Bigotry: Yes or No? Dawkins and Voting for a Mormon

[Katzpur]

I know, well I think , that most mormons are not YECs but it is the "extra" teachings that get a little wild. Which is why I mentioned scientology, there are some decent philosophies but some of the stuff that starts sounding sci-fi-ish is a little off puting, I'm sure it is a little off putting for members as well. I would try not to judge scientology by it's "higher" teachings about other planets but it's hard to ignore.

I would wager a guess that the actual teachings of Mormonism are nowhere near as "sci-fi-ish" as the anti-Mormon twist on them is. They are certainly no more "sci-fi-ish" than a belief that a virgin conceived and gave birth to God, or that the man, Jesus, walked on water, controlled the elements by merely speaking to them, raised the dead or returned to live again himself after three days in a tomb. LDS doctrine is absolutely no "wilder" than the doctrines of any other religion around, and when accurately understood, is probably less so than many. But, trust me... nobody ever got an accurate understanding of LDS doctrine by going to an anti-Mormon website.

 

[jasonwill2]

A recent poll showed that the most educated groups on religion were:

1) Jews
2)Mormons
3)Atheists in specific demographs

Obviously Dawkins is not in number 3, or he would know that they do not believe the things that he said.

Being prejudiced against belief is fundamentally different from being prejudiced against biology.

That's your prejudice.

 

[idav]

I would wager a guess that the actual teachings of Mormonism are nowhere near as "sci-fi-ish" as the anti-Mormon twist on them is. They are certainly no more "sci-fi-ish" than a belief that a virgin conceived and gave birth to God, or that the man, Jesus, walked on water, controlled the elements by merely speaking to them, raised the dead or returned to live again himself after three days in a tomb. LDS doctrine is absolutely no "wilder" than the doctrines of any other religion around, and when accurately understood, is probably less so than many. But, trust me... nobody ever got an accurate understanding of LDS doctrine by going to an anti-Mormon website.

I'd like to debate the flavor of the religion but this may not be the place. Frankly mormonism reminds me of the urantia book which probably takes the cake on sci-fi. Hey I like sci-fi so don't get me wrong.

Dawkins was off base by judging Romneys views based off of popular misinterpretations.

 

[Katzpur]

You said, "Especially when LDS tend to be far less anti-science, and much more highly educated, than other religious groups."

You are making a blanket statement about the LDS and about 'other religious groups' calling the LDS superior in both science and education in general. Blatantly prejudicial. You can't honestly believe this is grounded in hard data? The fact that you happen to be LDS yourself tells me this is nothing more than a personal bias.

It might sound like personal bias, but it really isn't. There are actually numerous statistics on this topic. For example:

From an article by the Pew Forum:
Mormons are significantly more likely than the population overall to have some college education. Six-in-ten Mormons (61%) have at least some college education, compared with half of the overall population.

From www.adherents.com:
Longstanding Latter-day Saint emphasis on secular education and learning, in addition to religious education, can be seen in federal education statistics. The American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) Report Card on Education 1996 reported that Utah was ranked 7th academically in the nation...

A recent national Advanced Placement study found Utah ranked first in the nation in both [AP] exams taken and exams passed on a per capita basis. In 1997, more than one-fourth of Utah's high school graduates earned twelve or more hours of college credits while still in high school through the Advanced Placement Program.
Utah has one of the highest high school graduation rates in the nation (ranked third in 1990-92, with 93.9%, behind North Dakota and Iowa.

LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or Protestant women, but less likely than Jewish or nonaffiliated women. For graduate education the pattern was similar--a higher percentage of LDS than Catholic or Protestant women have received graduate education.

LDS women are more likely to be employed in professional occupations than Catholic or Protestant women. Twenty-three percent of LDS women are employed in professional occupations, which is similar to Jewish women and women with no religious affiliation.

(Primary sources for these stats can be found on the adherents.com website.)

By the way, I am a Utah Mormon woman who intends to vote for Obama.

 

[Babs]

If we agree that core beliefs do play a role in decision making, then we would me remiss to not take those core beliefs into account when electing anyone to an office.

I think it kind of depends on what core beliefs, though. I mean, if Romney believes he will get a planet in the afterlife, there is almost no possible way that will make any difference in his decisions. What on Earth kind of presidential decision could be influenced by that?

On the other hand, some core beliefs could prove very damaging if they were used to make political desicions. That would be entirely reasonable to use what someone's core beliefs are in that situation (in my opinion).

 

[Apex]

I wish people would ignore the WBC. What is the alternative? Trolls of every stripe feed on negative attention. Should we give them what they crave?

Feeding trolls is not the same thing as pointing out their bigotry for a wider audience. And I seem to remember you getting fairly upset at what you perceived to be a lack of action towards anti-gay posters here on RF not so long ago. If you think bigotry like that of Dawkins and WBC should just be ignored, why should we not also ignore anti-gay bigotry?

 

[Apex]

On the other hand, some core beliefs could prove very damaging if they were used to make political desicions. That would be entirely reasonable to use what someone's core beliefs are in that situation (in my opinion).

There problem with this reasoning is, no one, regardless of their belief or lack there of, is exempt from this! Everyone is going to have some beliefs that, if used to make a political decision, could prove to be harmful. This argument essentially boils down to everyone is human, and capable of mistakes. There is no escaping it.

 

[Babs]

If we agree that core beliefs do play a role in decision making, then we would me remiss to not take those core beliefs into account when electing anyone to an office.

I think it kind of depends on what core beliefs, though. I mean, if Romney believes he will get a planet in the afterlife, there is almost no possible way that will make any difference in his decisions. What on Earth kind of presidential decision could be influenced by that?


On the other hand, some core beliefs could prove very damaging if they were used to make political desicions. That would be entirely reasonable to use what someone's core beliefs are in that situation (in my opinion).

 

[Babs]

Yeah, I would say that was a biggoted statement.

 

[Sunstone]

So, is it bigotry, or not, to claim that half of Americans are worthy of condemnation simply because they are considering voting for a Mormon?

Why does that sound like condemnation to you? That is, what makes it condemnation, as opposed to, say, criticism?

 

[Me Myself]

Could you post some examples of his laws and proposals that are based on his religious beliefs?

re-read my post and please pay attention.

 

[Curious George]

There problem with this reasoning is, no one, regardless of their belief or lack there of, is exempt from this! Everyone is going to have some beliefs that, if used to make a political decision, could prove to be harmful. This argument essentially boils down to everyone is human, and capable of mistakes. There is no escaping it.

I don't see that as a problem but a truth. Everyone will have core beliefs; some of those core beliefs will make a difference on their decisions; thus, we should examine those core beliefs.

I don't see how simply being a member of the Church of Ladder Day Saints is definitive in determining one's core beliefs, yet it is possible. Just because I don't see, though, does not mean there is not a definitive connection. I would be open to hear arguments. Yet, I would remain skeptical. Either way, the statement is bigoted (although I would seriously suggest narrow-minded as a better adjective.)

 

[Caladan]

I wish Dawkins would continue writing scientific literature and tone down his populism a bit. I love his insights on biology, but his little crusade against religion makes him look unprofessional. Now days he seems to be more of a guru and less of a biologist.

 

[PolyHedral]

So you are saying that prejudice is acceptable so long as it is directed towards non-biological traits? So it would be ok to be prejudiced towards atheists, democrats, republicans, hippies, and so on?

Is it unfair of me to conclude, without knowing for certain, that a member of the KKK is racist and to look down on them for it?

Imagine an atheist came up for president, would it also be ok to call half of America degenerates just for considering to vote for the atheist?

Well, no, because atheism isn't a category in the same way as being religious or being a member of the KKK is - it doesn't tell you anything about the person's positive beliefs.

Now, imagine a flat-earther manages to run for President and somehow have a plausible chance of winning. His belief in a flat earth is an integral part of his campaign, and one of the major draws he is using to get votes.

Is it bigoted to call such a person irrational, or perhaps even insane? What about people who follow him, apparently agreeing with him that the earth is flat?

 

[waitasec]

A recent quote from Richard Dawkins and his twitter in reference to the Curiosity landing:



So, is it bigotry, or not, to claim that half of Americans are worthy of condemnation simply because they are considering voting for a Mormon?

i don't see condemnation.
you do. why?

besides your quote is mis interpreting dawkins...
what do you expect to get anything out of that...
a fight....?
are you picking a fight Apex?

 

[Apex]

Is it unfair of me to conclude, without knowing for certain, that a member of the KKK is racist and to look down on them for it?


Well, no, because atheism isn't a category in the same way as being religious or being a member of the KKK is - it doesn't tell you anything about the person's positive beliefs.

Now, imagine a flat-earther manages to run for President and somehow have a plausible chance of winning. His belief in a flat earth is an integral part of his campaign, and one of the major draws he is using to get votes.

Is it bigoted to call such a person irrational, or perhaps even insane? What about people who follow him, apparently agreeing with him that the earth is flat?

So bigotry is ok as long as it is directed towards those you disagree with.

 

[Falvlun]

So bigotry is ok as long as it is directed towards those you disagree with.

Basically. I mean, do you really think it's possible to both hold beliefs and to also be able to think that beliefs antithetical to your own are equally reasonable, worthy, and right?

 

[Apex]

Basically. I mean, do you really think it's possible to both hold beliefs and to also be able to think that beliefs antithetical to your own are equally reasonable, worthy, and right?

I would like to think those people are just misguided, but then I think about people and how stupid they can be. And then I just get depressed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it unfair of me to conclude, without knowing for certain, that a member of the KKK is racist and to look down on them for it?
Well, no, because atheism isn't a category in the same way as being religious or being a member of the KKK is - it doesn't tell you anything about the person's positive beliefs.
Now, imagine a flat-earther manages to run for President and somehow have a plausible chance of winning. His belief in a flat earth is an integral part of his campaign, and one of the major draws he is using to get votes.
Is it bigoted to call such a person irrational, or perhaps even insane? What about people who follow him, apparently agreeing with him that the earth is flat?

This seems to be an over-reliance on a group label. Certainly, the label
suggests things, but tis better to examine the candidate's total agenda.

 

[Falvlun]

I would like to think those people are just misguided, but then I think about people and how stupid they can be. And then I just get depressed.

Which people are you claiming are misguided?

I am proposing that it is basically impossible for any of us to not be bigoted against beliefs that are the opposite of our own. The whole reason we hold a belief is because we think it's right. We don't hold a belief and then think that all the other beliefs are equally reasonable.