citizenship or other restrictions on Mormons for their beliefs, the worst they get is made fun of on the internet. Boo hoo. I have to agree with the posters talking about "religious privilege" here. Your beliefs are not immune from criticism or jokes just because they might hurt your feelings.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I doubt Lief is against Kristen Synema or anyone else who renounced Mormonism. It's an identity by choice so it's not like race or gender. This accusation is like calling someone "bigoted" towards Republicans or Democrats.

So it's OK to be bigoted against Muslims or Jews? After all, they have a choice too don't they?

Well, remember that BRTD is pretty anti-Catholic (most infamously in his absolute bafflement as to why many--not all!--lapsed Catholics continue to think of themselves as culturally distinct from other non-Catholics--I do kind of wonder if this extends to assimilated secular Jews, actually), although not to the same extent of unseemliness that Lief is anti-Mormon.

BRTD, the fact that you view religion as more closely analogous to political opinion than to race or gender explains a lot about the way you see the world. I don't mean that in an entirely bad way. I suppose it was already pretty easy to tell that this was the case if one sat down and thought about your views, but this is the first time to my knowledge you've been so explicit in stating it.

Well first of all consider what difference there is between students a public middle or high school in North Dakota or anywhere in the Upper Midwest who are Catholic and those who aren't. The answer is pretty much "nothing" and any religious identities in being raised basically NEVER came up at all in my schools, everyone identified by their own cliques or interests, but the idea that anyone who was raised a Catholic was very culturally distinct from all the Protestant students would be considered downright absurd and in fact most students of the type would probably think of it as a joke. The only difference most would see it as is the age you got confirmed at and thus when you started having Wednesday nights free. In fact I remember in sixth grade my social studies teacher while talking about Northern Ireland did a Catholic/Protestant survey in the class to make a point and that something that was a completely trivial nothing to us was a big deal there and that many of us who were good friends and what not would be separated. And indeed what exactly is the big difference between those of a Catholic upbringing and Protestant, most likely Lutheran upbringing in North Dakota or the suburban Twin Cities or whatever? It's unlikely there's even much of an ethnic difference. 

In the US as of the last reliable survey, 44% of Americans are in a different religious identity than the one they're raised in, and another 9% converted and then converted back to their original one. That means 53% have converted at some point. I'd be willing to wager that is FAR higher than the percentage of Americans who have changed political party identities in adulthood, and it probably is even if you exclude the reverts. So the idea that religious identity is somehow closer to race or gender than political identity in immutability is something that strikes me as not just absurd but actually pretty objectively false.

As for Jews that situation is different as an actual Jewish ethnicity exists, well several actually. My view would actually be that an atheist of Ashkenazi Jewish descent would actually be better described as ethnically Ashkenazi and irreligious than as Jewish, but I know that's using terminology and categories that go far beyond what most people do, so I don't quibble much about calling such a person Jewish. You might've noticed though I tend to use the term "ethnic Jew" rather than just "Jew" to describe such people though for this reason. And the fact that memphis is an ethnic Jew with his attitudes toward Jewish religious practices and traditions is a pretty great example of why I think this way of classification is ideal. I'm sorry, but memphis is not "just as Jewish" as some Hasid from Borough Park.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Good to see that Nathan thinks he's my soulmate.

Far from it--that would be, God willing, with someone I don't consider so unbelievably, boringly one-note and shallow as to come tantalizingly close to the point of being perversely fascinating without actually reaching it. You're less 'soulmate' and more 'Harlequin romance, crass bigot edition'.

I don't agree with his statement, but his creative strategies for formulating dismissive non-rebuttals continue to impress.

I could almost say the same about your virtuoso mastery at deserving them.

BRTD, I'll get back to you in a little while. Short version: Focus on America versus focus on the world as a whole, diachronic versus synchronic readings of way these things worked in the past, variance from group to group, religion as a frequent calque for other things in the context of expressing prejudices or stereotypes, remaining psychological traces (positive, negative, or neutral) of past religious experience or affiliation, blah blah blah Durkheim.