ID Gets Bitchslapped.........by Utah?!

[Knife]

Knife, if your definition of fundamentalism is simply all people who hold irrational beliefs, then the word fundamentalism has no purpose at all. All religious belief systems follow irrational beliefs.

From dictionary.com

fun·da·men·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

I don't believe that's quite the same thing as simple irrationality.

I was infering that the 'irrational' is refering to their religeous beliefs.

[Darth Servo]

OH no, they don't believe in ID, therefore they can't be 'fundies'. And on the biblical infalliability, they beleive that Aztec structures are made by an Isreali tribe ~1000 years before they (the Aztecs) made them. Yes, in their own way, they believe in biblical infallibility, just the bible some dude wrote when the other dude read it out of a hat.

you're simply repeating your statement that believing an irrational story automatically makes them fundies. I repeat my rebuttal that your argument would make ALL Christian sects fundies.

Then EVERY Christian religion is a fundi one since they ALL accpt the irrational idea of that invisible man in the sky.

Good to have you aboard, then.

So are you agreeing that you were wrong about your definition of a fundi or are you saying every Christian sect is indeed fundi territory?

EVERY religion is irrational. Strict does not equal fundy. As I already acknowledged, they ARE fundyish when it comes to sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. But that does NOT equate them with wanting to force others to

Ah, so the Utah porn Czar wasn't forcing a view on anyone, the current attempt of blocking porn isn't either. The passed amendment on the referendum to ban gay marrage or to do the 'marrage=one dude and one chick' dosen't force their views on anyone? Gottcha.

I already conceeded that they qualified on the basis of sex issues but having ONE trait in common with fundies does NOT make they full blow abortion clinic bombers.

Appeal to motive fallacy.

Show the secular State that has simular laws restricting alcohol, I can show many states with a high degree of religeous 'family values' in them with dry or partially dry counties it them.

Doesn't change the fact that your argument was still falacious. California has strict no-smoking policies in ANY restaurant, public building, etc. Are THEY part of the great fundi consortium too?

So you admit you CAN get a drink in Utah. So what the fuck are you complaining about? That its DIFFICULT? Oh, poor baby, he has a hard time getting his favorite crutch. In reality, drinking is just as much a way of avoiding reality as religion is.

Please, the 3.0 laws in Utah date back to prohibition, it remained 3.0 so the damn people could still take cough surup back then. Maintaining it at 3.0 is nothing but appeal to tradition. And there are many escapes from reality, the internet is one as well.

You're STILL trying to say attempting to discourage drinking is a bad thing? Are you on crack? Prohibition was bad because it caused more problems than it solved. Show that this holds true for Utah drinking laws.

Yes you can drink in Utah, but that does not change the fact that you have to jump through piles of beuracracy to do it and navigate stupid laws. Because of the culture, at one time since smacked down by the 10th circut, they couldn't advertise wine but beer. Before another smack down, you could not order another drink before you could clearly show your current drink was gone.

Oh wow, some of their laws were poorly thought out. I'm in shock. This still doesn't justify your equating them with fundies just because you have a hard time getting a drink.

These laws do nothing to curtail alcohol abuse and usually just hurt the consumer. A couple years ago there was a big brew-ha from the CEO of Iomega complaining about said redtape bullshit that was hurting bussiness from getting people to move out here for jobs. Following that was the big ruckuss for the 2002 Olypics were they wanted to loosen them up for the tourists.

How did EITHER of those incidents hurt anyone?

So yes, I can drink, but I shouldn't have to put up with 'feel good laws' that make it a pain and do nothing of consequence to any problem that stems from Alcohol.

Why not? You haven't shown ANY harm from them.

What is this "word to the wise crap"?

The Mormon doctrine that is the basis for some of their values positions. And it's Word of the wise.

Actually its called "The Word of Wisdom" and NO, that is NOT the only time you see it. I once traveled to a U of U basketball game last spring and there were MANY anti-alcohol and anti-smoking advertisements that didn't mention the Mormon church at all.

It's not surprising considering the era it was made, no alcohol, no tobacco, shit like that.

Why is abstaining from delibrately poisoning oneself "shit"?

The hot drink one is odd.

Its usually interpreted as "coffee and tea"

However, if I may add, the founding 'pioneers' in the SL valley did brew/make alcohol and sold it to miners and passerbyers for a nice tidy profit.

So what? It wasn't considered a "holy law" until the 20th century under Church President Heber J. Grant.

Restricting rights or even substances based off of religeous view points are bad! If it were purely a 'public saftey' argument, then fine, but when you point to religeous doctrine as your proof, then it becomes the 'broken clock is right twice a day' bullshit.

Too bad for you that even IF you could somehow prove that the laws were purely religously motivated, they can STILL be justified by the scientific FACT that alcohol is POISION. It doesn't matter that the original justification was irrational, "because my holy book says so", science has AGREED with that particular rule.

Just like mainstream christianity believes ancient Israel spent 40 years marching around between Egypt and Israel, even though there is just as much evidence for this claim as there is for Israelites in ancient America.

Which makes them fundlementalists! If you believe in something that is not only wrong but can be demostrated as wrong, beyond the pale, and still believe in it, you have crossed the line of rational thought.

So above you WERE saying that every religious person on the planet is a fundi. Glad you've admitted your lopsidded definition.

Do you honestly think there is ONLY fundies out there? That there is no such thing as mainstream or liberal Christianity?

Actually, I thought I tried hard to insert 'generally' and such. Not all Mormons are fundies nor are all Christians fundies. As usual, there is the loud minority playing the majority.

Unless you want to advance the idea that there are Christians out there who don't believe in God, your statement here, your argument is self-contradictory to your previous statements where you said ANYONE who holds irrational beliefs is a fundi which would make every Christian on the planet a fundi?

It is an example of how codifying religeous 'family values' doesn't necessarily work.

I didn't say it did. I will agree that prohibition was a HUGE mistake.

THose that wish to drink, still will and 'hiding' from the problem doesn't necessarily solve it.

And since you can get a drink in Utah, they clearly aren't "hiding" from the problem. You even posted evidence that the Utah government is directly INVOLVED in the sale of alcohol. Quite in contradiction to what you think the Mormon Church would have the state government do, isn't it?

Utah isn't as extreme, but it's silly law after silly law doesn't solve the problems (precieved or real) and is just a pain in the ass to the customers with no real benifit other than the large sums of 'sin' tax.

That still doesn't make them fundies.

Their policy doesn't do jack shit. A policy doesn't have to be perfect, but it should atleast try to accomplish what it was intended for. So if the only effective thing it does is bring in revenue, then the other bullshit laws that just make it a pain, do not need to be there.

I've seen the claim made. I haven't seen evidence to back it up. Just an irrelevant derailment to completely different anti-drinking policies in different states.

[Darth Servo]

Here is a thought experiment.

Religion 'X' holds the beliefs 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f' and 'g'

Fundi category: a, c
Mainstream category: b, d, f
Liberal category: e, g

What kind of religion would this fall under?

[Darth Servo]

Their policy doesn't do jack shit.

Yes it does. According to the U.S. censur bureau, Utah is among states with the LOWEST incidence of alcohol related deaths in America.

[Zero]

One could also argue that the true reason for that is that Utah has many mormons, and mormons believe that it's wrong to drink alcohol, so perhaps these laws don't actually do much. Just a thought, not a claim.

[Knife]

Their policy doesn't do jack shit.

Yes it does. According to the U.S. censur bureau, Utah is among states with the LOWEST incidence of alcohol related deaths in America.

Deaths, yes. But if your a kid, you might be drinking and using drugs more;

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595074205,00.html

Or perhaps since the Mormons have decided that alcohol is a bad thing, they choose something else. What was it you said earlier, 'your particular crutch'?

http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/w ... ressed.htm

[Darth Servo]

Deaths, yes. But if your a kid, you might be drinking and using drugs more;

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595074205,00.html

More than what? All that says is that the statistics are currently on the rise. It doesn't say anything in comparison to the national average or even the regional average.

Or perhaps since the Mormons have decided that alcohol is a bad thing, they choose something else. What was it you said earlier, 'your particular crutch'?

http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/w ... ressed.htm

I wasn't aware that use of antidepressants was a serious public safety problem the way alcohol is.

[Knife]

you're simply repeating your statement that believing an irrational story automatically makes them fundies. I repeat my rebuttal that your argument would make ALL Christian sects fundies.

No, and quiet distorting it, if they believe in the 'fundementals' of a religeon when those religeons are easily discredited or disproven, and they still whole heartedly belive in and use that religeon justify values, then yes, they are fundies.

THere isn't some arbitrary litmus test of one fundie group needed to qualify another to be a fundie. We've already agreed in atleast one instance where mormons 'family values' brought on by their religeon is 'fundie-ish'. A beleive in ID isn't required.

So are you agreeing that you were wrong about your definition of a fundi or are you saying every Christian sect is indeed fundi territory?

Not sure how to take that? Territory? As in, sure there can easily be fundies in that area? Or a wider sense in which I believe all religeous people are fundies?

As I've stated before, I don't think every one in a fundie and have put in those qualifiers such as 'generally' when dealing with the larger population.

EVERY religion is irrational. Strict does not equal fundy. As I already acknowledged, they ARE fundyish when it comes to sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. But that does NOT equate them with wanting to force others to

I already conceeded that they qualified on the basis of sex issues but having ONE trait in common with fundies does NOT make they full blow abortion clinic bombers.

Didn't realize that being an 'abortion clinic bomber' was another litmus test to being a fundie.

Doesn't change the fact that your argument was still falacious. California has strict no-smoking policies in ANY restaurant, public building, etc. Are THEY part of the great fundi consortium too?

Tobacco is easily shown to be more or less an 'area effect' deal, for lack of a better word right now. Alcohol directly affects *chemically* just the consumer.

Yes, yes. Drunk driving, but all states have laws about that, that you can show a public interest and objective reasonings behind doing.

So you admit you CAN get a drink in Utah. So what the fuck are you complaining about? That its DIFFICULT? Oh, poor baby, he has a hard time getting his favorite crutch. In reality, drinking is just as much a way of avoiding reality as religion is.

You're STILL trying to say attempting to discourage drinking is a bad thing? Are you on crack? Prohibition was bad because it caused more problems than it solved. Show that this holds true for Utah drinking laws.

So the State of Utah should have laws discouraging the sale of twinkies? McDonalds? All are bad for you. The laws are bad because they don't do anything.

Oh wow, some of their laws were poorly thought out. I'm in shock. This still doesn't justify your equating them with fundies just because you have a hard time getting a drink.

Actually, my original statement was this was but one of their stances that lead me to that conclusion.

How did EITHER of those incidents hurt anyone?

Some of the major employers not having a good time getting employees? Shit, Iomega was considering moving, the above as one of various reasons, a couple years ago. Many bussiness men have expressed simular concerns.

The state is constantly trying to sell Utah for business, for obvious reasons. When they start talking about some of your weirdo laws for reasons not to come, then you're going to have a problem.

The second one relates to tourism, which is another large economic factor in Utah.

Why not? You haven't shown ANY harm from them.

The law should have to show harm to exsist, not I. To take something away from me, they should have better than 'Word of the Wise or Wisdom or what ever the hell it is.'

Actually its called "The Word of Wisdom" and NO, that is NOT the only time you see it. I once traveled to a U of U basketball game last spring and there were MANY anti-alcohol and anti-smoking advertisements that didn't mention the Mormon church at all.

I would hope so at a school.

Why is abstaining from delibrately poisoning oneself "shit"?

Poison is in the dose. Moderate doses of wine/beer are actually good for you. While over eating/drinking just about anything is bad for you. There is no distinction of this in the Words of Wisdom.

Its usually interpreted as "coffee and tea"

Interpreted?

So what? It wasn't considered a "holy law" until the 20th century under Church President Heber J. Grant.

So if they don't want to drink it, fine. I don't want them codifying their view on me based on their wierdo church. I don't think coffee or tea or alcohol is bad for me *in moderation* and even if it were what the fuck is it their business.

Too bad for you that even IF you could somehow prove that the laws were purely religously motivated, they can STILL be justified by the scientific FACT that alcohol is POISION. It doesn't matter that the original justification was irrational, "because my holy book says so", science has AGREED with that particular rule.

Sorry, disagree. The way you come to a conclusion is importent to. That and as I wrote above, poison is in the dose. Acrylamide is poison too, if their silly book wrote that potatoes are evil, is it ok to ban french fries because the silly book wrote it and that science can justify that by saying that there is realitively high doses of Acrylamide in them?

So above you WERE saying that every religious person on the planet is a fundi. Glad you've admitted your lopsidded definition.

Bah, you got me. I meant to imply that they take that view and apply it to something else.

Do you honestly think there is ONLY fundies out there? That there is no such thing as mainstream or liberal Christianity?

Ofcourse not, and I've stated as such in this thread.

And since you can get a drink in Utah, they clearly aren't "hiding" from the problem. You even posted evidence that the Utah government is directly INVOLVED in the sale of alcohol. Quite in contradiction to what you think the Mormon Church would have the state government do, isn't it?

I see them inserting as much garbage and obstacles as they can. The courts have slapped down a lot, so the church just can't add a bill number to the end of the Words of Wisdom and have it pass the legislature and expect it to hold up in court.

That still doesn't make them fundies.

*sigh* Since I origianlly stated that it was but one reason amongst others, I guess it doesn't really matter if just this one thing makes or breaks them as fundie loons.

I've seen the claim made. I haven't seen evidence to back it up. Just an irrelevant derailment to completely different anti-drinking policies in different states.

NOt finding much in the way of numbers on either side, so I conceed. MOst the shit I can find on the net is antedotal or references numbers I can find. So I conceed.

[Darth Servo]

No, and quiet distorting it, if they believe in the 'fundementals' of a religeon when those religeons are easily discredited or disproven, and they still whole heartedly belive in and use that religeon justify values, then yes, they are fundies.

THere isn't some arbitrary litmus test of one fundie group needed to qualify another to be a fundie. We've already agreed in atleast one instance where mormons 'family values' brought on by their religeon is 'fundie-ish'. A beleive in ID isn't required.

No but our forum provider DW has some pretty good standards to use for measuring.

1) Belief that the bible (or in the case of Mormons all 4 volumes of scripture) is absolutely, literally true, sacred and cannot be criticized.

Mormon Article of Faith #8: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

0/1 on the Fundi scale.

2) "All other religions and philosophies are false, blasphemous, and an immoral affront to God."

They do believe that they are the only true Church on the planet but they do not believe that people of all other churces are going to hell for not believing. In fact, they have multiple degrees of heaven, all of these are supposedly far better than Earth. The ONLY people who get the miserable state of "outer darkness" are those who have had direct revelations from God and then deny it. Someone who was never a Mormon would never qualify. This would fall under DW's liberal category.

0.5/2 on the Fundi scale. +1 on the liberal scale

3) "We should live our lives according to God's laws. All of them, even the insane rules of the Old Testament. After seeing this page, Bruce Waldron made the following comment: "Its odd though how choosy they are about these. They insist on wives obeying their husbands (One of St Paul's statements) and on the homosexual issue, but not on the rules about pork, or about menstruating women, or about Sabbath keeping, or about a host of other things found in the Levitical books." "

Some yes, like anti porn, anti gay marriage laws. Others like the anti-alcohol laws CAN and ARE backed up with science. Alcohol and tobacco are dangerous and highly addictive. That is a scientific fact. However, there ARE strip clubs in SLC and after that B-ball game I mentioned before, there were plenty of people getting drunk at the Frat houses.

1.5/3 on the fundi scale

4) "The state has no right to defy the Bible."

Given their stance on Biblical infalliability, this doesn't really fit. Have they passed laws against the scientific view of the origin of the Native Americans? Have they made teaching that they are Aisian/Mongoloid in origin illegal?

Unless the answer is 'yes' then so far they are 1.5/4 on the Fundi scale with a +1 on the liberal.

some of the other considerations:

Liberal:
"There's some scary stuff in the Old Testament which should not be taken seriously. Rather than evading or denying it, liberal Christians will often freely admit their discomfort with the Book of Job, the fate of Jericho and other cities in the Israelites' path, God's terrorism in Egypt, etc. Some will argue that things did not literally happen that way. They are generally quick to point out that today's Christianity should not be judged by its historical roots. They are the most open-minded about issues such as homosexual rights, but they generally toe the party line on the issues of prostitution and pornography."

Some yes, some no. As pointed out, they are pretty closed about homosexuality but they DO admit that some OT stuff should not all be taken seriously. Some agree, some don't.

+0.5 liberal points.

"Church and state should be separated. Yes, believe it or not, there are Christians who wholeheartedly support this rule (JFK is the most famous example; he was a Catholic, yet he spoke in public of the importance of the separation of church and state)."

While most Mormons do tend to vote staunchly Republican, the official stance from the church that is repeated everytime there is an election is that the church itself does NOT endorse one party or candidate over another. That each member should make up their own minds on the issues. The only exception I could find was from a few years ago when California had an innitiative on the ballot to alter the state constitution to not recognize gay marriage from anywhere, not just in California. But MOST of the time, when things like homosexuality isn't an issue, they DO recognize the importance of church/state separation. The Christmas manger display is at Temple square, not the capitol.

+0.5 liberal points

They do believe in modern day prophets but I have seen Mormons question some of the things sent down from the leaders.

+0.5 fundi poins, +0.5 liberal points.

They do believe in giving "blessings" when one is sick but also encourage seeking full medical attention as well. They say "God will only do for you what you can't do for yourself"

+1 fundi point. +1 mainstream point.

They believe that the grace of Jesus is necessary for salvation but you only receive it if you are trying to be a good moral person.

+1 mainstream point.

Immortal soul. Check

+1 mainstream point.

"It is wrong for scientists to "play God" (no one can ever explain why this is wrong, but we're supposed to accept that it's wrong anyway). This is the common justification for bans on cloning research, no matter how noble the purpose."

This one is up to the individual believer. One of my Mormon friends related an anecdote about the sheep clone several years ago. Someone asked the Mormon prophet what the Churche's position was on the development. His response is he'd get back on that. To my knowledge, he has yet to do so. However, the U of U does have a fine bioresearch facility. I remember interviewing there once for Grad school. I eventually went to Rice U. in Houston but I digress.

Not sure how to score this one.

As I've stated before, I don't think every one in a fundie and have put in those qualifiers such as 'generally' when dealing with the larger population.

Well in the context of this thread of ID being beaten down and evolution taught in schools, even "generally" was not applicable. The board of Edu unanimously voted against it. Only THREE people out of dozens in on the issue supported teaching both. One of the opponents was a prof at BYU, which is COMPLETELY owned and run by the Church.

Didn't realize that being an 'abortion clinic bomber' was another litmus test to being a fundie.

Its an extreme example. But why is the position they take on Evolution vs ID not a good indicator? MOST making their voices heard were on the side of rationality in the state? I'd think this was GOOD news that a highly religious state was taking the side of science. Not that the Bible belt will appreciate it since they think Mormons are in league with the Devil.

Doesn't change the fact that your argument was still falacious. California has strict no-smoking policies in ANY restaurant, public building, etc. Are THEY part of the great fundi consortium too?

Tobacco is easily shown to be more or less an 'area effect' deal, for lack of a better word right now. Alcohol directly affects *chemically* just the consumer.

So? Utah has similar anti-tobacco laws. If they were motivated by the W.O.W. would that invalidate them? And the effects need not be chemical to harm others. What ever reason for the anti-alcohol laws, religios or not, they can still be supported by science.

Yes, yes. Drunk driving, but all states have laws about that, that you can show a public interest and objective reasonings behind doing.

There are other reasons Alcohol is dangerous besides getting behind the wheel of a car. Most spousal abuse takes place when the husband is hammered.

So the State of Utah should have laws discouraging the sale of twinkies? McDonalds? All are bad for you. The laws are bad because they don't do anything.

Even though UT has the second lowest drunk driving death rate in the country?

Oh wow, some of their laws were poorly thought out. I'm in shock. This still doesn't justify your equating them with fundies just because you have a hard time getting a drink.

Actually, my original statement was this was but one of their stances that lead me to that conclusion.

Yes. The OTHER was that ONE senator proposed teaching ID inspite of the fact that nearly everyone ELSE on the matter opposed it.

Some of the major employers not having a good time getting employees? Shit, Iomega was considering moving, the above as one of various reasons, a couple years ago. Many bussiness men have expressed simular concerns.

The state is constantly trying to sell Utah for business, for obvious reasons. When they start talking about some of your weirdo laws for reasons not to come, then you're going to have a problem.

I wasn't aware UT's economy was in such dire straights. If it is, please correct me.

The second one relates to tourism, which is another large economic factor in Utah.

You just need to know where to go.

The law should have to show harm to exsist, not I. To take something away from me, they should have better than 'Word of the Wise or Wisdom or what ever the hell it is.'

Alcohol has been shown to produce GREAT harm. This world WOULD be a better place without it. That is indisputable. Unfortunately, prohibition didn't work. I'd like to see your proposal.

Actually its called "The Word of Wisdom" and NO, that is NOT the only time you see it. I once traveled to a U of U basketball game last spring and there were MANY anti-alcohol and anti-smoking advertisements that didn't mention the Mormon church at all.

I would hope so at a school.

doesn't change the fact that your claim of it ONLY being Mormon propaganda in UT was wrong.

Why is abstaining from delibrately poisoning oneself "shit"?

Poison is in the dose. Moderate doses of wine/beer are actually good for you.

You get the same result from a glass of grape juice. Its something in the skin of the grape, not the alcohol.

While over eating/drinking just about anything is bad for you. There is no distinction of this in the Words of Wisdom.

Not nearly as bad as even a few drinks every day or a pack of cigarettes. And the WOW does encourage eating meat sparingly although that part isn't emphasized as much from what I've seen and I don't think they've ever defined what "sparingly" really means. The passage says something about "used in times of famine or winter" or such.

Its usually interpreted as "coffee and tea"

Interpreted?

Don't ask me.

So what? It wasn't considered a "holy law" until the 20th century under Church President Heber J. Grant.

So if they don't want to drink it, fine. I don't want them codifying their view on me based on their wierdo church. I don't think coffee or tea or alcohol is bad for me *in moderation* and even if it were what the fuck is it their business.

And since none of them are illegal so they are NOT forcing you to follow their practices. Last time I visited family in Utah, I saw coffee and tea offered at each restaurant I visited and also saw them at the U of U caffeteria. How are they forcing their beliefs on you since you are quite able to have any of those church prohibited foods?

Sorry, disagree. The way you come to a conclusion is importent to.

The original laws against murder and theft in the western world were religiously based. Should we insist that those are religious fanatics forcing their standards on us even though we can show that all those things are immoral by other means?

That and as I wrote above, poison is in the dose. Acrylamide is poison too, if their silly book wrote that potatoes are evil, is it ok to ban french fries because the silly book wrote it and that science can justify that by saying that there is realitively high doses of Acrylamide in them?

Since NONE of the coffee, alcohol, tea, tobacco are banned in UT, your analogy is a false one.

Bah, you got me. I meant to imply that they take that view and apply it to something else.

Such as?

Do you honestly think there is ONLY fundies out there? That there is no such thing as mainstream or liberal Christianity?

Of course not, and I've stated as such in this thread.

OK. Please try and be clearer in what you say.

I see them inserting as much garbage and obstacles as they can. The courts have slapped down a lot, so the church just can't add a bill number to the end of the Words of Wisdom and have it pass the legislature and expect it to hold up in court.

Then UT is not the "zion curtain" your location says it is.

*sigh* Since I origianlly stated that it was but one reason amongst others, I guess it doesn't really matter if just this one thing makes or breaks them as fundie loons.

See my thought experiment above.

NOt finding much in the way of numbers on either side, so I conceed. MOst the shit I can find on the net is antedotal or references numbers I can find. So I conceed.

OK. Where shall we go from here?

[Knife]

I'll conceed, though if I do come up with numbers to support my case, I'llmake a new thread. If, though, you wish to continue the part about funides in relation with Mormons, I'm go.