Elie Wiesel calls out Mitt Romney on dead Jew baptisms.

[Berkut]

How is it in any way "the same"? 

It offends them yet we keep on doing it.

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. 

But wouldn't this be more like telling off color jokes in private where the only people listening all say they love them their off color jokes?

It's not like the LDS is going around beating people up over what they are doing - absent someone going and asking, there probably isn't even anyway to find out if your deceased relative is on some piece of paper (or computer disk) somewhere as being posthumously baptized.

I don't think it is a great analogy for that reason. The LDS would be perfectly content to keep all this completely out of the public eye, so far as I can tell.

Would you be upset if I told you I was writing down the name of your great grandfather on my personal list of Berkutian worshippers? Or better yet, would you be offended if I did so and didn't even tell you about it?

From what I understand, the geneological records are public.

So? That still requires someone to go find out if they need to be offended.

That is usually a big flag that their offense is somewhat manufactured.

The Mormons are not making claims about being that aren't true, right? It's not like someone finding these records later is going to see these people listed as non-Jewish, or non-whatever or even Mormon.

Hell, I bet the only reason to actually even keep track of them is to avoid fake baptizing someone twice!

[crazy canuck]

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?

That is because nowhere does my argument depend on babies being believers.... The point is only critical if you ignore the tenants of the Jewish faith held be some Jews that one is in fact born a jew and one also buys into the semantics of Grumber.  Both mistakes I have avoided assiduously in this debate.

[Martinus]

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

But that's ex-post-facto, isn't it. Or, if someone is "born into a religion" but does not believe it, are you saying they are still a part of this religion, even against their will?

[crazy canuck]

So? That still requires someone to go find out if they need to be offended.

That is usually a big flag that their offense is somewhat manufactured.

The Mormons are not making claims about being that aren't true, right? It's not like someone finding these records later is going to see these people listed as non-Jewish, or non-whatever or even Mormon.

Hell, I bet the only reason to actually even keep track of them is to avoid fake baptizing someone twice!

Some pretty big assumption seemingly made out of whole cloth there.

[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?

That is because nowhere does my argument depend on babies being believers.... The point it only critical if you ignore the tenants of the Jewish faith held be some Jews that one is in fact born a jew and one also buys into the semantics of Grumber.  Both mistakes I have avoided assiduously in this debate.

But it isn't a mistake stemming from Marti's question.  After all, it seems weak to say that a critical (as in critique not of high importance) discussion can't be had because a religion is framed in such a manner as to not allow said critique.

[garbon]

Or, if someone is "born into a religion" but does not believe it, are you saying they are still a part of this religion, even against their will?

Which then sounds like a good complaint to raise against those forcing them to be counted amongst the members of a religion...even though they don't consider themselves part of that religion.

[Martinus]

Or, if someone is "born into a religion" but does not believe it, are you saying they are still a part of this religion, even against their will?

Which then sounds like a good complaint to raise against those forcing them to be counted amongst the members of a religion.

Exactly. So no different from what the mormons are doing, only more offensive, since it is done to living people, not corpses.

[Berkut]

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.

Exactly. Which everyone, including the Mormons, agree has zero actual impact on the dead persons actual religious identification, right?

Now, everyone has the "right" to be offended by just about anything, but IMO this is a fine example of humans *desire* to find something to be offended by, i.e. the human need to make themselves a victim.

On another note...why is this specifically news as it relates to Jews? Is post-baptizing a Jew somehow worse than post-baptizing a Catholic or a Muslim?

Actually, if the Muslims found out about them doing this to Muslims...crap, I bet the fanatics would fucking freak.

I want to know - have the Mormons done a post-death baptism for one Muhammad Ibn `Abd Allāh Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib?

[crazy canuck]

But it isn't a mistake stemming from Marti's question.  After all, it seems weak to say that a critical (as in critique not of high importance) discussion can't be had because a religion is framed in such a manner as to not allow said critique.

The weakness of Marti's argument is a separate issue.  I would have thought his analogy spoke for itself.  But in case you missed it, Marti's argument is based on the assumption that all actions done to a person without informed consent are equally bad.  That is how he equates baptism of a baby with the rape of that baby.

Need I go further?

[The Brain]

But it isn't a mistake stemming from Marti's question.  After all, it seems weak to say that a critical (as in critique not of high importance) discussion can't be had because a religion is framed in such a manner as to not allow said critique.

The weakness of Marti's argument is a separate issue.  I would have thought his analogy spoke for itself.  But in case you missed it, Marti's argument is based on the assumption that all actions done to a person without informed consent are equally bad.  That is how he equates baptism of a baby with the rape of that baby.

Need I go further?

[Berkut]

So? That still requires someone to go find out if they need to be offended.

That is usually a big flag that their offense is somewhat manufactured.

The Mormons are not making claims about being that aren't true, right? It's not like someone finding these records later is going to see these people listed as non-Jewish, or non-whatever or even Mormon.

Hell, I bet the only reason to actually even keep track of them is to avoid fake baptizing someone twice!

Some pretty big assumption seemingly made out of whole cloth there.

True enough, but I haven't seen anything that disputes them. Of course, the sum of my knowledge about the practice comes from the clip Seedy linked, so I could certainly be wrong.

And I certainly think any religious organization listing in public records that people who clearly are not of their religion as being of their religion very valid grounds for their relatives being offended, and even *I* would find it offensive for practical reasons.

Is that the case though? I will assume it is not since that seems the reasonable assumption absent evidence to the contrary.

[Martinus]

But why isn't it bad? Only because it has been done for centuries? Freedom of religion is a deeply personal issue for an individual and every time you want someone's (even, a child's) freedom to be trumped by the parents' authority, that must be justified by the child's best interest and not presumed. I see no child welfare argument in allowing the parents to do a "forced conversion" of their child to the religion of their choosing.

[Berkut]

But it isn't a mistake stemming from Marti's question.  After all, it seems weak to say that a critical (as in critique not of high importance) discussion can't be had because a religion is framed in such a manner as to not allow said critique.

The weakness of Marti's argument is a separate issue.  I would have thought his analogy spoke for itself.  But in case you missed it, Marti's argument is based on the assumption that all actions done to a person without informed consent are equally bad. 

Jesus, it kills me to defend Marty and his nutty analogies, but that is not at all what his argument is based on.

He is saying that doing something without informed consent to a person is worse than doing something without informed consent to a non-person. Which is kind of weird since non-person cannot give consent informed or otherwise, but he is most certainly NOT claiming that baptizing infants is the same as having sex with them.

His analogy does stink, but not for the reasons you claim.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

I'm not proposing any limitations on the right to make unreasonable claims of offensiveness or on the right to recite mumbo jumbo.  I'm arguing on philosophical grounds--how should we respond to a claim of offense taken.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'd consider it more boorish and offensive, because there is no element of consent involved. But I agree that it doesn't rise above boorishly offensive.

More outlandish and tacky maybe.  But IMO its less obnoxious to know that someone in some room in Salt Lake somewhere is mouthing meaningless words about a relative, then to have some one importuning and implicitly threatening me in person about religious choice.  EWMMV