I'm LDS, I'm not an individual.

[anriana]

and of course, in any religion you get a group that's basically splintered away from the core beliefs and have gone insane. unfortunately that's usually the group that gets the most media attention so everyone thinks those people represent the entire congregation and not just their own splinter-group

Yeah, like that Catholic guy I keep hearing about in the media who thinks queer people will destroy humanity and contraception is destroying the environment. Such a splinter.

[Boozy]

Do you mean the Pope?

[Evandril]

[color=pink]
Hey, I know how you feel!
Being Catholic, popular media thinks it's OK to make fun of us too. Hell, look at all the Pedophile jokes they make about the Catholic Church... when if anything, you're apt to find *more* sexual offenders in school-jobs. (hell they found one pedophile/teacher in the public schools where my sister lives... it made local headlines, but i'm betting if he'd been a priest it would have made national headlines because of the media and religious hatred)

I know, in general, I'd trust a member of the clergy more than I would a school employee. When you concider that statement is coming from someone who dislikes organized religion in general, and finds most of the deities people choose to worship to have worse manners than my kids...You can only imagine how much more trust 'believers' would have. If someone at a school was to take a child to the side for private instruction...MANY questions would be raised, if it was even allowed to happen... A chaplin or the sort doing the same? Not as big of a deal...And with the greater trust comes a greater sense of violation when it is betrayed. Hence why 'tis 'common knowledge' that politicians in general tend to mess around...but when a president was caught doing it, he was flayed alive.

[guywithashovel]

You don't attend Southern Baptist church, you don't do organized religions, like Southern Baptism, anymore, and you recognize that the Southern Baptist church is full of hate.... so why do you still identify as Southern Baptist?

Not to pick on the person this post was directed to, but I actuallly can understand the sentiment here. If someone identifies with a certain group or organization, but expresses disagreement with most if not all of the philosophies of that group or organization, I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to raise the question of why that person even bothers associating with that entity in the first place.

Consider an example. Let's say I approached you and said that I was a Republican. I tell you that I am a Republican, but then I go on to say that, while I am indeed a member of the GOP, I am pro-choice, I don't discriminate against gays and bisexuals, I do not favor spending obscene amounts of military spending, I don't favor waging wars on nations that pose no threat to my country or my freedom, I don't think the United States should be transformed into a Christian theocracy, and I don't think that rich people should be tax exempt.

At this point, you might be thinking "Okay, then, well, why is it that you call yourself a Republican? You've clearly rejected all of their core values, so I honestly can't fathom how you could possibly find any kind of solidarity with them." And you would justified in your thinking, too. Granted, if I said I was a Republican, and expressed agreement with all of their beliefs save their stances on one, two, or maybe three issues, then I could probably still identify with the party. But if I claimed to be a Republican, but shot down virtually all of their ideals, then I would probably look pretty silly calling myself a Republican.

I don't mean to tread on anyone's personal values, but if you don't support over half of a group's ideology---be that group a political party, a religion, or anything else---you should probably think twice before identifying with that group.

[Sylvia727]

... I am indeed a member of the GOP, I am pro-choice, I don't discriminate against gays and bisexuals, I do not favor spending obscene amounts of military spending, I don't favor waging wars on nations that pose no threat to my country or my freedom, I don't think the United States should be transformed into a Christian theocracy, and I don't think that rich people should be tax exempt.

At this point, you might be thinking "Okay, then, well, why is it that you call yourself a Republican? You've clearly rejected all of their core values, so I honestly can't fathom how you could possibly find any kind of solidarity with them."

I know plenty of Republicans who don't discriminate against LGBTQIs, don't support "obscene" military spending, don't support wars against nonthreatening nations, don't support a Christian theocracy, and don't think that rich people should be tax exempt. I know even more Republicans who agree with your two financial points and disagree with all of your social points. So no, it's not "clear" that a person with these viewpoints has rejected all of Republicanism's core values. Now, granted the Republican party has a platform that it stands on, but political organizations are made up of people. They don't derive their message from a higher source, but only ever from other people. As people's attitudes change, so do, gradually, the positions of political parties. If you transplanted a Civil War-era abolitionist into modern society, he would appear downright racist by our standards. Times change. Especially social values, which are subjective to begin with.

[guywithashovel]

I know plenty of Republicans who don't discriminate against LGBTQIs, don't support "obscene" military spending, don't support wars against nonthreatening nations, don't support a Christian theocracy, and don't think that rich people should be tax exempt. I know even more Republicans who agree with your two financial points and disagree with all of your social points. So no, it's not "clear" that a person with these viewpoints has rejected all of Republicanism's core values. Now, granted the Republican party has a platform that it stands on, but political organizations are made up of people. They don't derive their message from a higher source, but only ever from other people. As people's attitudes change, so do, gradually, the positions of political parties. If you transplanted a Civil War-era abolitionist into modern society, he would appear downright racist by our standards. Times change. Especially social values, which are subjective to begin with.

I was exaggerating a little bit in my previous post. However, the point I was trying to make was that if you claim to be a member of a certain group, yet decry most of the things they stand for, then it should be no surprise when people question why you are associating with that group.

[Sylvia727]

Gotcha. And while I agree with your point, and have argued it myself on occassion, there is room for dissent. More so social or political groups than religious, as religion tends to be inspired by a higher source, but groups made up of people can change over time, as the majority opinions of the group change. Someone has to be the snowflake that starts the avalanche.