posted
I think that one of the worst things that the Catholic Church ever did was to foster the idea that we, as a church, can't make mistakes.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I should think it's rather obvious that ballots dealing with gay marriage affect far more people than just the current population of homosexuals.
By "affect," do you mean "are of interest to" or actually "have an effect on?"
quote:How about Harry Reid in Nevada, who apparently criticized the Church's public stance against SSM (in Massachussets), and who had no (as far as I know) disciplinary action taken against him?
Since you've just said that members don't really have any way of knowing whether disciplinary action has been taken against another member, I'm not sure how to reply.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what's sad is that there are many people I knew in my old ward that would change their minds (or at least immediately dismiss any debate on the subject) on the vote because of such a letter. I know California Wards tend to be a little different from Utah Wards, but it still makes me worry.
The problem I see with letters like this from the First Presidency is twofold. One: it contradicts their periodic letters regarding the church's stance of political neutrality, and two: that it implies that voting against such an amendment is a sin (presuming going against God's word is a sin, and also that the First Presidency's word is the word of God.) Even if they don't come right out and say it, I feel making that implication is not going to help some members make wise, neutral choices in other elections.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lem: I can't begin to tell you how good it feels to not have to resolve issues like this. I never knew how taxing mental gymnastics was on me physically and emotionally until I was able to let go and accept I didn't believe.
I agree with you 100%. In fact, this issue was one of the handful of reasons that I left the church.
When I was young, one of the things I most admired about the church was that they always told you to pray about the issues, and involve yourself in politics in whatever way you felt that the spirit and your conscience directed you. I remember many times being admonished by church leaders to take an active role in the democratic process. But every time this was said, the person saying it pointedly refused to tell us specifically how to vote on any issue.
Then the church's war on gay marriage entered the scene, and suddenly my conscience and the answers to my prayers weren't good enough. True, they weren't going to revoke my temple recommend for supporting gay rights. But they were making it very clear that in doing so I was going against the wishes of the church leadership.
According to Mormon doctrine, eternal salvation depends on much more than keeping a temple recommend and not being disfellowshipped. The requirements to enter the Celestial Kingdom are far more extensive than the temple interview, and although the bishop will never audit my ballot, God knows every choice I make. These types of proclamations take the choice out of my hands, and make it very clear whom I'm offending if I find it morally necessary to check the wrong box in the voting booth.
For the first time I found myself in a situation in which my conscience and the answers to my prayers were in direct opposition to an official church directive. If I voted my conscience, as I was always directed to do, I was going against the will of the prophets.
I tried and tried to justify voting in a way that went against all my Christian values. In the end I just couldn't make myself feel right about doing it. This isn't the sole reason that I left the church. But when I did leave the church, and was able to face this issue without pitting my conscience against my religion, it was a massive relief.
Reading this proclamation today made me feel like I'd been discharged from the military just before the government declared an unjust war. As much as I still love elements of this church, it's a great load off to be able to read this statement without having to justify supporting it.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since you've just said that members don't really have any way of knowing whether disciplinary action has been taken against another member, I'm not sure how to reply.
I said that I don't think there's any real way to enforce disciplinary measures on most members.
If Harry Reid were disciplined for his viewpoint or for his politics, I'd expect to hear about it in the national media.
quote:The problem I see with letters like this from the First Presidency is twofold. One: it contradicts their periodic letters regarding the church's stance of political neutrality
That neutrality extends to politicians, not necessarily to topics. The Church is not neutral, for example, when a state puts the legalization of gambling up for a legislative vote.
Again, from the Church's standpoint, this is a moral affair, and not a strictly political one.
quote: and two: that it implies that voting against such an amendment is a sin (presuming going against God's word is a sin, and also that the First Presidency's word is the word of God.) Even if they don't come right out and say it, I feel making that implication is not going to help some members make wise, neutral choices in other elections.
One CAN'T be neutral when going in to vote; one can be unbiased but that's completely different.
Neutrality defeats the purpose of voting, since voting at all presumes that one candidate/party/idea is favored over another.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:We can certainly discuss what the tax rate ought to be, but it is unjust for it to be zero for some activities and not for other, extremely similar ones.
Which extremely similar activities aren't eligible for the tax exemption that churches get?
I'm going to start a lecture club. The lecture club will consist of me, giving a talk every Sunday morning on some subject that interests me; and a bunch of members, who will support me by paying as much as they think the lecture was worth. Do you think I would get a tax exemption for this?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If you accept the premise that even divinely inspired human beings sometimes get it wrong, it is entirely possible to have faith without the gymnastics.
In that case, why have faith at all? Because now you are considering the tenets of your faith against your own judgement every time, and then you may as well just drop the religion and consider the tenets separately, including the tenets of other ideologies.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to start a lecture club. The lecture club will consist of me, giving a talk every Sunday morning on some subject that interests me; and a bunch of members, who will support me by paying as much as they think the lecture was worth. Do you think I would get a tax exemption for this?
Yes. Quite easily, assuming you're not violating the rules that other tax exempt organizations, including churches, have to follow.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That neutrality extends to politicians, not necessarily to topics. The Church is not neutral, for example, when a state puts the legalization of gambling up for a legislative vote.
Gambling is a straw man in this case. There's a whole bunch of other issues that come up when a State discusses legalized gambling that I don't see in a discussion about gay marriage.
The letters about political neutrality also include a clause that encourages members to vote their conscience. I don't recall any sentence in that letter that excludes the propositions or amendments on the ballot.
quote:Again, from the Church's standpoint, this is a moral affair, and not a strictly political one.
I would think that if not for the last paragraph of the letter where they encourage members to involve themselves in getting the amendment to pass. It is one thing to take the moral stance as a church as being against gay-marriage, and not performing them within your religion. It's another thing entirely to take that stance and encourage your members to vote as a block to impose the churches moral stance on others.
It is a moral affair, but IMO the Church, is extending their moral beliefs into the political sphere by supporting laws and amendments that impose their morality on others.
quote:One CAN'T be neutral when going in to vote; one can be unbiased but that's completely different.
Neutrality defeats the purpose of voting, since voting at all presumes that one candidate/party/idea is favored over another.
Neutral was a poor choice of words on my part. My point was that many members, if they perceive a certain set of topics to be the will of God will always vote for the candidate that says he supports/opposes such topics without looking at the candidate as a whole.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We can certainly discuss what the tax rate ought to be, but it is unjust for it to be zero for some activities and not for other, extremely similar ones.
Which extremely similar activities aren't eligible for the tax exemption that churches get?
I'm going to start a lecture club. The lecture club will consist of me, giving a talk every Sunday morning on some subject that interests me; and a bunch of members, who will support me by paying as much as they think the lecture was worth. Do you think I would get a tax exemption for this?
Here is the federal regulation for tax exempt status. It is sufficiently broad to include the case you cited.
Also, I believe the tax exemption applies to the holdings of the club, not to the salary of the lecturer (or pastor). Thus your earlier assertion that as a graduate student you pay taxes is immaterial: employees of other tax-exempt non-profits pay taxes on salaries as well.
<edit> And here is an IRS document that tells you more than you should ever want to know about the interplay between tax-exempt, charitable organizations (an umbrella term that applies to churches, educational institutions, community groups and more) and election year political advocacy.</edit>
posted
BTW, this is why a change to the tax laws that only removed the exemption for religious organizations would be discriminatory. I haven't analyzed it from a constitutional perspective, but denial of a significant government benefit to a lecture club simply because of the content of the lectures certainly raises significant issues.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If you accept the premise that even divinely inspired human beings sometimes get it wrong, it is entirely possible to have faith without the gymnastics.
In that case, why have faith at all? Because now you are considering the tenets of your faith against your own judgement every time, and then you may as well just drop the religion and consider the tenets separately, including the tenets of other ideologies.
You think that I don't consider the tenets of other ideologies? Why? And do you really think that a person or group of people must be infallible in order to have anything to teach? Belonging to a faith community, for me, is not really about being told what to think.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Gambling is a straw man in this case. There's a whole bunch of other issues that come up when a State discusses legalized gambling that I don't see in a discussion about gay marriage.
It's not a straw man-- it may not be applicable to this argument, but it's not a straw man.
The Church decries legislation allowing gambling for the same purposes it decries legislation legitimizing homosexual relationships-- on a moral basis.
quote:Again, from the Church's standpoint, this is a moral affair, and not a strictly political one.
I would think that if not for the last paragraph of the letter where they encourage members to involve themselves in getting the amendment to pass. It is one thing to take the moral stance as a church as being against gay-marriage, and not performing them within your religion. It's another thing entirely to take that stance and encourage your members to vote as a block to impose the churches moral stance on others.
It is a moral affair, but IMO the Church, is extending their moral beliefs into the political sphere by supporting laws and amendments that impose their morality on others.[/quote]
All laws are based on some morality somewhere. As members of the community church members have the right to speak for what laws are enacted.
Like other organizations, the Church has the right to encourage people to take part in that conversation in a way that will help further the Church's purposes.
quote:My point was that many members, if they perceive a certain set of topics to be the will of God will always vote for the candidate that says he supports/opposes such topics without looking at the candidate as a whole.
This is one of my worries too. But I blame stupid members for this, not the leadership.
The First Presidency is acting correctly, according to their calling.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: BTW, this is why a change to the tax laws that only removed the exemption for religious organizations would be discriminatory. I haven't analyzed it from a constitutional perspective, but denial of a significant government benefit to a lecture club simply because of the content of the lectures certainly raises significant issues.
Ok, fair enough. I'm willing to be consistent: I believe that taxing churches is sufficiently important that lecture clubs should also be taxed.
quote:You think that I don't consider the tenets of other ideologies? Why?
You appear to have gone from my generic 'you' to a singular. But in fact, I don't think you have considered all the available evidence properly, because if you had, you'd reach a different conclusion.
quote:And do you really think that a person or group of people must be infallible in order to have anything to teach?
Obviously not. However, they do have to be infallible if their teachings are to be taken on faith.
quote:Belonging to a faith community, for me, is not really about being told what to think.
Well, just what the devil is it about? You have never to my knowledge articulated this except to say what it isn't.
Further, you are extremely atypical.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:All laws are based on some morality somewhere.
I don't think this is true. Laws against murder and theft, for example, are based on simple self-preservation. i think it's a bit of a stretch to call that morality.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok, fair enough. I'm willing to be consistent: I believe that taxing churches is sufficiently important that lecture clubs should also be taxed.
So are you moving away from what seemed to be your justification for taxing churches: "it is unjust for [the tax rate] to be zero for some activities and not for other, extremely similar ones"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: BTW, this is why a change to the tax laws that only removed the exemption for religious organizations would be discriminatory. I haven't analyzed it from a constitutional perspective, but denial of a significant government benefit to a lecture club simply because of the content of the lectures certainly raises significant issues.
Ok, fair enough. I'm willing to be consistent: I believe that taxing churches is sufficiently important that lecture clubs should also be taxed.
How about universities?
quote:
quote:Belonging to a faith community, for me, is not really about being told what to think.
Well, just what the devil is it about? You have never to my knowledge articulated this except to say what it isn't.
Further, you are extremely atypical.
Being part of a faith community is about a lot of different things including:
Coming to gether to do good works Being sustained and supported Learning from each other about things that are important Being reminded of the things that are important Being a part of something bigger Worship and gratitude
For a start. And I am more typical that you think I am.
ETA: One of the most important reasons for me, as a Catholic, is sacrament. But that is a more involved discussion than I think you are willing/able to have about religion, so I'll stick with the more generic ones to start.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excellent. There's no chance that rationale will lead to change in this country, so I can safely ignore it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Coming together to do good works Being sustained and supported Learning from each other about things that are important Being reminded of the things that are important Being a part of something bigger
These things do not seem to require faith, as such. Any community might have as much.
quote:Worship and gratitude
And why do you want to worship anything? One may reasonably be happy to exist, but why insist that the cause is a divine being who can be the target of gratitude? I also point out that gratitude is worth its weight in gold. What have you done for your god lately? More to the point, perhaps, what have you done for your [i]parents[i/] lately? Surely that's a much closer place to look, if you wish to show gratitude.
quote:How about universities?
I am willing to tax universities. I think a case could be made for a compelling state interest in education, because it has a bunch of positive externalities. On the other hand, it does seem to me that the tax-free status of universities has led mainly to an increase in the number of social-science graduates, and not to the intended increase in engineering and science graduates. So I'm neutral on the subject - tax them or not, as you please.
Edit: In any case, universities don't seem to be listed on Dag's link, nor are they necessarily nonprofit organisations.
[ June 30, 2008, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Excellent. There's no chance that rationale will lead to change in this country, so I can safely ignore it.
Actually, now I think about it, "has no positive externalities" might have been better. You are no doubt correct about the political realities, but that is not what we were discussing.
Out of curiosity, suppose I came up with some reasoning that did have a chance of passing taxation on churches; we can assume that this is because it is fairly persuasive. What would be your reaction?
On the subject of tactics, how about "Taxing churches (and other charitable nonprofits) will allow us more money to fund Medicare and Social Security"? That might conceivably fly.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:All laws are based on some morality somewhere.
I don't think this is true. Laws against murder and theft, for example, are based on simple self-preservation. i think it's a bit of a stretch to call that morality.
Laws against murder and theft <edit> in the US </edit> were originally enacted based on a Judeo-Christian understanding of the ten commandments.
They have thus far been preserved because of the appeal to self-preservation. Which is the lowest common denominator of the set of morality systems our society currently finds acceptable.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Laws against murder and theft were originally enacted based on a Judeo-Christian understanding of the ten commandments.
Are you seriously intending to claim that Hammurabi (ca 1700 BCE) was a Christian? Because those are the earliest known laws against murder and theft.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even then you are wrong. The US had <edit> laws against </edit> murder and theft because there had always been laws against murder and theft. The US states borrowed their laws from those of England, which got them from the Saxons, who had them from their pre-Christian ancestors.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Even then you are wrong. The US had murder and theft because there had always been laws against murder and theft. The US states borrowed their laws from those of England, which got them from the Saxons, who had them from their pre-Christian ancestors.
I'm unaware of there being a significant recognized pre-Christian law base in England. Could you point me to a reference?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Coming together to do good works Being sustained and supported Learning from each other about things that are important Being reminded of the things that are important Being a part of something bigger
These things do not seem to require faith, as such. Any community might have as much.
Except that the "something bigger" is pretty specifically about God.
quote:
quote: Worship and gratitude
And why do you want to worship anything? One may reasonably be happy to exist, but why insist that the cause is a divine being who can be the target of gratitude? I also point out that gratitude is worth its weight in gold. What have you done for your god lately? More to the point, perhaps, what have you done for your [i]parents[i/] lately? Surely that's a much closer place to look, if you wish to show gratitude.
I can't be grateful to more than one?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Laws against murder and theft <edit> in the US </edit> were originally enacted based on a Judeo-Christian understanding of the ten commandments.
There is a lot of literature, contemporary to the drafting of our constitution, much of it written by those who drafted the constitution. You'll be hard pressed to find much mention of the 10 commandments. They don't get a single mention in the Federalist Papers, though other historic systems of law are discussed.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Even then you are wrong. The US had murder and theft because there had always been laws against murder and theft. The US states borrowed their laws from those of England, which got them from the Saxons, who had them from their pre-Christian ancestors.
I'm unaware of there being a significant recognized pre-Christian law base in England. Could you point me to a reference?
I assume you are not asking for a reference for the existence of laws against murder in pre-Christian England. Rather, you want evidence that this base of (probably oral) law influenced the later common law that was written down. Right? For this, take a look here .
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Except that the "something bigger" is pretty specifically about God.
Presumably, you would not get the same feeling of belonging to something larger than yourself if you knew that the larger entity had been invented precisely for that purpose. So why your insistence that you don't need evidence? I don't see how you can maintain on the one hand that you want to belong to something larger than yourself, and on the other that this justifies your belief in that entity.
quote:I can't be grateful to more than one?
Certainly, but why the insistence on a divine creator to be grateful to, for which you have no evidence? Why make up additional entities to express gratitude to? Are you so addicted to the feeling? Also, you didn't answer my question about the worship.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that you are now moving from the "why belong to such a community" question to why believe in God. I have no wish to try to convince you to believe in God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had the impression that is what we were discussing all along. I am quite aware of why people want to belong to communities. What I'm asking is why they define communities around gods.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am quite aware of why people want to belong to communities. What I'm asking is why they define communities around gods.
Good question. I think that's a historical question though. As to why people join religions for community now, it's because that's where the communities are.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:In any case, universities don't seem to be listed on Dag's link, nor are they necessarily nonprofit organisations.
They are educational organizations, listed right there in the list.
quote:Out of curiosity, suppose I came up with some reasoning that did have a chance of passing taxation on churches; we can assume that this is because it is fairly persuasive. What would be your reaction?
The same thing I would do whenever someone comes up with a policy argument on an issue I care about: evaluate it and form my own opinion on it.
quote:On the subject of tactics, how about "Taxing churches (and other charitable nonprofits) will allow us more money to fund Medicare and Social Security"? That might conceivably fly.
So would dropping the payroll tax cap for FICA. Since there are an infinite number of ways to change the tax code to provide more money, you'd need something more to gain traction with this argument.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I read both the Anglo-Saxon page and the common law page. Perhaps it's not a subject sufficiently summarized by wikipedia, but to my reading neither provided evidence for a non-Christian basis for laws regarding theft and murder. The anglo-saxon article made a point to say
quote:Very few law codes exist from the Anglo-Saxon period, giving insight into legal culture
And those that do exist come from a time after the introduction of Christianity.
The common law is traced to a system "developed under the inquisitorial system in England during the 12th and 13th centuries" in which judicial decisions based on "tradition, custom, and precedent" were used. Where those traditions came from is not explored in the wikipedia article. Presumably, much of that precedent was set by pre-Norman county courts, which were presided over by a Bishop and Sherriff and which exercised both ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction. So, by my reading, the precedence for common law was set by Bishops, acting in their capacity as interpreters of the Biblical law.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit: This is in response to MattP. I ahve to do some work now and won't be posting for a while. If you see me posting in the next three hours, please don't encourage my laziness by responding.
Ok, good point. But you could presumably join for the community aspects without accepting the faith - Unitarian churches, for example, are explicitly set up to allow this. So, let me rephrase the question with some recap of ancient forum history from my viewpoint.
1. Kmb has never presented any evidence for the existence of her god. 2. She has asserted that evidence is not relevant, that she simply "chooses to believe". 3. The reasons given for this choice to believe are, apparently, the ones listed above.
Of these, we have agreed that some are just community-related, no faith required. The rest, it seems to me, depend on having a god to feel part of, worship, or be grateful to. But surely the desire for these activities - which I also don't understand, but each to her own - cannot form the basis for a belief that the god in question exists! It appears to me that kmb is saying
1. I want to worship something. 2. Therefore, something exists which I can worship. 3. Therefore I choose to believe in that something, so I may worship it.
I cannot fathom how she is able to live with this. How can you worship something that you apparently invented for the explicit purpose of worshipping it? Knowing that you personally invented it, how can you feel it is larger than yourself? I don't believe an intelligent person can believe anything of this sort, but I also don't see what else kmb is advancing as her reason to believe - especially in light of her assertion that evidence doesn't matter.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue I have with the statement is it assumes morality is a reason to vote in favor of a certain law. I think that is a huge assumption to make and a lot of people here seem to agree with me on that. I think that the statement would have done better if it had straight out addressed that issue.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I have twice written nice long posts and both got eaten. So, I'm giving up. Clearly the universe does not want me to post.
Whenever I write a post that's longer than a few lines, I select-all and copy before hitting "Add Reply". That way, if it gets eaten, I can resend it without having to rewrite it.
I have learned the same lesson, actually. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I have twice written nice long posts and both got eaten. So, I'm giving up. Clearly the universe does not want me to post.
Whenever I write a post that's longer than a few lines, I select-all and copy before hitting "Add Reply". That way, if it gets eaten, I can resend it without having to rewrite it.
ok, eaten wasn't quite the right word. More like baby came over just before I hit add reply and restarted my computer. And then the second time, I got up to get baby and tripped over the cord, pulling it out, which cut off the power before the computer had time to load stuff. So, perhaps baby was more the force stopping me.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I don't see any problem with believing in God but still understanding science as it relates to the world around us.
That fact that you do says more about yourself than it does about religion. I don't mean that in a bad way, either.
Why would you avoid a community just because they believe in something you don't. let alone constantly and consistently go out or your way to insult and belittle them because of it?
Because you do, you know. On Hatrack you do it all the time....or at least you did in the past.
Science, to me, is about how things work. Religion is about why things matter. I can't point to a thought, but I realize they exist. I can't put my finger on an emotion, yet I feel them.
And please don't day that we "know" those exist because we have felt them or experienced them ourselves...one of the first rules of scientific experimentation is observer bias. Our perceptions filter everything we experience.
Just because you haven't experienced something yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I see God...AND science...all around me every day, and I wonder how you do not.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Harry Reid were disciplined for his viewpoint or for his politics, I'd expect to hear about it in the national media.
Why? Do you think he or his bishop would share that information?
quote: Like other organizations, the Church has the right to encourage people to take part in that conversation in a way that will help further the Church's purposes.
I think it's heartbreaking that the First Presidency thinks that this issue is apparently worth praying about and reaching a firm political conclusion on, but not the wars in the Middle East, the fuel crisis, etc. Disappointing a few homosexuals is apparently more important to God than, say, taking a firm stand against mass murder or something. There are so many ways in which someone able to ask God about the viability of certain political measures might be able to do some good; this is not one that I'd put on the top of my list, either way.
---------------
quote:Science, to me, is about how things work. Religion is about why things matter. I can't point to a thought, but I realize they exist. I can't put my finger on an emotion, yet I feel them.
And please don't day that we "know" those exist because we have felt them or experienced them ourselves...
But that is precisely how we know they exist. And they only exist -- and I'm speaking here as a materialist, mind you -- in that we perceive them. Emotions and thoughts are given existence by our awareness of them. An emotion that is unperceived is an emotion that never existed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think it's heartbreaking that the First Presidency thinks that this issue is apparently worth praying about and reaching a firm political conclusion on, but not the wars in the Middle East, the fuel crisis, etc. Disappointing a few homosexuals is apparently more important to God than, say, taking a firm stand against mass murder or something. There are so many ways in which someone able to ask God about the viability of certain political measures might be able to do some good; this is not one that I'd put on the top of my list, either way.
I agree wholeheartedly, except to add (probably unnecessarily) that this is not unique to LDS authority. It is far too true of public religious expression, especially in this country*. Hopefully, there is a movement among faith communities to "take back" religious/political discourse. We are hearing more and more voices addressing issues of poverty, war, social justice, and environmental stewardship from a faithful perspective.
edit to add: this has not always been true. Abolition, workers' rights, poverty, war, civil rights were all examples of the confluence of political action and religious expression.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Science, to me, is about how things work. Religion is about why things matter. I can't point to a thought, but I realize they exist. I can't put my finger on an emotion, yet I feel them.
And please don't day that we "know" those exist because we have felt them or experienced them ourselves...
But that is precisely how we know they exist. And they only exist -- and I'm speaking here as a materialist, mind you -- in that we perceive them. Emotions and thoughts are given existence by our awareness of them. An emotion that is unperceived is an emotion that never existed.
Which is why science will never replace religion in my world view, Tom.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Churches can (and do) lose their tax exempt status for certain forms of political speech. I'm not 100% sure on where the line is, but I'm pretty sure that supporting (or arguing against) a particular law change is well inside the lines.
Supporting a particular candidate from the pulpit is another matter entirely. That's I believe, where some formerly tax exempt organizations lost their privileges.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: edit to add: "Belonging to a faith community is not the same thing as "having faith".
It seems to me that there are two parts. First part: Belonging to a community. We all understand the benefits of this; they're in your first four points. Second part: Having faith. If you don't have faith, it's not a faith community, right? So, the reason you are part of a faith community, as opposed to some other community, must be very strongly connected with the reasons you have faith in the first place.
quote:KoM, I don't see any problem with believing in God but still understanding science as it relates to the world around us.
Well, if you are willing to live with
a) Having a reliable way to find out how things work b) Not applying that method to huge tracts of your life
then sure, there's no problem. I prefer to be consistent over all parts of my beliefs.
quote:Religion is about why things matter.
Really? Suppose I were able to flick a switch and turn off your belief in your god. Would you commit suicide through having nothing to live for?
quote:Just because you haven't experienced something yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Just because you have experienced something doesn't mean it exists.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM, I don't see any problem with believing in God but still understanding science as it relates to the world around us.
Well, if you are willing to live with
a) Having a reliable way to find out how things work b) Not applying that method to huge tracts of your life
then sure, there's no problem. I prefer to be consistent over all parts of my beliefs.
I am quite willing to live with that. Different kinds of questions have different kinds of answers and different methods for finding those answers. I see no reason to treat every type of experience the same way or to think that there is only one way to think about those experiences. I think that having only the one "tool" (even a very reliable one) for understanding is a bit narrow and limiting.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Different kinds of questions have different kinds of answers and different methods for finding those answers.
The question "Is there a god" is an empirical one, on the same order as "Are there stars outside our galaxy" or "How many planets are there". For this kind of question we use science.
Edit: That is, I do. You don't.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question "Is there a god" is an empirical one, on the same order as "Are there stars outside our galaxy" or "How many planets are there". For this kind of question we use science.
Not for empirical questions about phenomenon outside the natural world.
If you want to say, "then 'Is there a God?' is not an empirical question" then I'm fine with that, too.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
