Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Religion

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 23 Aug 2017, 01:20 PM   #676079 / #151
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
Given (so I read) that Mormons baptise non-believers after they're dead, without, um, seeking their permission to do so, I'm not sure just how concerned they are entitled to be about intrusion issues.

Apparently, a lot of people are a bit offended by it:
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.ph...9&itype=ngpsid

So, even if they were to stop, or have stopped, baptising the dead without even their relative's proxy consent (which according to that article they hadn't stopped doing in 2005) if one of your surviving or future relatives turns Mormon, Hermit, they'll actively encourage them to get 'you' (as they see it) posthumously baptised as a Mormon. I think the Official Policy is called 'Invasion of the Privacy Bodysnatchers', or something.

Now THAT'S what I call a dedicated, hardcore proselytising approach.
If they do it to unbelievers, who would not have wanted this done, I consider it exactly equivalent to pissing and/or shitting on the body. Doesn't actually affect anything, but something only an absolutely worthless asshole would do. Fortunately, I don't know any mormons, so my body has a low chance of being desecrated that way.
__________________
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Aug 2017, 01:25 PM   #676081 / #152
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Fortunately, I don't know any mormons, so my body has a low chance of being desecrated that way.
Not necessarily. They've baptised Ghengis Khan, I believe. And Adolf Hitler. And most RCC Popes. And a lot (thousands) of Jews who died in Nazi concentration camps, apparently. I don't think you need to have had much of an actual connection to Mormonism. If they can't come and knock on your door or stop you in the street, they're happy to metaphorically open your coffin, so to speak.
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Aug 2017, 01:34 PM   #676082 / #153
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Fortunately, I don't know any mormons, so my body has a low chance of being desecrated that way.
Not necessarily. They've baptised Ghengis Khan, I believe. And Adolf Hitler. And most RCC Popes. And a lot (thousands) of Jews who died in Nazi concentration camps apparently. I don't think you have to have to have had much of an actual connection to Mormonism.
But they have to know you exist. Existed, I mean. The body is likely to be disposed of in some other way before they can get to it. Unless they harvest cemeteries randomly digging up candidates. Sounds like a full-time job, leaving them no time for their other asshole practices.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Aug 2017, 01:49 PM   #676083 / #154
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Unless they harvest cemeteries randomly digging up candidates.
No I think instead they just get a live child to stand in for the dead people. But on the plus side, for the kids, at least there are rows of cool statues of horned oxen above them in the secret ceremonial basement pools where this rather cute ritual takes place.

I'm not sure how they check if either the child is or the dead person was gay, or what the implications of either might be, but I'm guessing they have a policy on it.

Last edited by ruby sparks; 23 Aug 2017 at 02:07 PM.
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Aug 2017, 03:27 PM   #676091 / #155
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
The misdeeds are all I care about. The silly-ass rituals are of no interest.
Then why the invasion of privacy?
Again, official religious rites do not qualify as inviolately personal private matters just because they are cloaked in secrecy. Nobody is filming you watering your garden, or doing whatever it is you do with your partner.

I note you skipped straight past post #133.
I saw it, I just thought it was too dumb to bother with. The steelworks almost certainly doesn't consider its facility public property either, nor encourage spies to film it surreptitiously. Let alone sabotage it. Your idea that having some kind of hierarchy and policy makes something "official" is an arbitrary semantic framing, and irrelevant to the question of what is or isn't right to do.
__________________
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King

Last edited by Politesse; 23 Aug 2017 at 03:45 PM.
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Aug 2017, 05:25 PM   #676100 / #156
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 5,924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Your idea that having some kind of hierarchy and policy makes something "official" is an arbitrary semantic framing, and irrelevant to the question of what is or isn't right to do.
Semantic, as in "relating to meaning in language or logic"? I am truly sorry that the word connotes something negative in you.

There is nothing arbitrary about the concept of officialdom. As I mentioned before, any institution's rules, regulations and whatnot are official by virtue of them being institutions. Church laws, be they catechisms, canon, prescribed rituals and so on are official. Church leaders speak "ex officio", and so do company executives, presidents of stamp collecting clubs and any other formal organisation. You can test that by breaking their rules and see what happens next. Among the options are that you will be excommunicated, fired, expelled if you are lucky.

The relevance come in at the point where those institutions are vile and destructive. I regard the Mormon church as one of those. Undermining it the way Mike Norton does becomes a virtuous thing, and no the privacy of the individuals as they participate in their official rituals is not a barrier, not only because Norton does not breach it in the first place (have you noticed, at least after Ruby so helpfully pointed it out to you, that the faces were pixelated beyond recognition?), but also because those individuals were cyphers in a charade rather than autonomous agents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
I saw it, I just thought it was too dumb to bother with.
So it was too dumb to destroy your first assertion completely with a short, official video from the Vatican that flatly contradicted it? And it was too dumb to unconditionally agree with your next one? Was it too dumb to correct you about what we are discussing, namely church ritual, which is certainly not the property of its victims, and has nothing to do with the victims's rights? Was it too dumb that I went on to explain why it has nothing to do with those rights, to wit, that participating in official church ritual cannot be equated watering one's garden?

I might have not bothered replying to your post as I did in #133, because yours was too dumb, but I decided to acknowledge that you made an effort at debating an issue by replying to your series of dumb mistakes just the same. I'm a courteous person, you see.
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Religion

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus