The Candidates
Featured Archives
Yesterday, Joshua Trevi?o at NRO published a piece about Romney and Mormonism essentially claiming that religion is not out of the realm of discourse in our public square. He presented his thesis in an appropriate way and he makes a good case.
My only response to Joshua is this: “get to it already!”
Between Hugh Hewitt, Jim Geraghty and others… tomes have been written about whether or not Mormonism should be part of the Romney debate. So, six months into the presidential race I ask two questions:
July 20th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I personally think half of our pols feign religious belief to get elected. I think anyone who takes any religion seriously should be disqualified on the basis of being delusional. (Paging Senator Brownback…)
July 20th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
There is nothing in Mormonism that is more bizarre than the idea that a priest can imbue a wafer with Christ’s essence (and that we should then eat it!) or that God impregnated Mary’s mother with Mary so that Mary would be born without sin so that he could then impregnate Mary herself. So the answer is, unless the Mormon plans on writing high school curricula or some such, no.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
TLGuy, obviously not a fan of Article 6…
July 20th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I dunno Sean, that all seems like common sense to me.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Murphy today wins the prize for utterly and completely distorting the meaning of what a person said.
But this is the common mindset of today’s statists: they just naturally assume that if a person dislikes something, they want the government to ban it.
I know it’s the natural mindset of so-cons, but please relax, murphy: I do not want the government to ban religious people from taking high office.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
If Mormonism or any religion is going to be placed on the altar of public discourse, then let’s go down the line and ask each candidate if they think Romney is going to Heaven or Hell. That would be entertaining!
.
“Mr Thompson, as one who is activily courting the religious right, do you think that Romney, who professes a belief in Christ, lives a christian life yet remains a Mormon, is going to Hell?”
How would you like that a debate…I wouldn’t…but it would be fun!
P.S. Sean, where are you getting your info? I don’t think Mormons do the wafer thing and what is this impregnating Mary’s mother nonsense. Does she have a name? It sounds like you’re referring to the Catholic religion. Oh sorry Rudy.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Justin, I just do not understand the question.
The qualifications for serving as POTUS are few and set out in the Constitution. What matters is how people cast their vote. It is a matter of being disqualified, it is a matter of some people, whatever their reasoning, deciding that their conscious does not allow them to vote for a candidate or commands them to vote against a candidate.
The question for Romney is this: given there is likely some amount of built-in prejudice in the electorate, how does he minimize the effects on his effort to gain the nomination and ultimately the office? We would be far better off discussing campaign strategies and tactics for victory in the face of prejudice, which for the sake of discussion I am willing to stipulate exists (although in what proportion I cannot say).
July 20th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Every religion has what seems bizarre to others. We all hold our faith dear (or freedom to choose no faith, dear). Catholics were very unpopular when Kennedy ran and won. Now they’re accepted and no one blinks twice. Unfamiliarity and myths/twists on other’s religions become urban legends that superficial people get off on. There is nothing about Romney nor his track record as governor that suggests he ever pushes his religion on anyone.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Oops typo… the third sentence of the first full para should being “It is NOT a matter”
July 20th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Jack (#6),
You’re correct, I think the doctrines Sean named were beliefs of other religions. It’s a useful example of why evaluation of doctrinal “rationality” is not a good standard to set for our politicians.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
TLGuy,
Forgive the one-liner.
But thank you for your #1. It’s an excellent example of the arrogance of some secularists in declaring religious devotion as an indicator of mental problems.
People of faith should take note. This liberal/secularist line of attack used on Romney in this election, if successful, will be generalized as a precident against future aspiring politicians of all religious stripes.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
without getting into a debate about faith (though I am a Catholic), I think those who bring up Mormonism as a negative can be separated into two groups:
1) Bigots.
2) Die-hard Anti-Romney people who will do anything and say anything to ensure that America does not elect the only high-polling qualified Conservative in the race. Some of the attacks come from Democrats, who fear Romney’s skill and ability, others from Romney opponents (i.e. McCain)
July 20th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I don’t think it’s a matter of doctrine. It’s a matter of how you feel about the religion, how comfortable you are with it, especially as having a President grants it instant press and scrutiny.
I know a heck of a lot Jewish groups have no love for Mormons, especially with them baptizing dead holocaust victims and other dead Jews, that Schumer and others have spoken with Hatch and Bennet about it, the Mormon leaders said itw ould stop and that it still goes on.
I know a lot of evangelicals and others think it’s a cult and have a real prblem with its theology
I know that once the press starts investigating the historical treatment of blacks by the Mormons, especially up to around 1978 or so and starts putting that on the front page and on the TV news every day, especially given the GOPs history and relationship with black voters, and even moreso if Obama wins or is on the ticket or given how blacks love the Clintons, there’s going to be many who would regret a Romney nominee.
The polygamy and other fringe sects turns a lot of people off.
The fact is that in this country certain religions make people uncomfortable and pose problems for people. If someone was running who was a scientologist, or a wiccan, or a hindu, or a muslim, or an orthodox jew, they’d have problems, just as Romney will. Protestatism and Catholocism have become mainstream to a large degree, the others haven;t.
It’s one thing for mormons to get elected from NV or UT where no one really cares, but when national scrutiny starts getting paod to some of the above and more, it will be an issuem and it will only be adistraction in an election where victory will be the only thing that matters.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Back in February, in responding to a bigoted heckler, Romney said “we NEED to have a person of faith lead the country.”
I would like to know how Mitt reconciles that belief with Article 6 of the US Constitution that declares “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust.”
July 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Romney’s holyness should not be the issue. His hollowness should.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Aron,
Asked and answered.
http://race42008.com/2007/02/17/romney-takes-on-heckler-in-florida/#comment-96000
July 20th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Jim,
Joe Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew and it was a non-issue in 2000 as Gore’s running mate, and was never a factor in why he didn’t win the Democratic nomination in 2004.
I agree with you that we’ve yet to see the media attack the Mormon church’s not-too-distant past. It is true that black were barred from holding the priesthood until June 1978.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
#13 So the best reason not to vote for a Mormon is NOT at all policy based, but it may make a Mormon or Mormons look good.
Where can I throw up?
July 20th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Murphy writes re. TLG,
“But thank you for your #1. It’s an excellent example of the arrogance of some secularists in declaring religious devotion as an indicator of mental problems.”
I would like to make a plea for the appropriate use of words – specifically “secularist”.
The attitude that TLG exhibited in #1, and that Murphy criticizes, is an attitude rooted in athiesm, not secularism.
There is a huge difference, even though many people in political discourse are fuzzing the distinction, either purposfully, or as a reflection of their own fuzzy thinking.
Atheism is a position on whether there is or is not a god.
Secularism is position that the government should occupy itself with the practical, real-world civil affairs of a society and leave religious issues alone. It is a political philosphy, not a personal / theological position.
You can be a thoroughly religious believer and also believe in strict church/state separation – i.e. that the government is and should always be a secular institution. This country was founded by religious secularists – people who were, to varying degrees, religious, but who all believed that the government should stay our of religous matters.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Tano is right — it isn’t rooted in secularism, which is the sort of thing that the Founders envisioned. Secularism is the absence of religious influence in a society. Atheism is the denial of a god or gods, and typically, disdaining religion.
Also, for post 11 — It’s kind of cute how religionists think that Christianity is under attack in this country. As Sam Harris has pointed out: there are Congressmen who are gay, who are Muslim, and who are black, women — sometimes a combination of them. But no one has ever been elected as an atheist. Americans hate atheists and love their religion and traditions.
There’s this bizarre complex where Christians want to be persecuted or something. I don’t get it.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Jack — I was referring to Catholicism in my post. That was my point. The feast of the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s mother’s impregnation, not Mary’s. And I believe Mary’s mother was named Anna.
Aron — There’s a difference between state and private action. I can say “we should elect a Rastafarian” all I want, but we can’t make that a legal requirement of holding office.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
TLG — I believe Pete Stark is an avowed atheist. I don’t think he’ll have a problem getting re-elected.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Aron, a non-issue?
i cerainly don’t think it helped him. And he was only VP which is mostly irrleevant anyway. If you thik an orthodiox jew would have any chance of being nominated or elected as President, you’re really naive or uniformed or both when it comes to US politics.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
murphy, what on Earth..? #11?
Would a line like #1 honestly, do you think, go over well with the public? “If successful”? Yeah, maybe in Sweden. We’re living in the only religious Western country there is. If atheists actually got enough attention to go after Romney like that — what a waste of time! — there would be so much backlash…against the atheists, not against Romney. Ninety percent of Americans believe in a god. Yeah, a line like mine would really go over well.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Pete Stark only very recently ‘came out’ as an atheist. I had him in mind when I wrote “has yet to be elected.” He may not have made it through the primaries if people had known that, but who knows? He should win re-election, but only because he has established himself already.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Tano & TLGuy,
Thanks for the illuminating words on athiesm vs secularism.
Nevertheless, the attack which TLGuy makes on politicians of faith is one I’ve seen from secularists and athiests alike.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
And regarding what a few have brought up about mormonism & racial equality…
The mormons have historically been ahead of the times in advocating full civic equality for blacks. It was their abolitionist stance that helped earn them hatred in the 19th century. The doctrinal relevance of church authority and african descent is a separate issue.
And if (or when) we see the attacks on previous mormon practices w/r/t africans holding priesthood, it will really give Romney a nice opportunity to expound on his personal beliefs, his family’s personal beliefs, and his practices in public office and private industry. Romney is simply unimpeachable on every single one of these criteria, all of which matter far more than last generation’s church practices.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Atheists are generally by default secular, murphy. A secularist who is not an atheist would not say what I did in #1.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I’d also note that thus far, not a single person has addressed Justin’s original question about mormon theology disqualifying Romney from office.
TLGuy is the one exception. As intollerant and arrogant as his post #1 is, his belief that ALL religious people should be disqualified is the only answer to Justin’s question which is self-consistent.
Other than that, it seems to be that the only religious complaint is that Romney will make mormons look good.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
What’s worse? A candidate who actually lives his faith or a candidate who is agnostic but is seen on camera in church with bible in hand particularly during campaign season.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I don’t have a problem with religious belief unless it makes you intolerant or fanatical, like in #1.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
TLG:
With respect to your #1. I agree with your first sentence regarding some polls grabbing the bible for election season.
However, Murphy is totally right regarding your arrogance with the 2nd sentence:
“I think anyone who takes any religion seriously should be disqualified on the basis of being delusional.”
If we held to that standard a few hundred years ago, the founding fathers could not have been founding fathers due to their faith. Once in a while you come up with a good thought, only to totally screw it up with the very next sentence.
Thanks for at least answering the question honestly.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
cwpete: The person living his faith. The agnostic is taking an irrelevant issue into his own hands so it doesn’t become one, so his policies are more focused on. The religious man wants to distract people from that by getting people to admire his delusion, getting praise heaped upon him as a “person of faith.” President Bush got a lot of free passes from his base because he was a ‘man of faith and conviction.’ I’m not one for a liar, but if one is being misleading to mislead someone on something completely irrelevant — nothing to do with issues, nothing to do with the law — then I don’t think it’s as big of a deal as putting up smoke and mirrors to avoid having to answer the big questions.
murphy: I am indeed intolerant of irrationality, but I don’t think it’s anymore arrogant than claiming that you know the universal moral code of the universe and adhering to a religion that claims that anyone who doesn’t follow what you do will receive an eternity of torture and fire while your soul ships off to paradise.
I refuse to be “tolerant” of utter irrationality. I’m a fanatic for reason and intolerant of its opponents. Any other pejoratives I can embrace, Henry Heavner?
July 20th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
“I think anyone who takes any religion seriously should be disqualified on the basis of being delusional.”
..this is exactly what the prevailing secular / progressive thought it towards all religion. Few of them are honest enough to admit this.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
OK, that’s it! I can’t sit on my hands any more. Murphy…..of course Romney’s religion should not disqualify him from being President!! People are just using it because they don’t like him. It’s easy to attack a Mormon. So when all they’ve got is his “dog” to whine about, they just go after his religion.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
32 — The religiosity of many of our Founding Fathers seems to have been seriously exaggerated, and for their time, they were extraordinarily secular and freethinking, for the most part. But don’t be silly — I don’t really mean that anyone who believes in a god is incapable of holding high office and performing it well. What I mean is that I would never actively campaign for someone who strongly embraces religious faith and tries to push it on the citizenry as his main cause; ie, Senator Brownback.
I notice that the only reaction is to call me lots of names. I have yet to get a good debate going on R408 about the existence of gods, try as I might.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
34 — It has nothing to do with “progressivism” and, as Tano and I explained, is a completely separate issue from secularism. It is all about atheism. You can be an atheist and a “faith-in-the-public-square” kind of guy if you think religion does more good than harm. You can be a Christian and a secularist. Progressive does not mean secular does not mean atheist.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
No matter what any of you want to say or spin, it is the 800 lb gorilla under the table and people will not admit openly unless they know you that it is a factor and a negative one at that.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Keep back tracking there TLG. Just admit you showed intolerance towards all people of any faith and we can move on.
Nice try at downplaying the religiosity of our founding fathers. How convenient! I do appreciate your honesty with your comments in #1. But you are beginning to look ridiculous with all the back peddling.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I do show intolerance toward all people of any faith.
But the levels certainly vary.
There’s no back peddling occurring. I don’t know what you’re talking about! The key there was “anyone who takes religion seriously” in post 1. I should have elaborated.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
“Progressive does not mean secular does not mean atheist.”
Sure, I got all that yeah.. Just show me an atheist that is also not secular & progressive, then I’ll show someone who is not telling the truth.
You and Tano make it like atheists are mostly not secular and not progressive. Man, I would love to meet such a person – if such a person ever existed.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
cwpete — I’m an atheist. I’m not a “progressive.” Somehow I don’t think I’d fit in well with the DailyKos crowd when I tell them I’d like to abolish Social Security and Medicare and start defending the oil companies.
No, most atheists are secular and liberal, though.
Most secularists, though, are NOT atheists.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
“No, most atheists are secular and liberal, though.”
That was my entire point. There is absolutely no value left carrying on this conversation any longer.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Yes there is, because you said that any atheist who says he not both secular and liberal is a liar. I am a secular atheist, but not a liberal. What value is there in declaring my factual statement of no value while you go back into your fantasy world where atheists are all bogeymen? Look at me, willing to engage you for as long as you would like on the topic, while you walk away.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
TLG for goodness sakes! You are very liberal socially! By your own account you’ve admitted so from our many other debates.
“I am a secular atheist, but not a liberal.”
You many not view yourself socially liberal as a supporter of abortion rights, being pro-pornography, and homosexual marriages. But I certainly do consider that very socially liberal.
Sheesh..
Like I said, There is absolutely no value left carrying on this conversation any longer.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Oh, did you mean in regards to social issues?
Yes, I’m a radical leftist in regards to social issues.
You forgot about how I want to legalize all drugs, gambling, prostitution, and polygamy.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
In general, a “secular-progressive/SP” as Bill O’Reilly coined it, is not just about the social issues, but also about extra regulation of the economy and being weaker on the War on Terror.
I mean, sheesh, you won’t find anyone more radically conservative on economics. And I’m with the neo-cons on foreign policy. I would hardly fit in with the kinds of atheists that lunatic Congressman Keith Ellison was addressing when he compared George Bush to Hitler.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
If religion is going to be an issue, shouldn’t we first disqualify all the candidates who have committed adultery?
July 20th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
What does a person’s religion mean, as far as public life if they don’t have any values?
July 20th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
#33, you have your doctrine wrong of the “Mormon” church, take it from a real Mormon. The only individuals who suffer for eternity know that the Church is correct and fight against it to help Satan out. You need to learn about the 3 degrees of glory and outer-darkness, both are mentioned in the Bible, by the way. Realize that the true mormon doctrine is this: The repentant are blessed and the wicked are punished, and one day everyone, even in China, will hear about Jesus Christ and have the opportunity to accept his atonement for our sins.
So, if any of you are confused about the “mormon” church (I prefer its real name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints), think of critisizm of this particular church this way: If it doesn’t make sense, it is not being described correctly or in its proper context. Tell me a doctrine you disagree with, and I will give you Bible passages that explain it in the true Christian light-the Bible is the Christian light. The Bible is the source of truth for most of America, snap-judgements off of partial details are not.
July 20th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
TLG, would you really not vote for someone simply because they are religious (I know you support Rudy, but he is probably a closet atheist anyway)? I mean, I agree that in a perfect world atheists would be elected all the time, but come on.
July 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Here are some paraphrased complaints I’ve heard from a minority of social conservatives:
1. For the reasons Sean alluded to in #2 and I mentioned in #11, this line of reasoning is both flawed and potentially harmful to all politicians of faith.
2. First, that’s against mormon church policy. Second, there’s no evidence of Romney ever using his leadership positions in private industry or government to advance church policy. Third, we have what Romney says on the matter: “America has a political religion and that people who are elected to office subscribe to this political religion, which is to place the oath of office, an oath to abide by a nation of laws and the Constitution, above all others. And there’s no question that as I take the oath of office as governor, and have, that I make that my primary responsibility.”
3. Well, it probably will improve public perception, considering that current public perception is often that mormons have horns and 4 wives hidden in the basement. But I doubt any sincere Christian would want to cling to lies or misinformation. As for increasing mormon conversions, there’s no evidence of this happening during Romney’s term in MA government.
July 20th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Regarding Sean’s (#2) comments, You demonstrate both ignorance and arrogance with respect to your understanding of the Holy Eucharist. Theologically speaking, you show you’re not capable of addressing the Blessed Mother and her Immaculate Conception.
Maybe you should stick to things you do, perhaps, know of and leave off the sacred.
July 20th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Scott, I don’t think Sean was pretending to accurately describe Catholic doctrines, but do you think “Mormon†doctrines are described any more fairly and accurately?
July 20th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Why has religious tenants been a non-issue for 230 years and all of the sudden it’s an important political debate? It’s a bunch of garbage.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
53. 54 basically hits the nail on the head. My point isn’t to set off a debate on the finer points of transubstantiation versus consubstantiation/sacramental union; just to point out that to an outsider, the whole thing doesn’t look much stranger than many of the beliefs unique to Mormonism.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
bjalder, Mormon theology is not very well communicated at all, in my opinion. For instance, rarely does one hear that their belief is such that, they themselves, will become gods in the afterlife. Having said that, however, I’m not in the camp that would rule Mr. Romney out based on his religion.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
bjalder,
It was a substantially important issue for much of the late 19th/early 20th century. My selection of Catholicism for my hypothetical religion wasn’t accidental.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Scott, so you get offended when somebody maligns Catholic beliefs then take a pot shot at Mormons beliefs? Hypocrite.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Sean, I don’t think catholic doctrines were ever on trial in politics. Wasn’t it more of a matter of people spouting off about having a President who is a member of a church with a foreign leader (the Pope). Not that I think that is a legitimate argument, just that doctrines to my knowledge have never been a legitimate part of the political debate.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Regarding number 3
3. Romney would improve public perception of his religion and indirectly encourage people to convert to mormonism.
Wouldn’t a better argument be that electing a President who is a known adulterer or philanderer will indirectly encourage that lifestyle? Which has a more negative effect on our country?
July 20th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
bjalder,
I would not consider what I had written a “pot shot”. I was simply addressing your question regarding Mormon teachings and whether or not they have been described fairly and/or accurately in the media.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Sean,
Why would the belief that one can become like unto God preclude a Mormon from being President? What traits of God do you think a President should not be trying to emulate?
Let’s see. God is all-wise and all-knowing. Do you believe a President should be foolish and ignorant?
God is all-powerful and makes wise use of that power. Do you believe a President should be arbitrary in the use of the vast power he has at his command?
God is all-loving. Do you believe a President should be consumed with hatred?
God is a creator, a builder, an organizer. Do you believe a President should be a destroyer and a disruptor?
Most Christians believe that once they’ve made it to heaven, they can just sit on their laurels, kick back, play some harp, sing some hymns of praise, and generally take it easy for eternity. Mormons believe that when you get to heaven, you are put to work. You rest from your earthly cares, but you are given a whole new set of challenges to deal with. Which trait would you prefer to see in a newly elected President — arriving and taking it easy, or arriving and rolling up his sleeves?
So why would the doctrine that one can become a God disqualify a Mormon from being President?
July 20th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Mark,
Good insight, I like the analogy.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Sean,
Re:2.56. I think your choice of the word bizarre referring to our Lord’s gift of Himself to us was a poor one with a pejorative connotation.
I do agree with your point that anything miraculous.. to a non-believer is looked at equally, with bewilderment or in some cases even disdain.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Well Sean, of course you wouldn’t call it a “pot shotâ€, but bringing up an unpopular “Mormon†belief entirely out of context of the overall Mormon set of beliefs is no better of a characterization of their beliefs than the original statement about Catholic beliefs you seemed to be criticizing.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
“I don’t think catholic doctrines were ever on trial in politics. Wasn’t it more of a matter of people spouting off about having a President who is a member of a church with a foreign leader (the Pope).”
My sense of history on this issue, informed by my gauge of the former and, in some circles, present beliefs of many theologically conservative Protestants is that Catholics were suspect in 1928 and 1960 due to the notion that they weren’t “real Christians.” Of course, Catholic/Protestant disputes are nothing new, nor are they entirely doctrinal, nor are they distinctly American.
For a quite entertaining read that represents the culmination of such attitudes in modern-day America, I recommend the Chick Tract on Catholicism. It is misinformed to the point of hilarity, and it involves a scenario where Roman Catholicism was somehow the product of a semi-mythical Middle Eastern queen. I kid you not.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
bjadler,
Actually, I think you meant to refer to me with regard to the so-called “pot shot”. Again, in having responded to your very own question about whether or not Mormon teaching has been decribed fairly and/or accurately I pointed to a key tenant of the teaching. What happens at the end of it all. You don’t think that’s relevant but rather out of context of their overall beliefs?
My point was that I don’t believe the media has given ample discussion to Mormon doctrine. I used that “unpopular” teaching as an example because it has an effect on some Christian voters..protestants particularly. And I would guess 90 percent of the public does not know that fact. Catholics have unpopular teachings as well…purgatory,redemptive suffering for example. We should not be afraid to talk about these things and they do have an effect whether we like it or not.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Phil M — 51 — I don’t think I would campaign for one. But if the choice were, say, Obama or Tom Coburn, I’d vote for Tom Coburn, of course. The social issues don’t matter to me much, but I would refuse to passionately get behind a social conservative.
Here, incidentally, is a post that really sums up the laughable aspects of religion for me:
“The only individuals who suffer for eternity know that the Church is correct and fight against it to help Satan out. You need to learn about the 3 degrees of glory and outer-darkness, both are mentioned in the Bible, by the way. Realize that the true mormon doctrine is this: The repentant are blessed and the wicked are punished, and one day everyone, even in China, will hear about Jesus Christ and have the opportunity to accept his atonement for our sins.”
How can anyone seriously believe that?!
July 20th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
63 is just plain silly.
“God is all-wise and all-knowing. Do you believe a President should be foolish and ignorant?”
So the implication is that atheists don’t want to have an intelligent, rational President, and religionists do. Yeah, that’s really what we atheists are all about: foolishness and ignorance. You don’t need to believe in a magical deity to be intelligent and rational. (And he wasn’t very all-wise when he created the homosexual, now was he, Christians?)
“God is all-powerful and makes wise use of that power. Do you believe a President should be arbitrary in the use of the vast power he has at his command?”
This doesn’t make any sense. Arbitrary in the use of power? What? As opposed to — ?
“God is all-loving. Do you believe a President should be consumed with hatred?”
God was so all-loving that he once destroyed the Earth, killed innocent children, destroyed towns when he was angry, and couldn’t think of a better way to save humanity than by slaughtering his son like some kind of sadist. And that’s just Christianity.
“God is a creator, a builder, an organizer. Do you believe a President should be a destroyer and a disruptor?”
Like I said: the God of Abraham has a bit of a tendency to destroy things — including babies — not fetuses, but babies! — when he gets angry. Yeah, let’s elect a President who destroys the world when he gets angry (but as long as he gives us a nice rainbow afterwards, we’ll accept his apology. Except so-cons, who will accuse him of trying to curry favor with gays).
“Most Christians believe that once they’ve made it to heaven, they can just sit on their laurels, kick back, play some harp, sing some hymns of praise, and generally take it easy for eternity. Mormons believe that when you get to heaven, you are put to work. You rest from your earthly cares, but you are given a whole new set of challenges to deal with. Which trait would you prefer to see in a newly elected President — arriving and taking it easy, or arriving and rolling up his sleeves?”
Most atheists believe that some evidence for this place would be nice.
“So why would the doctrine that one can become a God disqualify a Mormon from being President?”
You basically gave me a Sunday School theology here. If you’d care to read the Bible or even pore over the Internet for some unsavory quotes from it, it’s filled with destruction, contempt, and hatred mixed in with all of the little goodies about being nice to people. The same people who are so gung-ho about the 10 Commandments aren’t so keen on following the laws of Deuteronomy, which include stoning rebellious teenagers in the public square.
July 21st, 2007 at 9:56 am
Look, if you want proof that God exists, I can’t give it to you, thats why we call it faith.
However, if you are looking for a rational arguement in favor of the existance of God, take a look:
Natural laws say that nothing creates itself, that is, exery thing comes from some other thing. Even if man came from apes, and apes from tiny one-cellular organisms, that still does not solve the question of the ultimate origin. Since nothing bound by natural laws just “becomes”, there is only one logical explaination of the “original source”: A supreme being who is not bound by the laws of nature.
July 21st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Alright, and so where did he come from? Who created him?
July 21st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Great question TLG. I’m not sure I have an answer that would satisfy you but I’ll give my “Sunday school” answer. BTW, I am a Mormon. Mormons do believe that
1) “As Man is, God once was. As God is, Man may become”. — This belief is not one of the churches 13 Articles of Faith, but this quotation is from a Mormon Prophet, Lorenzo Snow. See church articles 5, 7, and 9 for an understanding of why we believe in modern prophets.
2) “All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny.” See church family proclamation”.
3) If 1) and 2), then logic could imply God was created by His heavenly parents and so on…
4) Some “Mormon” words about eternity and existence. Please read this link and this link. The way I understand the “Mormon” concept of intelligence referred to in these scriptures in the state of existence before becoming spirit children of heavenly parents. That is, before we were born of spiritual parents, we existed as a thought.
5) #71 referred to faith — these “Mormon” beliefs are taken on faith as well but from a logical standpoint, I believe they are very beautiful. Taken on faith, death is not the end, nor was birth the beginning. Maybe because that time span is what we experience in life, it is hard for us to understand the concept of eternity.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Scripture links were bad, here goes another try. Please read this link and this link.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Last try. Please read this link, verses 18-19, 21-22 and this link, verses 29-30, 36.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Its wierd to may how mormons are getting a hard time by a portion fo the republican party. the state who voted bush with teh highest percentage was utah last time around. it is redder than red. mormons are overwhelmingly conservative and anxious to volunteer.
has anybody ever done the gop gotv? i did it in fall 06. almost every princict had a whole van set aside only for byu students. they get out and help the republican party in droves. No beef with the mormons from a potlical standpoint from me. the mormons i know are great and very impressive people and for the most part very conservative and patriotic people.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:32 am
“Natural laws say that nothing creates itself, that is, exery thing comes from some other thing. Even if man came from apes, and apes from tiny one-cellular organisms, that still does not solve the question of the ultimate origin. Since nothing bound by natural laws just “becomesâ€, there is only one logical explaination of the “original sourceâ€: A supreme being who is not bound by the laws of nature.”
Here’s what I’m going to go with:
An exceedingly rare, but naturally occurring, chemical reaction between complex amino acids that was indeed possible and decisively did happen 4.5 billion years ago under the precise conditions of the pre-biotic Earth.
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:04 am
73 describes everything that’s wrong with religion to me: Well, I don’t have an answer, so I’ll just chalk it up to faith (dictionary definition: belief without evidence) and move on! No logical explanation required! Better to feel comfortable thinking I’ll live forever.
I need a reason to believe these things. I can’t just accept things on “faith.” Maybe that’s good enough for you, but not for a cold, heartless rational like me.
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 pm
TLG,
The reason I believe in these things, most importantly that I am a child of God, is because I have felt the presence of God from time to time in my life. The feelings it gives me are peace and joy and a warm feeling throughout my body. Have you ever prayed? Have you ever felt an answer to your prayers? I have. Praying takes faith, but answers do come, usually in the form of thoughts and sometimes people and circumstances, but most specially when the presence of God is felt through His Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost. This is evidence to me of God’s love for me and of His existence. It isn’t wishful thinking. It is in this spirit to spirit communication that I felt loved and feel that I have a purpose on this earth.
Belief and Faith are different. A belief can be in anything, faith is a belief is something that is true but can’t be seen. Faith also requires action. A belief is just a thought. Feeding faith requires prayer, study, and trying to live like God would have us live. It won’t be in vain, and if we ask, our prayers will be answered.
I probably already crossed the line between politics and religion so I won’t post anymore on such a personal subject, but I just wanted you to know that I know that God lives, that He is the great creator of this Universe, and that we are His children sent to this earth for a purpose: to have joy and to develop faith.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 am
“If you don’t believe in God, you’ll believe anything.” -Dostoyevsky
Darwin believed in God.
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:04 am
[...] This guy is begging for trouble. There is no faith, including my own, where I would have a problem conjuring up a problematic doctrine if I wanted to. [...]