h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<< We have two christians with their armies killing and asset stripping in other countries.>>
Who *are* these Christians?
(If you're going to say Bush and Blair, I have to say don't be ridiculous. Presenting the rape of Iraq as a religious war would have to be the silliest accusation I have ever heard! )

The Mountain Meadows Massacre took place in 1857, when a wagon train usually known as the Fancher party, was going through Mormon territory. Utah had been a self-governing area headed by Brigham Young - and in 1857-8, there were threats flying between Young and the President at the time. Young was speechifying to work up the Mormons against the Gentiles, because there was an invasion coming - or so he believed.
The Fancher party were travelling through, and were betrayed, and attacked by a group of Mormons disguised as Paiute Indians - 140 people were killed and their property and cattle (the motivation, it seems) looted and pillaged. There were 17 survivors, all children under 5, who were taken into Mormon homes, where they were kept, in the hopes that if they were ever found by their families, they'd have forgotten what they saw, and who they saw.
But they were found when they were under 15, and returned to their homes (Arkansas somewhere) - and the Mormons had the cheek to ask the Federal Government to pay thousands of dollars of board and lodging for the kids!
As regards the witch trials - all I know is that the number of victims over a 500 year period is about a tenth of what it's popularly supposed to be - amounting to maybe two or three a year. I know that doesn't make it any better, and I have no excuse to make for it. It happened. But events like that have happened, historically, in every religious, cultural or political group in every society - because we are human.

We sem to have sauntered into a religous debate here, which is clouding the issue first raised.

Regarding the Benjamin Franklin quote (which I forgot to cut & paste) - I would say this is exactly the attitude usurped by those who wish to abuse and dominate others.

It is all very well to talk about the rights of the individual, but whilst believing the rights of the individual to be important, I consider there are times when the rights of the community outweigh those rights.

The easiest example is someone with an infectious disease, he may have the right to his freedom, but the rest of society have the right to protection from him until he is no longer infectious.

When we talk of marriage as a contract remember that a lot of the eary law was religous law, and so obviously marriage fell under the local priest/rabbi/druid/witch-doctor.

I feel that the good of society outweights the good of the individual - of course this is very dangerous, because it leads to exactly the persecution the thread has been discussing.

<>
I agree with you, McKay, and obviously, the two goods have to be carefully balanced to make sure it doesn't lead to persecution... that's the hard part.

Hmm well I think the first part is to have some basic minimum of all the rights that do not conflict with each other, and to give those to everyone. After that you can start parcelling the rest out.

I must say that in my experience (in the UK), it seems that most of the people who like to meddle in others' private lives and who are furtherst to the right of the political spectrum tend to be Christians. The reverse is obviously not true - there are certainly some very moderate, apathetic or even Lefty Liberal Scum (R) style Christians. But the very general tendancy is the further left the further away from religion, which might be to do with Marxism |--> atheism.

Certainly groups of people of one particular belief (not even necessarily a religious belief) tend to not be very nice to other groups of people of a different belief. I expect if the Monster Raving Loonies (to pick an example out of the air) had the history of privilege and traditions of violence that major religions have then many of them would be acting all authoritarian too.

And then back to marriage. Well didn't they just get rid of the married couples' allowance? I was wondering whether the government should get out of marriages (or civil unions if you like) entirely and try some other system. Maybe some sort of streamlined will system including handing down insurance policies and pensions, and for tax you could list your dependents? So maybe if a couple (or triple?) have a joint account then the average of their earnings for each of them is taken for tax purposes?

Then you don't need to worry about the rest of the baggage that goes with it. Instead of worrying about marriage restrictions you just sort out the abuses.

I think your solution makes a lot of sence.

"... I don't believe Mormons are Christians ... "

There is nothing wrong with the same word having different definitions in different contexts. On a government census or in a neutral discussion on religious and civil liberties, the most sensible definition of /Christian/ is the one adopted by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, namely, anyone who considers himself to be a Christian.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

In other circumstances, other definitions apply. Della has every right to say that she feels sufficiently removed from the Mormons that any attempt to bracket her and them in the same group is meaningless. I must say I agree with her. Mormons are not Christains as she understands the term. This is a statement of fact. Don't attempt to argue with it.

It's not necessarily a prejudicial stance, nor does it in itself imply that she views Mormons, or, if we want to be accurate, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, as inferior, or that she would attempt to persecute them in any way, assuming she had the power to do so.

People who think that any word has only one definition in any situation annoy me. I remember arguing with Master B (Mu Beta) about classical music once ... .

TRiG.

F27390?thread=369754&skip=17&show=4