I had a somewhat similar conversation last night at a party I went to last night with an Agnostic.

It’s amazing how often that particular term and question comes up among people I interact with.

I appreciate your willingness to explore other modes of thought and provide them a measure of consideration.

As with most Americans, as I mentioned last night, I think we are not nearly as familiar with Mormonism as we are with most forms of Catholicism, Judaism and, more recently, a broad brush stroke of Islam.

Therefore, our questions tend to be naive and with the incredulity that comes with the unfamiliar.

A quick note in regards to your goal of morality being taught in school based on the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. (I assume you’d include those). This seems such a reasonable and rational approach. In fact, I think to some extent it is already being done. Not in terms of “Morality”, but certainly in History, Civics and Sociology classes talking about the Constitution and the framework for American society.

The problem is one of interpretation. Take the first amendment for example. This has been interpreted by scholars, the Supreme court and, famously, Thomas Jefferson to mean that Government should not be involved in religion and religion should only interface with government through the filter of individual voters’ consciences. You may agree with that, you may not, but that is the law. There are clearly Americans, who do not feel that is moral or right and will teach their children otherwise. It is even undermined by every Politician who ends their speech with ‘and God Bless America’ or some variation on it.

Even the Preamble can be problematic since the statement “promote the General Welfare” is open to many interpretations. Certainly the financial implications are complex and difficult. Does the welfare of the individual being sold nonsense medicine (homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki, …) take precedence over the freedom and welfare of those (I would say charlatans) individuals and corporations that provide them?

I think we probably have to be careful not to take simplistic views of solutions to common problems as much as we should with people outside our group.

Best,
Bruce

On the contrary, I think you made a complete fool of yourself. Most of the 200-300 people in attendance were doing a complete eye-roll at a remarkably naive young woman. Please don’t pretend like asking about the underwear was inappropriate. When your clergy stops asking young boys how often they masturbate, then you can feign outrage at a person asking an honest question about your admittedly odd underwear.

Tristan,

Up front: I don’t speak for the Center for Inquiry or any other Secular group.

But I would like to clarify my position and possibly the Center’s with respect to “made their decision on God, stopped inquiring”.

This is certainly true to a point, although I would say that there are plenty associated with CFI that continue to read, write and debate the existence of God.

However, after thousands of years of accumulated human experience, many years of enlightened discussion, investigation and debate has failed to provide the empirical evidence to justify, on that basis, a belief in a supernatural being of any kind.

So, most humanists (secularists, freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, ..) do not rely on matters of faith to explain, understand and function in the world. We just don’t find it is worth the time and energy, as it has very little prior-probability of a positive outcome. Still, it does not mean that everyone feels it is a closed issue as most would say it is difficult to prove a negative and impossible to prove a negative as amorphous and mercurial as the idea of “God”.

Two phrases that are oft repeated in the skeptical community that apply to this idea are:

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (Laplace, Sagan)

and

“The plural of anecdote is not data” (Brinner?)

Everyone has pithy sayings to promote their world view and while they, generally, are useless for changing opinion they have value as a shorthand for many, many words of explanation.

I could definitely see being offended by that.

(Sorry, for using your comments like a facebook page)

BTW, there really doesn’t seem to be too much difference between the Mormon devotional garments and the undergarments (and headwear) worn by Jewish orthodox sects. It seems to serve the same purpose, a reminder of their faith. Not too different from Christians wearing crosses, saint medals or Jews wearing mezzuzah I guess.

Although, some religious people inadvertently open themselves up to a certain amount of abuse when they credit their faith, deity or practice instead of luck or random chance when they avoid natural disaster, live through a car wreck, win a football game or whatever. Those particular people never seem to take into account the beliefs of those who suffer, die or lose. Unless they’re making an implicit judgement as to the spiritual fitness of those who don’t fair as well?

Remember there is no hierarchy, Dogma or strictures associated with being a non-theist. One, or many, offensive Youtube videos do not represent all of the non-theist community any more than the “all atheists should die and burn in hell” genre of Youtube video and blog represents all theists position.

Especially in countries, like the U.S., that do not (and never should) have blasphemy laws, individuals are free to express their ideas with as much or little vitriol as they choose.

You will be happy to know that the last year has seen a great deal of debate in the organized atheist movement on the tone that should be taken. (You will remember the question came up in the Q&A with Michael Shermer)

Many feel that antagonistic speech is counter-productive and a more “accommodating” approach would be better. There are two problems with that. First, there’s no data to support that premise and anecdotes exist supporting both sides. Second, there is no consensus on what constitutes antagonistic or vitriolic speech. Yes, some talk is clearly intended to be offensive, but there is still no objective way to identify such speech. For some, I’m being offensive just by saying I see no reason to believe there’s a God, that the Catholic Church has a history of abusing their privileged position in society or I draw a picture of Muhammad.

Should expressing a sincere opinion, fact or art ever be repressed because someone finds it offensive? I know how I feel about this. I think ideas should be able to stand up to scrutiny and, yes, even abuse.

In my mind, ideas are as capable of earning respect as individuals are. Respect should always be earned.

What do you think?

@Molly Some people find it difficult to not mock absurd beliefs. There is a distinction between mocking a belief and mocking the person with the beliefs. Mr. Shermer was taking a stab at the underwear, you simply happen to subscribe to that belief.

–Sacred garments and the truth of the church are extremely not plausible and do not***

@Molly The bottom line is hate, debunk and fight the beliefs but love the believer. BTW Keep up the good work.

I love reading you. It’s a nice source of learning new words and grammar. (I’m not an English native speaker)
I love the way of your responses to those who misunderstand the points you share.

@ “Molly,” I just read this and I know I’m late in the game, but from someone who’s a big Molly- fan, here’s a couple of thoughts for you:

1) I’m already sure you know this, but I’ll reinforce it— if anyone spoke as a fool that night, it was our friend Gayle. She acted as if she thought she was a Mormon expert (obviously not), and so small- mindedly at that. Respect is always due to others, and a sense of humor is always helpful in life(although some are not so lucky as to be born with one);)
2. I really liked and identified with the last comment left by Paul and his thoughts on constructivism. I too believe that the constitution is too malleable of a document to try to derive a set of standards or ethics that will apply in the future.
The needs of the people are constantly changing and are even different at a single point in time whether you look at it from an expert’s view, a law-maker’s view, everyday Joe Shmo’s view, etc.

You, Miss Molly are always full of the best of intents for society. I know you’ll continue to find ways to apply it and you’ll see tangible, positive changes based on all of your hard work. Perhaps you can find a way to make this one work.
Bella does think you’re superwoman.