Elie Wiesel calls out Mitt Romney on dead Jew baptisms.

[derspiess]

Wasn't sure how this thread made it to 11 pages.  Read a few pages & I'm still not sure, other than the simple fact that it's Languish.

[crazy canuck]

What do you think makes an act worthy of condemnation?

Plenty of things, but in this context whether a reasonable person would take offense.

Why is some form of "reasonable person" test necessary in this context.  Just as Berk argues for the freedom to believe he has worshipers dont people also have the right to condemn acts they find offensive.

I suspect what you are really saying is that from your point of view you would not find it offensive.  But that is something else altogether than a reasonable person test - with the greatest of respect.

[Martinus]

From what I understand, the geneological records are public.

So is internet. Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to post stuff on the internet because "someone may go there and find it offensive"?

[garbon]

  You got caught saying something stupid, so you are acting the weasel again, I see!  Even you can see that right?

No, silly rabbit.  You ignore that being raised in religion and being born into a religion are the same thing.  Of course if one is born in a family that has no particular religious beliefs the child will probably follow suit.  Also you ignore the simple truth that some people are in fact born into a religion - literally.  But you cant see that because of the particular ethnocentrism you were born into....

I think you are missing though that what does it mean to be part of the religion if it isn't your belief. I mean I believed in God, heaven and hell because most of the adults in my life said so.  Was I really a Christian though? My mother was an atheist (was since she was a young teen) and we only went to church on holidays like easter and christmas.

And then also there's the whole - we don't really know what babies believe but I doubt they can believe in such intangible objects like God and religion.

[Admiral Yi]

Why is some form of "reasonable person" test necessary in this context.  Just as Berk argues for the freedom to believe he has worshipers dont people also have the right to condemn acts they find offensive.

I suspect what you are really saying, that from your point of view you would not find it offensive.  But that is something else altogether than a reasonable person test - with the greatest of respect.

A reasonable person test is necessary because we have granted far too much deference in the public sphere to people claiming to be oppressed or offended.

[Malthus]

From what I understand, the geneological records are public.

So is internet. Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to post stuff on the internet because "someone may go there and find it offensive"?

I'm not saying anyone cannot do it. The Mormons can baptize 'till the cows come home. Freedom of expression and all that.

I'm saying that those who find it boorish and offensive have a valid point of view. Or are you saying that something cannot be boorish and offensive, because it's on the Internet? If so, Languish will have lost half its point. 

[The Brain]

Contrast with baptizing dead Jews. Some mormons think it's a good idea, but objectively? It makes no difference. OTOH people generally accord the presumed wishes of dead folks and actual wishes of their relations a certain amount of deference in matters such as organ donations, burial rites and the like. It is a safe presumption that those who have died in one faith did not wish to convert to another, absent evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the subjective beliefs of those thinking it's a good idea are trumped.

[Malthus]

Why is some form of "reasonable person" test necessary in this context.  Just as Berk argues for the freedom to believe he has worshipers dont people also have the right to condemn acts they find offensive.

I suspect what you are really saying, that from your point of view you would not find it offensive.  But that is something else altogether than a reasonable person test - with the greatest of respect.

A reasonable person test is necessary because we have granted far too much deference in the public sphere to people claiming to be oppressed or offended.

This would be a good point if CC were arguing that Mormons should be prevented from doing the baptisms.

[crazy canuck]

  You got caught saying something stupid, so you are acting the weasel again, I see!  Even you can see that right?

No, silly rabbit.  You ignore that being raised in religion and being born into a religion are the same thing.  Of course if one is born in a family that has no particular religious beliefs the child will probably follow suit.  Also you ignore the simple truth that some people are in fact born into a religion - literally.  But you cant see that because of the particular ethnocentrism you were born into....

I think you are missing though that what does it mean to be part of the religion if it isn't your belief. I mean I believed in God, heaven and hell because most of the adults in my life said so.  Was I really a Christian though? My mother was an atheist (was since she was a young teen) and we only went to church on holidays like easter and christmas.

And then also there's the whole - we don't really know what babies believe but I doubt they can believe in such intangible objects like God and religion.

I think what you just said supports the notion that one is born into a religion in sense that they are born into a family with particular relgious beliefs (or not) and a community of friends, neighbours and other family members that have religious beliefs (or not) and all of that tends to shape what you yourself will believe.

Also, the argument sidesteps the fact that some people believe they literally have been born into a particular relgion - eg some Jews. 

[Admiral Yi]

It is a safe presumption that those who have died in one faith did not wish to convert to another, absent evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the subjective beliefs of those thinking it's a good idea are trumped.

Why the constant need to overstate what the Mormons did?  They didn't convert anybody.  They recited some mumbo jumbo in relation to a dead person.

[Berkut]

Can you see any distinction between repeatedly telling off-colour jokes to an audience when you've been told some find them inappropriate, and telling people that honour killings are bad?

I can think of some.

I can think of quite a few, just as I can think of quite a few differences between those two and proclaiming a dead Jew baptized. 

My point, and it seems now you agree, is that a party taking offence is not in and of itself enough for us to judge an act as something to be condemned.

Certainly I'd agree. It isn't an entirely subjective test. That would be drawing the net far too widely.

That being said - it isn't entirely free of subjective factors either. You look to the entirely of the situation.

The example you gave of proclaiming honour killings a bad idea is a good one. Irrespective of the beliefs of anyone, is there a good policy reason for this? Sure. Murder is against our laws. Given that fact, whether someone finds it subjectively a good idea or not is irrelevant. The subjective beliefs of those who think honour killings are a good idea are trumped.

Contrast with baptizing dead Jews. Some mormons think it's a good idea, but objectively? It makes no difference. OTOH people generally accord the presumed wishes of dead folks and actual wishes of their relations a certain amount of deference in matters such as organ donations, burial rites and the like. It is a safe presumption that those who have died in one faith did not wish to convert to another, absent evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the subjective beliefs of those thinking it's a good idea are trumped. 

Not buying it, sorry.

You are leaving out a critical component - actually two of them that I consider to be relevant to whether someone should be offended by that actions of others:

1. Is the person taking the action intending to offend? and
2. Does the action itself actually have some tangible effect on the person who is potentially the victim of the offense?

I think it is pretty clear the Mormons are not trying to offend anyone, and while their religious beliefs are pretty bizarre, it is also clear that their intent is actually very benevolent.

2. It doesn't hurt anyone. The dead cannot be offended, since they are dead and as far as we can tell, they don't seem to care at all. In fact, on the off chance that the Mormons are right, the only possible tangible effect on the dead is positive. If the Mormons are wrong, they are making completely empty gestures. The living have some claim to harm, since it is their relatives memory being impugned to some degree, although I think the LDS Church has acknowledged that and taken very reasonable measures to mitigate any possible offense.

Heck, I don't even think the LDS says that baptizing them makes them Mormons anyway, unless they actually convert in the afterlife. More like it just makes them eligible or something.

[Martinus]

From what I understand, the geneological records are public.

So is internet. Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to post stuff on the internet because "someone may go there and find it offensive"?

I'm not saying anyone cannot do it. The Mormons can baptize 'till the cows come home. Freedom of expression and all that.

I'm saying that those who find it boorish and offensive have a valid point of view. Or are you saying that something cannot be boorish and offensive, because it's on the Internet? If so, Languish will have lost half its point. 

I think the general consensus is that:

1. This is largely a non-issue.

2. This is not really different from the general exclusiveness that is in the very nature of most religions (I find it more offensive if someone post mortem says I went to hell than if they said I went to their heaven, even if I didn't want to).

3. Calling on a political candidate who happens to be a member of a religion (but not a church official with any clout in the organization) whose members sometimes engage in questionable practices to "put an end to it" is an idiotic political stunt of a moron. It's like calling on a Catholic Presidential candidate to "put an end to pedophilia among priests".

[crazy canuck]

Why is some form of "reasonable person" test necessary in this context.  Just as Berk argues for the freedom to believe he has worshipers dont people also have the right to condemn acts they find offensive.

I suspect what you are really saying, that from your point of view you would not find it offensive.  But that is something else altogether than a reasonable person test - with the greatest of respect.

A reasonable person test is necessary because we have granted far too much deference in the public sphere to people claiming to be oppressed or offended.

But why must someone's right to say they condemn something meet a test of "reasonableness" whatever that might be and yet the people commiting the condemned act are free to act as they wish.  Are you really going to balance freedom of religion (on both sides if you think about it) and freedom of expression in that way.

In any event I would say this does pass a reasonable test, I just think it is a bit odd that such a thing would enter into the equation.

[Malthus]

It is a safe presumption that those who have died in one faith did not wish to convert to another, absent evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the subjective beliefs of those thinking it's a good idea are trumped.

Why the constant need to overstate what the Mormons did?  They didn't convert anybody.  They recited some mumbo jumbo in relation to a dead person.

I'm using it as a short form. They purport to do some sort of mumbo jumbo that has the effect of allowing the dead person to convert.

[garbon]

I think what you just said supports the notion that one is born into a religion in sense that they are born into a family with particular relgious beliefs (or not) and a community of friends, neighbours and other family members that have religious beliefs (or not) and all of that tends to shape what you yourself will believe.

Also, the argument sidesteps the fact that some people believe they literally have been born into a particular relgion - eg some Jews. 

My father was religious and has only become more so on his own.  No where did you actually have anything to say about how babies can be believers - which is kinda crucial to the whole being born into a religion.  If you are baptized before you have coherent thoughts - where's the belief at?