Subject:
|
Re: Mormon bashing again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Mar 2000 00:27:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
426 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 18:59:46 GMT, Sproaticus <jsproat@io.com> wrote:
> Arg. I gotta vent.
>
> Slashdot is carrying an article (1) on how the Utah legislature is trying to
> enfore internet filtering in public libraries. Somehow, this topic has become
> a Mormon-bashing extravaganza. I was going to post there, but I suspect that
> I'll find more level-headed people on LUGNET. I still might post there, I
> dunno.
It's funny you posted that here, because I thought about doing the
same thing. I was more interested in the article as to what exactly
is the government doing this time than actual mormon bashing. Seeing
as how the /. "community" has been lately, I'm not suprised it turned
into a bash-fest. At any rate, I did post in the thread, I'm the AC
talking about what happened with the Movie Buffs case. (Wasn't too
bad of a job either, I got to read from 8am to 12pm everyday, plowed
through alot of books that way).
> A big nit I'm always picking is that people often interpret that BYU ==
> Mormons == BYU. I never have, nor will I ever attend, BYU. It served a good
> purpose long ago when it was founded; now it's a quaint relic, struggling to
> redefine its purpose as the world matures without it.
I think that's actually a pretty fitting description of BYU. It's
also another reason why if I go back to Utah I'm not going to bother
looking around Provo (besides my friends being in the Salt Lake valley
which I know like the back of my hand).
> I'm just as upset about BYU housing restrictions as the next resident; I doubt
> I'll ever let any of my rental properties (yes, I own rental properties, great
> retirement package) become "BYU approved". See, if you want to attend BYU,
> you have to live in approved housing, which waives many of your rights as well
> as many rights of your landlord. That concept is aggressively monopolistic,
> borderline illegal, and the result of delusions of school administration, but
> *not* of the gospel.
Once again, right on the head there.
> And my church is anything but monopolistic nor is it imperialistic.
> Missionaries aren't given conversion quotas. We aren't instructed to
> alienate non-member neighbors and friends (rather, just the opposite). Fer
> crying out loud, Mormons *gave away* the land to the Catholic church for the
> Catherdral of the Madeline, and helped with its construction.
Really beautiful buliding btw
> My church has an honorable purpose. Many people within the church have done
> some *good* things. Many people within the curch have made some *bad*
> mistakes. What many people do not understand is that you will find this in
> any large organization, where people often (wrongly) feel a need to prove
> their church or morals or agenda or whatever to themselves.
Exactly. I'm finding that in Houston, while the atmosphere is
definitely different than Utah, there are still people who will take
advantage of you, people who are nice, people who should basically be
drug out into the street and severly beaten. The biggest difference
I've seen really is that the people drive alot more dangerously here.
I guess it's all the long straight-aways with few lights that causes
the excessive speed.
> Still, because I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
> Saints, I am marked as a zealot seeking political leverage using my church as
> the crowbar. Fume. If anyone here in lugnet.off-topic.debate wants to flame
> me for the religion I practice, please feel free to do so. I'd really love to
> have a rational discussion about this with anyone who harbors negative (or
> neutral) feelings towards Mormons.
Well, I think that if your political and religious views/beliefs don't
coincide, you're probably schiztophrentic (sp?). I'm not Mormon, and
grew up in Salt Lake, and well, while I never felt that I belonged, I
can say that I definetly felt safer there. Anyway, the point I guess
I want to make is that while not agreeing with everything they have to
say, I can see why they want to put a filter on the library net
connections. I honestly don't have any problems with it. It's a
public resource. It's not as though they're filtering my own private
connection. A good analogy is that if you were to go to Cottonwood
High School's swimming pool, and were to run around the edge of the
pool, you're likely to be kicked out. That's not a violation of your
rights because if you own your own pool, you can go home and run
around it as long as you like (until you fall and hit your head).
Anyway, I know this didn't make much sense, but I can see where you're
coming from. The people posting on that /. thread don't really know
what they're talking about. It's obvious the majority of them have
never been to Utah let alone spent any time there. Re the other
"wacked out" laws in Utah, I'd much rather have smoking banned in
public buildings, it's nasty and the smell clings to everything. As
for drinking, well, lets just say that I don't do it, so I've never
really had to worry about it.
Anyway, I'll leave my rambling at that for now.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Mormon bashing again
|
| Arg. I gotta vent. Slashdot is carrying an article (1) on how the Utah legislature is trying to enfore internet filtering in public libraries. Somehow, this topic has become a Mormon-bashing extravaganza. I was going to post there, but I suspect (...) (25 years ago, 1-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
