From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: religious bigotry (was: It can HAPPEN in *IOWA*)
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:29:05 GMT

In article <LEE.92Apr10134821@meercat.wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:
>Should I erase the above?  No---I did not compare the Mormons with the
>Nazis (though I'll probably get hate mail anyways).  I compared the
>pre-to-early-Mormons with a people some of whom became Nazis.  But I
>hope Mr(s) b-cpu doesn't read this.

You're skating on thin ice, Lee, but I'll take that explanation.

>Roger:
>   >That's not bigotry.  I stated a very simple fact: that if you
>   >identify with a sect and do not change it, you have every right to
>   >be expected to carry its beliefs.
>
>Nora:
>   I disagree -- if you were right, there would be a separate sect for
>   every person in the world. Sects are general groupings, and can be
>   expected to behave like any other general grouping -- has some basic
>   things in common, but you'd be dumb to expect everyone in it to agree
>   with everything said at the top.
>
>I have to agree with Roger here.  It's not a matter of the people
>presently "at the top" giving optional directions.  Western religions
>are pretty well defined by their written doctrines plus their
>well-known and traditional customs; and the intolerant principles of
>the Mormons, from which flow their coercive practices, are matters of
>dogma.  They fully expect their members to follow this dogma, and are
>quite ready to ban those who disagree.  (Remember that stereotypical
>individualist "jack Mormon" raft guide, Seldom Seen Smith?)

Okay: put it this way. I know a fairly large number of individual
Mormons. None of them have ever shown themselves to be anything
less than tolerant, caring, and polite to anyone who crosses their
path (and I've pushed them pretty hard, given some of the things
I've been into that I wasn't prepared to hide from my friends). I
thus have a problem with the concept that all Mormons are like *any*
particular stereotype, but especially the one that was stuck on them
on this thread -- it's completely inaccurate. These are people who
consider themselves Mormon in that they believe in the theology of
the Book of Mormon and the church they go to is a Mormon one. They
don't for a second think themselves bound to everything the Church 
says. If Roger will admit that such people exist and I'm not making
them up, I'll let him get away with saying that the Church and most
of its followers fit his description.

>They are far from unique: unless one makes (nominal) obeisance to a
>ridiculous set of dogmas known as "the Apostles' Creed" one is not
>admitted to full membership in most Christian denominations.

One of the things I've always rather liked about my religion is that
there are a lot of things you're supposed to do, but it's impossible
to get yourself considered "not a full member" for not doing them,
or, in fact, for any other reason. It's completely impossible to be
kicked out of being a Jew.


>...Jew (despite people here complaining
>that this word does not describe a religious belief, I know of no
>other less awkward phrase than "adherent of the religion of Judaism"),
>or whatever.

I don't mind you using the term in this context, but remember that
the reason for someone being considered a "nonpracticing" Jew is a
little different from the reason for being considered a "nonpracticing"
Catholic or whatever, precisely *because* of that trick of language
you mention. Being a Jew is more of a statement of ethnic nationality,
meaning you're considered a nonpracticing Jew in the same way you'd
be considered an expatriate Italian if you didn't live there... but
no matter what you'd do, if you were born an Italian you stay one. 

>I do recognize the likely contradiction in my own views: On the one
>hand I appreciate communities, especially those less transitory than
>mere communities-of-interest (and so rather Nora's quoting from the
>Kaddish as a .sig).  

Thanks.

>There's a much humbler quote which describes my
>feeling: "Home is where, when you go there, they have to take you in."
>At the same time I suspect that a good deal of discriminatory and
>nonsensical mumbo-jumbo (and dubious charismatic leadership) is needed
>to hold such communities together.

That's a lot of why Judaism uses some of its worse examples, anyway...

>  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.

	-Nora

-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17328 alt.society.civil-liberty:3296