Elie Wiesel calls out Mitt Romney on dead Jew baptisms.

[crazy canuck]

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.

From the article it appears to me that this is far from a form a manufactured rage given the fact that the issue is long standing and the Mormon Church has at least acknowledged the practice should be curtailed in some way.

But I am in the dark about this as much as you are.  Its the first I have heard of it.  But it has been an interesting debate.

[crazy canuck]

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.

If you want to know why I think the outrage is reasonable, just look at the reaction the Mormon Church has had to this issue.  I dont see anything in the article that suggests the Church thinks the criticism is unreasonable. 

[Berkut]

Well, I don't think the Mormon Church curtailing the practice means much of anything - they are a high profile religious organizations very conscious of their public image, and deciding to simply stop doing this for particular people is an obvious move for them to make. It has zero practical effect on their practices anyway, since they have seven billion people to do, have only done 100 million, so excluding a few million from the pool is an easy enough move.

Just means that some other set of people will get fake baptized instead. Indeed, from a logical perspective, the Jews should find this "solution" just as offensive - all it does is change the target of the supposedly offensive practice, it doesn't change the practice at all. If it is wrong to baptize dead Jews, isn't it just as wrong to baptize dead non-Jews?

I still want to know if they've baptized Mohammed...

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

Don't be silly - this is totally backwards.  Infants have no agency; they cannot conceive of, much less than exercise religious freedom rights.  Most exercises of parental authority vis-a-vis infants involve very severe restrictions on "freedom" and understandably so.  I can think of no jurisdiction that imposes a general requirement of showing "best interest" before such authority can be exercised - the very idea is absurd.  On the contrary, the typical legal rule with respect to exercises of parental authority over infants is that it is unrestrained, except in those limited areas where state interests impose and are reflected in legislative enactments - e.g. custody disputes, denial of access to medical care, physical abuse, etc.

[crazy canuck]

Indeed, from a logical perspective, the Jews should find this "solution" just as offensive - all it does is change the target of the supposedly offensive practice, it doesn't change the practice at all. If it is wrong to baptize dead Jews, isn't it just as wrong to baptize dead non-Jews?

I dont follow that logic.  Why should Jewish people be outraged about fake baptisms of non Jews if those non Jews dont care themselves and are simply sitting in their basements going over their lists of fake followers?

[Sheilbh]

Heck, I actually have to give the Mormons some props - I think they are the only ones to at least try to answer the logical dilemma of salvation for the innocent but ignorant.

The Mormons don't believe in Hell, so for them there is no dilemma .  They've got Perdition but you've got to be evil on a Biblical scale to get in there.  You can count the number of people in Perdition on your fingers - as far as I can tell it's basically Judas.

The Mormons believe in a tiered system of heaven, but basically everyone is saved.  You are and I am even if we're never Mormon, we drink coffee every day and all the rest.  The lowest level of heaven is, according to Joseph Smith, so gloriously we'd all kill ourselves to get there if we saw it.

I think it's a really attractive vision of salvation (though I prefer the Muslim one, they've got Hell but it's not eternal, everyone, I think even Satan is ultimately redeemed).

[crazy canuck]

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.

Don't be silly - this is totally backwards.  Infants have no agency; they cannot conceive of, much less than exercise religious freedom rights.  Most exercises of parental authority vis-a-vis infants involve very severe restrictions on "freedom" and understandably so.  I can think of no jurisdiction that imposes a general requirement of showing "best interest" before such authority can be exercised - the very idea is absurd.  On the contrary, the typical legal rule with respect to exercises of parental authority over infants is that it is unrestrained, except in those limited areas where state interests impose and are reflected in legislative enactments - e.g. custody disputes, denial of access to medical care, physical abuse, etc.

You obviously didnt read far enough yet to get to his overpoweringly effective analogy.

[DGuller]

Some Jews would say that to be a Jew you must be born a Jew.

That's actually a pretty huge no-no, and I bet it even applies to the nuttiest of the nuts.  As long as someone's conversion is recognized by whatever sect the Jew belongs to, the convert should be treated as Jewish without any qualifications.

[crazy canuck]

Some Jews would say that to be a Jew you must be born a Jew.

That's actually a pretty huge no-no, and I bet it even applies to the nuttiest of the nuts.  As long as someone's conversion is recognized by whatever sect the Jew belongs to, the convert should be treated as Jewish without any qualifications.

Well come tell that to our local nuts.

[Berkut]

My sister converted when she married. I am going to ask her if she is especially offended if the Mormons post death baptize me. I want to get to the bottom of this story, and why it is so especially an issue for Jews!

It is Holocause specific? Is it ok to post baptize a Jew who did not die in the Holocaust?

[crazy canuck]

Our intrepid reporter is out for the truth.

[Berkut]

I will not be denied!

[Berkut]

Heck, I actually have to give the Mormons some props - I think they are the only ones to at least try to answer the logical dilemma of salvation for the innocent but ignorant.

The Mormons don't believe in Hell, so for them there is no dilemma .  They've got Perdition but you've got to be evil on a Biblical scale to get in there.  You can count the number of people in Perdition on your fingers - as far as I can tell it's basically Judas.

The Mormons believe in a tiered system of heaven, but basically everyone is saved.  You are and I am even if we're never Mormon, we drink coffee every day and all the rest.  The lowest level of heaven is, according to Joseph Smith, so gloriously we'd all kill ourselves to get there if we saw it.

I think it's a really attractive vision of salvation (though I prefer the Muslim one, they've got Hell but it's not eternal, everyone, I think even Satan is ultimately redeemed).

If I was going to pick a religious to convert to, I think I would give Mormonism pretty serious consideration. It has the advantage of being a very "constructed" religion, and hence not nearly as vindictive in many ways as some.

Of course, that has it's own set of problems as well...

[Admiral Yi]

If you want to know why I think the outrage is reasonable, just look at the reaction the Mormon Church has had to this issue.  I dont see anything in the article that suggests the Church thinks the criticism is unreasonable.

What Throbby said.

There was a story a while back about a British bank that caved in to Muslim pressure and stopped handing out free piggy banks to little kids.  If we follow your logic then we know now that the Muslim outrage was justified because the bank caved in.

[DGuller]

Mormonism strikes me as one of the more productive religions, in that its brand of a useful lie is more useful than other brands of useful lies.  It seems like Mormonism does an above average job of fostering net positive contributions to society from its members.