I mean, I realize I've come full circle, because before someone else was arguing that the mormon church didn't mean to offend anyone, therefore it's not disrespectful and I argued that intent doesn't erase effect. And now the argument has come all the way around the other way and people are saying that it really has no effect, therefore it doesn't matter, but it's also true the other way round. Effect (or lack thereof) doesn't erase intent either. And the intention here may not have been to deliberately cause offense, but it is still motivated by a lack of respect.

I also refute the idea that this has no real effect. Sure it doesn't actually affect Anne Frank herself, but that doesn't mean this sort of thing has no impact at all. People need to know this kind of arrogance and callous disregard for other people's right to self determination and identity is important, and that not respecting that properly isn't socially acceptable.

Is it? I'm honestly having trouble seeing it as a lack of respect. It looks to me like they have very misguided views on the afterlife, but that given these views that they earnestly believe they're doing the only thing that can be done to save Ms. Frank from the fires of hell. There are plenty of words I would use to criticize this - "insanity" is a good one - but "disrespectful" doesn't really seem right, here. They're not (from what I can tell) doing this in order to advance their own interests or make themselves look good, or at least that's not really the read I got from looking at this. I certainly don't read this as being anymore bigoted or prejudiced than standard religious views on the afterlife - and while there's certainly an argument that those are bigoted and prejudiced (and if that's the argument, then I'm not even necessarily certain I object, I'm more ambivalent on the matter because I don't really know where I stand on that), I would be hard-pressed to say these are anymore so bigoted or prejudiced.

Mafia... but imagine this: What if the Mormons are right? And when the time has come that you have kicked the bucket St Peter explains to you that you are about to be tortured in hell for eternity, but that due to a loop-hole in the rules, some mormons have postumously baptised you and if you accept you'll be reprieved and granted access to eternal salvation... IF that were true, would you not be glad that they postumously baptised you? Or would you still decline out of principle?

Simon, I the lack of respect comes of trying to appropriate a dead Jewish person's identity as part of one's own group. "Oh yes, but she was baptized a Mormon" kind of dilutes that person's historical identity in a way that really isn't true. That said, I absolutely agree that everybody has the right to try to convince others of their own version of the truth, so if a Mormon wants to witness to a Jew, or a Christian, or... anybody, that's permitted. Just like it is for atheists, evangelicals, rationalists, pragmatists, pagans, and pantheists.

Hmmmm...Actually PE I see where you're coming from. I find the idea that religious people have trouble understanding that Anne Frank's religious beliefs, as a Jew, were important to her. Any attempt to take that away from her (and offering her the opportunity to denounce it herself counts) fails to understand what her background, her upbringing, her faith and her experiences meant to her. But to be fair, I suppose compared with the threat of eternal damnation this seems like a fairly minor concern. To be honest it almost seems to me that some deeply religious people have realized some of the nastier implications of their beliefs and are trying to absolve themselves of feeling bad about them.

Spyman said: '... will continue to burn for eternity. Is that disrespectful?'

Mafia said: 'Ummm...I don't really know? I hadn't thought of that.
If it is, it's certainly not disrespectful on the same grounds. It doesn't challenge her right to determine her own identity.'
and
'...but it is still motivated by a lack of respect.'

Then it is fine to not respect other people's beliefs, in the sense that their actions in no way alter other people's ability to express their faith.

It's not like Anne Frank is now suddenly not going to be used/known as a Jewish folk hero of sorts. No practical effect on those who don't share the Mormon faith.

As for 'challeng[ing] her right to determine her own identity' - guess what, she's dead, her only identity is based on what people remember about her. There is very little challenge except in the minds of those Mormons who seem to want to save... It is not even akin to historical revisionism, because they're not saying she wasn't a Jew, they're saying [even] Jews deserve the chance to get into heaven.

What nice people, pretty good sign that they are welcoming of all faiths (or at least the faith of those crazy people who killed Jesus, a big improvement over 1940s Roman Catholic doctrine)

@Mujus, thanks for including my minority in your little list.. it's nice to get some recognition.

Wow, that post didn't come off as antisemitic at all.

Wow, that second quote you took from me is taken WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of context.

@'To be honest it almost seems to me that some deeply religious people have realized some of the nastier implications of their beliefs and are trying to absolve themselves of feeling bad about them.'

Yes, precisely, and why should we stop them from feeling bad about themselves when it doesn't hurt us??? A very similar arguement which allows tolerance of every other religious practice. (except that Richard Dawkins questions the bit where it 'doesn't hurt')

The "it" in the second quote orathaic takes from what I've written refers to posthumous baptism, not the belief that anyone not of your faith will burn in hell.

Because I don't think appropriating the names of the dead is fair game to avoid feeling bad about your religion.

Wait, i'm anti-semetic, well, apart from putting forward a point of view which i don't hold (ie trying to represent the Mormon view) I'm pretty sure that if you are Jewish then you reject the concept of Jesus of Nazareth as Christ; thus you are anti-Christian, at least by the same measure...

Any one religion dis-believes at least a portion of the teachings of every other religion.

'Because I don't think appropriating the names of the dead is fair game to avoid feeling bad about your religion.'

I don't like ad homine attacks, but i fear you've just made up a rule to justify your revulsion to the Mormons antics.

If you can define some harm done, and that it violates the 'doesn't hurt us' rule, then you don't need to declare this as '[not] fair game',

**also apologises if my quote is out of context, i didn't mean to misrepresent you.

I'm not Jewish or Christian. But antisemitism isn't the same thing as being opposed to tenets of the Jewish faith, and I'm willing to bet you know that by now.

"but i fear you've just made up a rule to justify your revulsion to the Mormons antics." - Ummm, well I mean, I haven't always lived my life by a code that specifically says "appropriating the names of the dead is fair game to avoid feeling bad about your religion." but that does fall under a larger umbrella of having respect for the memories of the dead.

errr "isn't fair game"

Oh never mind. I retract the charge of antisemitism. I misread your post.

Also, "more tolerant than the catholic church in the 1940's" - talk about damning by faint praise.

''To be honest it almost seems to me that some deeply religious people have realized some of the nastier implications of their beliefs and are trying to absolve themselves of feeling bad about them.''
It has been my experience here, as elsewhere that the vast majority of people of differing religious beliefs are able to discuss matters in a calm and reasonable manner, go on to find many areas of agreement and then perhaps agree to differ on others. By and large it is the not the believers who scream and stamp their feet proclaiming in a manner akin to spoilt children ''you are all so foolishly wrong, misguided and stupid''. Atheism now seems to have moved on from being defined as a lack of belief to a default position of attacking religion in general and/or other people's beliefs in particular.

Indeed, calm & reasonable. That's why we have Evangelicals openly calling Mormonism a "cult". That's why we have Catholics like Gingrich & Santorum openly questioning the religious beliefs of Obama (indeed, in today's climate, a Republican calling someone a 'Muslim' is an insult, that's how much respect they have). That's why we have communities all across America protesting any effort to build a mosque anywhere, or even a Muslim community center. That's why we have European political parties blaming all of their ills on Muslim immigrants. That's why we have Muslim political parties openly proclaiming their intent to destroy the religious minority rights of people in Libya, Syria and elsewhere. That's why ever since the secular leadership of Egypt and Iraq fell from power, religious minorities have been cleansed from their homes.

Yes, indeed, you religious are just so respectful of their differences. That is why you scream secular conspiracy when any school or scientific institution doesn't confirm your neanderthal worldviews. That's why we have to allow you people to block those who don't even subscribe to your superstitious hooey from getting access to medical care. And that's why you personally can't go a week without attacking some scientist or atheist or accusing somebody of having ulterior motives, because you're oh so fucking respectful of people who disagree with you.

You know, it seems to me that in order for this action to be offensive to Ms. Frank's right to maintain her own identity, we must accept as a given that Ms. Frank, being dead, resides in some sort of Afterlife in which she still cares about what's happening on Earth. As a religious man myself, I have no problem with that assumption, but it seems strange to me that the people arguing that this is outrageous are arguing that only Ms. Frank's memory is important-- and not her current status in the afterlife.

Strikes me as contradictory. If there's no afterlife, the LDS can have no effect upon her-- and certainly, no one is going to forget that she lived and died as a Jew-- and if there is an afterlife, the Mormons have done nothing more than prayed for her well-being to the same god which both faiths claim to worship.

The only person now qualified to say whether or not Ms. Frank took them up on their offer is Ms. Frank herself-- and unless one of us is a necromancer, we are all going to have to wait and ask her in person.

Her right to choose her own religious faith is still entirely intact.

Frank, I know I used it wrong and never claimed to know either hebrew or yiddush unfortunately

"Mormons just think she should be, and are making a big show of offering her a chance to convert"

No actually the curch has policies against this and are reprimanding the local church that did this

"Of course it's crazy... but some people think she is burning in hell as we speak. And will continue to burn for eternity. Is that disrespectful? "

Yes it certainly is, but it is what their religion teaches, as long as their religion is not being forced on anyone then I dont see why being disrespectful bothers you. If you dont agree, don't subscribe to their police. I just feel bad for people that want to change another faiths theology. Its one thing to petition against the catholic church declaring, for example, that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus which could lead to anti semetism and demanding that Jews be allowed into the Catholic version of heaven.

"the LDS can have no effect upon her-- and certainly, no one is going to forget that she lived and died as a Jew" - I'm pretty sure I've already argued against this point. Just as intent doesn't erase effect, effect (or lack thereof) doesn't erase intent either.

Mormonism is the vanguard of 'tolerance', witness their lifting the ban on black ministers in 1978. They're ahead of the times!

I'm sure Anne Frank would be delighted to know that this "honor" the LDS bestowed upon her was also given to Adolf Hitler.

For once, I have to agree with Putin:

"Mormonism is the vanguard of 'tolerance', witness their lifting the ban on black ministers in 1978. They're ahead of the times!"

Yeah...that's pretty troublesome...especially when the reason for their racism is heard...

"I'm sure Anne Frank would be delighted to know that this "honor" the LDS bestowed upon her was also given to Adolf Hitler."

Did I mention I really hate these people's practices?

But when there is neither effect (as was said, this will change nothing with regards to how the real world remembers her) not intent (they had no intention of causing harm) what then is left? I'm just playing devil's advocate here because it is none of the Mormon's business to do this, even if it is some little backwater sect in buttfuck nowhere.

I think it's just disrespectful to use a dead person to further one's ends.
The dead are dead, let them rest in peace.
Especially when the Mormon Church has baptised Anne Frank not once, but TEN TIMES in twenty-three years.
It would be like a salesman knocking at your door every day, saying "would you like to subscribe" when you have told him never to come back every time.