In related news people are angry at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for speaking out on what they feel is a moral, not political, issue. This is very interesting to me. I might be biased, but I feel like I see a lot more hatred aimed at the Church from the so called gay community than I do vice versa. I would say that I don't see any hate from the Church toward the gay community, but I admit that there are probably members of the Church that (wrongfully) hate "homosexuals", but they do not represet the Church. Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean you hate them, am I correct?
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Is it possible to have NO state religion (ideology)?
Elder Neal A Maxwell about irreligion. He put into words (very eloquently I might add) the thoughts I have been having as of late. It seems impossible to NOT have ANY state religion. Wouldn't you agree? I use the word 'religion' very loosely here. Maybe a better word is ideology. Having Atheism as the states ideology is still an ideology (religion.)
In related news people are angry at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for speaking out on what they feel is a moral, not political, issue. This is very interesting to me. I might be biased, but I feel like I see a lot more hatred aimed at the Church from the so called gay community than I do vice versa. I would say that I don't see any hate from the Church toward the gay community, but I admit that there are probably members of the Church that (wrongfully) hate "homosexuals", but they do not represet the Church. Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean you hate them, am I correct?
In related news people are angry at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for speaking out on what they feel is a moral, not political, issue. This is very interesting to me. I might be biased, but I feel like I see a lot more hatred aimed at the Church from the so called gay community than I do vice versa. I would say that I don't see any hate from the Church toward the gay community, but I admit that there are probably members of the Church that (wrongfully) hate "homosexuals", but they do not represet the Church. Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean you hate them, am I correct?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think it's very possible to have no state religion. A country can have MORALS without having a religion. Which is what I think you're trying to say by using the word ideology. So, we're probably on the same page there. Each country will have its own ideology based on the collection of people who govern it. In our case, Congress, at a national level.
About your second paragraph: I feel very differently than you on this subject, so bear with me. I think the gay community would feel less hated by many LDS folks if we used better terminology. Saying "so-called gay community" or putting homosexuals in quote marks gives the impression that either, A) you don't believe they/it exists, or B) you question their legitimacy. How would you feel if someone started calling Mormons "so-called Mormons," or, to hit closer to home (with this election going on), "so-called Christians"? We believe we're Christians. And, gay people believe they're gay. (And keep in mind the LDS Church has very much moved away from the "they choose to be that way" stance to saying "we don't know the origins of homosexuality/they could be born that way.") So, before moving forward in any dialogue, there has to be that recognition and respect.
I have been struggling with the correct way to respond to your comment all day. By using the phrases I did I didn't mean to be disrespectful. I honestly didn't. I do not question whether or not people have legitimate homosexual feelings or inclinations. I do understand that people are attracted to the same gender. I chose to use the phrases I did because I agree with Dallin H Oaks when he said "homosexuality…is not a noun that describes a condition. It's an adjective that describes feelings or behaviors. " So I guess maybe I sort of fall in your category "A". I am not saying these things to spew rhetoric. This is how I feel. I know many people would disagree with me and believe homosexuality is a defining characteristic that they do not feel they can control. So I don't know what to do. How do I respectively talk about homosexuality and still maintain my beliefs? Perhaps it is not possible. I think the fact that I think homosexuality is an adjective and not a noun probably IS offensive to a "gay" person…by the way, I don't think it matters whether someone was born with the inclinations or if they were developed later. And I do apologize if it upsets them, but it is what I believe. I would hope they would respect my beliefs, even if they disagree.
In summary I think it comes down to a difference of opinion about whether homosexuality is a noun or a adjective (and also whether it is amoral or immoral).
I am glad you used the "Mormons believe they are Christians" analogy, because it helps shows what I am trying say very well. "Christians" believe Mormons are not Christians. Mormons believe they are Christians. I don't think these two groups will ever agree. They just believe differently. I believe Mormons are Christians….does this offend "Christians"? Maybe. But Mormons don't say they are Christians to offend "Christians". Mormons are just saying what they believe. (I actually started writing a post yesterday relating to "Mormons believe they are Christians", so it was funny you used this analogy.)
Okay, I think I am just repeating myself over and over. Hopefully you understand what I mean. If not, let me know. So my question is do you have any creative ways we can have this dialogue and show respect to all sides?
Post a Comment