http://videosift.com/video/Lewis-Black-reads-a-new-ex-Mormons-rant

Oh, THIS IS A GOOD ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@SDGundamX

We can criticise religion generally - for it's falsehood, for it's stultifying effect on the mind, for the shadow the faithful cast over an enlightened world.

We can criticise religions individually - for the divine exhortations to genocide in each of the abrahamic canons, for the promise of infinite torture by a benevolent god in both christianity and islam, for their arbitrary or bigoted taboos, and particularly of the newer creeds - islam, mormonism, scientology - for what we know to be the bad character of their founders.

And, as you say, we can criticise the behaviours of individual believers, communities or sects - catholicism on condoms and the spread of aids, genital mutilation in africa (which you're quite right to point out has cultural roots that pre-date islam, though it would be disingenuous to claim religion has no reinforcing or propagating effect on that practice).

I wholly disagree that this last is the only or most meaningful critique to offer of religion. There are fundamental tenets of these ideologies on which all their denominations, however fractured, can be said to agree.

Allow these people their diversity, their specificity and their subtle variation of interpretation and you're in danger of chasing a thousand little fish at once, in a thousand different directions, while the religious school as a whole shifts, shimmers, dazzles and slips away. I prefer to play the dolphin pack: surrounding, corralling, squeezing and finally devouring the enemy entire.

Listening to that still makes me get sentimental and kinda emotional

My first intro to Skynyrd was in a movie theater when i was just a kid. I was there to see the movie Grease and they played the Lynyrd skynyrd short tribute as a trailer. It made a memorable impression, as at the end, it said that they died in a plane crash. https://youtu.be/IbfrL8uH0Z4

In seventh grade(private christian school) some kids convinced the school to let them play a christian 'Skynyrd' song (Freebird) at Wednesdays chapel we all had to intend on a weekly basis. They changed a few lyrics to make it god friendly then rocked a 15 minute guitar solo. It was hilarious and pretty awesome.

Just last week i went to see 'Book of Mormon" in San Francisco and after the show as we were filing out someone yelled FREEBIRD as if there was gonna be an encore. All us older people smiled.

The issue for you is not "change", but that society would "capitulate" for "such an insignificant demographic group" of "less than 4% of the population", correct?

You cited this Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/182837/estimated-780-000-americans-sex-marriages.aspx?utm_source=SAME_SEX_RELATIONS&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles) of how many Americans were in same sex marriages.

Another Gallup poll shows the historical trend of religious self-identification in America from 1948 to 2014: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

In 1948, the proportion of respondents who self-identify as either Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Jewish, is 95%. ~5% said "None" or didn't answer (less than 0.5% said "Other").

In following years, they tracked more detailed responses and grouped some as "Christian (nonspecific)" and Mormon, and changed the Roman Catholic grouping to just Catholic.

In 2014, those who specified a religion (which is everyone except those who said their religion was "None" or didn't answer) represented 80%.

The full statistics are in that link -- these two years are endpoints in the polls, but not outliers.

Thus, over 66 years Americans who identified as religious (not all of whom follow the Bible, but most do so I'll be generous to you) lost 15 percentage points. That's a rate of 0.227272 percentage points per year.

If Americans keep leaving religion behind at this same rate, in 2348 all religious people will represent less than 4% of the population.

Then we get to trample your rights, right Bob?

"Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Gays make up less then 4% of population. "

We are talking about letting two people marry each other, in what way exactly is this capitulation?

The gun fondling nutters in the NRA make up about 1% of the population. Personally, I think their obsession with guns is rather perverse and more than a little creepy. Why cant we just take away their right to bear arms? They are just 1%! why should they have the same rights as other people?

Mormons are like less than 4% too, Take away their freedom of religion! No need to give them the same rights as catholics?

We'll start with the "youtube comments are toxic".

We're in agreement. Even youtube agrees.

While it's unfortunate that the comment cream doesn't rise on youtube..

This still doesn't eliminate that fact that tons of valid criticism is being censored by Sark & plenty of other unscrupulous agenda-pushers.

It's a perfect opportunity to squash any dissent, under the guise of -

"there is no real debate here. only insults & threats. I had to disable comments to spare my audience the vitriol"

However, imagine if the youtuber was an outspoken Scientologist or Creationist..

Snowball's chance in hell you aren't viewing that as a deceitful tactic to avoid scrutiny.

"Everyone knows creationism is easily debunked/scientology is a cult. Clearly they've disabled comments because they want to squash dissent/valid arguments"

Rarely, if ever, would you think -

"Disabled comments? I get it. They probably just got too many death threats. Scientologists have feelings too yuh know"

Nonetheless, when the EXACT SAME scenario is put in front of you..

..with regard to topics that tug at your liberal, tree-huggy sympathies..

You lose all skepticism. Why is that?

Literally all it takes is a 30 second google search to discover the inconsistencies in Sarkeesian's statements & actions.

From the first article -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the words of Tumblr user robbiebaldwin:

“She says she wants to ‘create a dialogue’ or ‘force video games into open debate,’ except she turns off both comments and even ratings on her videos. Wanting to hear your own voice in an echo chamber is the total opposite of ‘open debate.’”

Leading the charge against Sarkeesian’s decision is Tumblr user amazingatheist, who posted a ten-minute video entitled "Who’s The Damsel Now?"

Arguing that Sarkeesian’s “censorship” of YouTube comments counteracts her message about strong women
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you seeing the larger picture now @newtboy @Babymech etc.?

This self-described - "critic of sexism in pop culture" - is espousing a set of ideas & strong statements..

Then completely cowering, juking, and being absolutely non-responsive when called on her shit.

She disabled the RATINGS for FSM's sake!
The neutral, objective, non-threatening, non-absuive RATINGS!

That's the way you stand strong for your cause, right!
By disallowing even your supporters from showing their approval!

And before you even mention that cancel lecture of hers.

WHAM!

BAM!

Straight from Utah State -

"Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event."

They were all "Please don't cancel. We love con-artists! We're Mormons, remember!"

*TooLong,Don'tGiveaFuck*

Anita Sarkeesian is a self-proclaimed pop-culture critic..

Who claims that she wants to 'create a dialogue' & 'force video games into open debate'..

She then proceeds to disallow any & all discourse or scrutiny of her work - positive or negative - going so far as to disable like & dislike ratings on her videos.

Oh and I forgot to add..

She conveniently forgot to disable the vitriol 'whining' on her Kickstarter page until AFTER those comments boosted her campaign to over $150,000 in donations.

[i'll search for the video while you whine about citing sources]

BUT AGAIN! THIS ISN"T JUST ABOUT HER!
It's the overall debacle & all the stupid articles surrounding it.

Tho first I have to slog thru this shitstorm because you're easily distracted by syntax & word choice.

Shit, this is pointless.

Oh well. Done for now.

Hey, the Mormons made something actually funny!

Well how 'bout that.

I've worked the back of the house (dish washer, prep cook, pantry cook, line cook), and the front of the house (bartender, server).

I never got tipped in the back of the house, but I worked harder and utilized more skills. I got paid hourly, and would therefore milk the clock as much as possible to help buy booze and pay the rent.

As a bartender, I've worked at night clubs, dive bars, martini bars, hotel bars, house parties and I was paid a decent hourly, which was essential for those slow and lonely Monday night shifts. But I made good money on the weekends. However, it usually takes time to work your way to those lucrative spots.

As a server, I get paid a little more than $2 an hour plus tips. But the tips are so impossible to calculate because of a myriad of factors -- how many servers are on, how many tables are reserved, how many parties, what's going on at the Arena, what's going on at the Lied, is it snowing, is it raining, is there a sporting event going on, are they splitting the bill, have they worked in the industry, are they from a country unfamiliar with tipping, was the food good, was the food cold, was the drink stiff, was the wine paired well, was the host pretty, was the bathroom out of paper towels, ad nausea -- that budgeting is impossible. I don't auto grat (gratuity of 18 percent of the bill for parties of seven or more) unless it's a sorority party, Mormons, or New Year's Eve, and that's only because I've been burned so badly by these groups.

What most diners don't realize is that it's really a matter of real estate -- and on a busy weekend night one server may be lucky to 'have' four to six tables with a variable of two and four seats. Dinner is generally served between the hours of 5-11. So, this gives the server a set number of data points for the evening (side note, so for the love God don't linger at a table if you're not ordering anything! When a server is forced to refill your water at $2 an hour, it's rude and disrespectful. That's what bars are for). In addition, most servers 'tip out' the host and bartender staff. On a weekend night, I typically tipped out 22 percent, and I never knew if I'd make $30 or $130.

So I know the business fairly well (I even studied hospitality in Vegas for a minute), and as a server I can make your experience remarkable. Ironically, the best tippers are younger college-era students working in the industry.

I think if anything is going to eliminate tipping in the service industry, it'll be some sort of computerized experiment where you sit at a table and punch in what you want. Till then, be conscientious and considerate when you wine and dine.

Absolutely they are, in my eyes, their beliefs demand it. They must 'exclude' themselves from following their own beliefs (which is ironic, since that's why they harass and kill the doctors) because something bothers them based on BS they've been told by others (like a blastocyst is a person). If one of the main tenants of your belief is 'treat others as you would have them treat you', yet you ignore that, and another is 'thou shall not kill', but you ignore that too, you can no longer stand on the tenants of your belief system to excuse or explain your action, you don't follow that belief system.
Again, I disagree. People may hold any insane notion they wish, so long as they don't ACT on it. The problem is that they ACT, not that they believe insanity. That they believe insanity is the REASON they act. It's kind of like saying the problem with thieves is not that they steal, but that they don't make enough money. But many, if not most thieves have money.

Many people hold bad ideologies without acting on them. In America, you are allowed, in fact guaranteed the right to believe any crazy thing you wish. It's only how you act on those beliefs we are interested in. For instance, I think what Mormons believe is completely obvious insane BS, but it seems to create a group of people that's well adjusted, happy, kind, and not angry or abusive (plural marriages and 'Profits' notwithstanding). For me, what's in your mind is your own, I only care about how you act in the real world.

I completely disagree with your last sentence. ONLY the action is relevant IMO.

Salt Lake City Mormons could have just let all the homeless stay in their huge church... would have saved the city even more money.

On a serious note, I was in Salt Lake City in 2012, and I didn't notice many homeless people downtown.

You are empirically incorrect. You are proposing an impossible scenario, that somehow 1.5bn world wide are perfectly aligned, have some say over the actions of all the other people simultaneously and ergo bear some responsibility for any actions committed under the broad umbrella of "Islam"...

http://enews.fergananews.com/articles/2698

To speak of “Islam” as a homogenous phenomenon is analogous to speaking of “Christianity” as a single whole that includes Catholics and Orthodox, Protestants and Copts, and countless other sects, including such marginal ones as the Mormons, the Scientologists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of course, we never do so, because we intuitively recognize that the label loses all meaning when forced on to such a diverse group. We seldom have such qualms, however, when it comes to Islam, even though the label “Islam” covers just as wide a spectrum of geographic, cultural, and sectarian diversity as the label “Christianity.” If anything, it is even more internally diverse than Christianity, which crystallized around an institutionalized Church from the very beginning. In Islam, such an institution never developed. There is no religious hierarchy and no single individual qualified to pass final judgment on questions of belief or practice. Within thirty years of the death of the Prophet, the Muslim community had split on matters of doctrine. Since then, there have been multiple and simultaneous sources of authority among Muslims. Authority is located not in church councils and such, but in individuals who derive their legitimacy from their learning, piety, lineage, and reputation among peers. This gives Islam a slightly anarchic quality: authoritative opinions (fatwa) of one expert or one group can be countered with equally authoritative opinions, derived from the same sources, of another group, or one set of practices devotional practices held dear by one group can be denounced as impermissible by another. In more extreme cases, such conflict of opinion can turn into a “war of fatwas,” fought out, in the modern age, in the press or in cyberspace. (If Islam were held in a more positive light in the West today, this diversity would be described as a “free market of ideas”!) To speak of Islam as a homogeneous entity ignores this fundamental dynamic of its tradition.

This pluralism extends to the most basic level of belief. The major sectarian divide in Islam, between Sunnis and Shi‘is, goes back to the very origins of Islam. The two doctrines evolved in parallel, and therefore it is incorrect to see in them an orthodox/heterodox divide. All Muslims share a number of key reference points (the oneness of God, loyalty to the Prophet and his progeny, the need to prepare for the Hereafter, to take a few examples), but they have been played upon in different ways by different sects and movements. Nor do the two sects exhaust the diversity, for they both have many branches and various theological and legal schools within them, while many modern ideological groups straddle the divide between the two sects.

Or
http://wasalaam.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/the-myth-of-homogeny-in-islam/

I could provide link after link, discuss Sunni vs Shia, or any one of the innumerable other sects (70+ iirc), discuss Islams war with itself throughout history etc, all demonstrating that you are wrong.

You are portraying (demonising actually) Islam in the same way the two morons in the video are, by making all Muslims responsible for any action committed by a Muslim. You talk about enlightenment, but your post reeks of bigotry, hardly the hallmark of an enlightened person, right?

Incidentally, the "popular" view of Islam is of a homogenous group of people, us vs them, a group to be afraid of, or to attack. The average person on the street (ie. plumb ignorant, much like yourself) would not be aware of just how complex it is, far more so than Christianity. It's exactly why the talking heads who got schooled kept trying to make out that Islam was homogenous, and were proved wrong...

But give it your best shot trying to shoot down the considered opinions of Phd's, scholars, philosophers etc if you want to continue to make a fool of yourself.

I think the plot for Snakes on a Plane was more believable. (There are actually way more snakes than Mormons in the world.)

Problems Mormons don't have.

Your video, Mormons Declare War on Masturbation, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 38 Badge!

its not so much the message. It's about the shitty analogies and their obsession with this stuff. And for lantern53 too. Here's the difference:

If you think masturbation or porn is fundamentally bad. I don't have a problem with that. I disagree that it's significant problem. Just like it's amusing how obsessed with homosexuals Lantern is, I find it very amusing how obsessed Mormons are with masturbation. and thanks to freedom of speech, I, and others are choosing to mock the way they are delivering that message in the way they compare masturbation/porn to a wounded combatant. In no way are any of us saying that Mormons should not be allowed to send that message.

If certain people DID have their way, they would enforce their religious standards on others. Oh wait, that's already happening.

One is mocking, one is legislation...big honkin difference. Religious freedom doesn't trump other peoples' freedom.