Perhaps I am too dense, but I don’t see how this Glenn Beck revelation has anything to do with what I said. Care to elaborate? I said nothing of MLK Jr’s political opinions. I was simply making the point that no one, and I do mean no one, is perfect. My main point to SJ Cooper was this: If moral shortcomings and deception bother you, be prepared to adopt a pretty jaded and pessimistic view of the world once you dig a little deeper into the personal lives of many political, social, and religious icons, from BOTH sides of the political fence.

I can’t find the audio online. Maybe someone else has it.

To read the transcript go here.

In any case Beck found it to be a shocking revelation and thought it had something to do Brown winning the Bay State.

I guess I’m a little late in commenting to this post. I just stumbled upon this blog/site yesterday and perused a few of the entries and the subsequent comments. I suppose there is much I disagree with here, but nothing that repulsed me so much as comment #2. I am aware of MLK’s shortcomings. And, if your opinion of him is that he is deplorable, okay. Fair enough. But, obviously the theme of this Blog and its followers is unabashed conservative/libertarian mormon. If you think that MLK was a deplorable individual, contributing nothing worthwhile to the world, I highly encourage you to investigate the SCHOLARLY history and biographies of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the early church in general. If hypocrisy, deceit, and shortcomings in the personal lives of leadership bother you, I wonder how long you will retain your membership in the Mormon church. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

P.S. – If you do not belong to the Mormon church, forgive me, my comments are probably nigh unto meaningless for you.

Because you asked me to explain myself for a comment I made back in November. I did.

As to the rest of your comment. I can go along with most of it.

There it is again, the whole ’sin’ thing about being gay. That is what is bringing judgement, misunderstanding and discrimination. I think even secular people do their fair share of it, perhaps even worse.

There certainly are ‘in your face’ gays that go out of their way to display and annoy. But then are are people you are just truely being who they are, not wishing to annoy anyone. Its kind of strange, but someone at work once did a strange limp wrist thing while telling me something. I took it objectively and without judgement, some days later I felt annoyed because I think he was mocking me.

I live in a very repressive area for gays. There is nothing more annoying than doing my best to hide this from everyone, for fear of judgement or harrasment. People find out anyway eventually, its amazing how quickly. It feels very uncomfortable at work for me, as I don’t feel welcome and I often feel like people would rather not see me there. I find the fear and ignorance very wearing. The majority of people here are some type of xtian, the fundementalist kind. It could be something else entirely. Maybe the people at work all grew up together and just naturally mingle easier with each other, I don’t know, but I have never felt welcome here, and I am planning on moving for my own sanity.

I find people who brag about their sexual conquests pretty annoying also. And people who are just too open about their private lives at work. Its just me, I don’t feel comfortable talking about that stuff, and I avoid engaging speaking about that with others when I can. I worked with one guy who just loved talking about beautiful women, not all the time, but on occation. I think it was just in his nature, and I would just listen, and if I saw who he was talking about I would say what I thought, usually I agreed.

I find the world a very interesting place. People change, the world changes, I change. I may have judgements about a lot of things, but I am finding that it feels better not to make judgements, not to hold grudges, but to forgive whenever possible. Thats the ideal, but I still find that its difficult not to make a judgement from time to time, but it is different knowing when your making a judgement vs. not knowing.

I think one can find spirituality in a lot of different places. I accept science and atheism to be a spiritual path. My partner is an atheist and he is incredibly spiritual. The universe instructs no matter what your perspective. I was raised LDS, but now I find that it doesn’t resonate with me. I have gone to some xtian churches, and those didn’t resonate with me either, not even MTC, unitarians etc which are more liberal. I find the older earth religions to resonate with me much stronger. I suppose one could lable anything a cult if one wishes to.

This is true if that one aspect encapsulates the subject of whom you speak. If a person is so much about homosexuality, that this one aspect completely describes who he is, then that would be true. But if you really are arguing for gay rights, you should recognize this is not all they are.

There is a big difference between a child who stole something once vs. a career criminal who steals for a living. Can you really fault him for doing his job? :)

There is a big difference between someone who fits into society in many ways, but happens to be gay vs. a person who every time he speaks, breathes, walks, etc. has to show just how gay he is.

I myself would find that really annoying. You don’t find many heterosexuals constantly talking about their heterosexuality do you? Well, maybe some Italian men :)
(And Strong Bad).

I find anyone who is constantly talking about how many women they’ve laid to be really annoying too. Is that all they are about? Gosh how shallow. This is for both homosexual and heterosexual.

And in both cases, if this really were true, I would combine the sin and the sinner. But usually the sin is just one aspect of the person who has many other aspects that show they are a child of God.

I said “At least . . .”

You said

Maybe they aren’t silenced . . . I don’t know how much clearer that could be

I was trying to clarify that I DID hear you. I was actually PRAISING you for at least admitting THAT. But you took it to mean a subjunctive voice as a sarcastic remark rather than past tense observation and praise.

As far as the statement that we have our own language. I suppose I can see that in a gospel sense. We have ideas, doctrines, etc. that cannot be described in everyday language. We have to have a new vocabulary to describe such things.

But the argument I made that evoked your statement was not in any way peculiar to our faith. I’ve heard a Lutheran, a Catholic, and an atheist all say the same thing using the same words.

I’m finding that you’re doing your best to be polite. So, you try not to instigate. But when you see an opening to stab, you take it. You didn’t bring up the word “cult”, but talked around the subject until I brought it up. Then you were all for telling us just how bad a cult we are. Touche’.

You never looked up the word did you? If you had, you would find that just about every religion in the world fits the very same definitions. That is fine if you’re an atheist (you are, aren’t you?–I forget, it’s been a while). But if you are of any faith in the world, it would be hypocritical for you to talk the way you have.

You said the following, “I don’t abhor gays. I believe homosexual actions are sinful, but it’s not for me to judge the person. ”

And now your talking about someone stealing, and using the term ‘lifestyle’. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, its not a lifestyle. There isn’t a lifestyle that universally describes gay.

” It is very easy to believe an action is sinful yet withhold judgment from the sinner.”

Ok, if you choose to believe that. But its kind of like saying you don’t have anything against a carnivore, except for all their meat eating.

My criteria is that people form relationships. The law is only as good as it acknowledges, respects and helps make them healthier.

“About category 1. Perhaps I do take rationale from cat 1, but only in that I abhor the idea of changing so divine and fundamental an institution as marriage. I don’t abhor gays. I believe homosexual actions are sinful, but it’s not for me to judge the person. It is for me to stand for right, however, and I will oppose gay marriage any way I can.”

Many people have different takes on marriage. Some people don’t see it as divine at all. I personally believe its entirely created by humans to provide sexual/emotional needs for all. Without marriage and its rules its possible that more people may go without. But I do believe that ideals about relationships and marriage may cause new problems and create new hangups that didn’t exist prior to its creation.

I’m sorry, but your statements about gays are not honest. How can you NOT abhor gays if you think its sinful? Believing its sinful IS a judgement being made by you.

“When I said “At least you could agree . . .”
I was not saying it as a complaint, or a suggestion.
I was saying it as an observation that you did indeed have it in you to agree to that one point.”

I don’t recall at all what brought any of these statements about.

“When you said earlier “There is much in the way LDS people dialog that I don’t understand.”

I was meaning that they speak their own language, follow their own logic, and I don’t understand it. Taking a look at the conversation as it progresses, I find very little that makes any sense at all, pro or con. I think its because I don’t care as much for reading other peoples opinions as I once did.

Your argument about absolute vs. arbitrary was a good job of debating legerdemain. But either you missed the point or you chose to be deaf and blind.

Either there is an absolute or there isn’t.
If so, what is your basis for dertermining it? You’ve stated what ours is.

If not, then we need to draw a line to the limit of our tolerance for a stable society. Voting on such an item would be a good way to determine what that limit is. To push that limit BY FORCE to go further than what society is ready for will cause a backlash in societal development. At the same time, we should push the limit by non-forceful means (education, public awareness, etc.). Remember that government IS force. It is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

If there should NEVER be ANY line drawn, then there is no right or wrong and it wouldn’t be a great loss if the entire universe were to implode upon itself into a singularity. In other words, your step 4 and 5.

My position is that there are some things that belong into each of these three categories. How we categorize them determines the method of rationale behind our acceptance or rejection.

Vontrapp (perhaps erroneously) believed those against prop 8 base THEIR rationale from placing this issue in category 2. But HIS rationale for backing prop 8 came from placing the issue in category 1.

Where do you place it? Perhaps, hidden option 4?

How is it that money can be traced to Church members? Idaho is only about 1/4 LDS. How does anyone know who sent the money from Idaho? All the rest of the money that came from outside California — similar question. You don’t put your religious affiliation on a donation slip for a political cause.

When I said “At least you could agree . . .”

I was not saying it as a complaint, or a suggestion.
I was saying it as an observation that you did indeed have it in you to agree to that one point.

When you said earlier “There is much in the way LDS people dialog that I don’t understand.”

After observing the above exchange, could it be that you have an attitude of choosing to believe the worst first, then requiring an explanation to show that what was said was not what you heard? I realize the written word does take away from conversation on some level, since it is difficult to hear inflections and emphasis in the same way as speech. But could you try to read the best interpretation first?

Just because people disagree with you doesn’t mean they’re out to get you.

Step 4. Realise it’s not such a big deal
Step 5. Wonder what the fuss was all about.

The acceptance of formerly unacceptable ideas is not necessarily a negative process.

Food for thought.

For the same reason other people don’t get to decide who you will marry. Your definition is designed to discriminate against a group of people. Therefore it’s not as good. Get it now?

Tolerance is not a supernatural being, but it is a value. And while I don’t hold it as the ultimate good, I do think it’s a dern sight better than intolerance, which is what you’re offering.