GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Kavon understandably wants to keep the jihad off of the front page, so I’ll call a truce with Jason (at least for the front page), but I just want to clear up a few things pertaining to my ideology, lest there be any misunderstanding on the part of our readers:
- I am not biased against Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, nor do I hold any special grudge against Mormonism. I was purely arguing from an electoral standpoint: when I say that now is not the time to be rolling the dice with a Mormon, that’s all that I mean. It’s not a veiled attack on Mormonism: as I tried to make pains to point out, I am an atheist and anti-theist, and thus oppose all religion. I have no reason to believe that Mormonism is any sillier than Catholicism or Islam. I simply was arguing that the American people — especially Evangelicals, who are already weary of John McCain — wouldn’t necessarily feel the same way as I do.
- I would like to make it crystal-clear that I am not opposed to Mitt Romney merely because he argued against gay marriage before Congress. I support many politicians that support the Federal Marriage Amendment, including the man I wrote a piece defending, two weeks ago, President Bush. As Matthew E. Miller pointed out, gay Republicans such as myself, almost by definition, put gay marriage on the backburner. I just wanted to clarify that if I can be called a single-issue voter for anything, it is the war against jihadism. (Gay marriage is inevitable; it’ll be here in 10-20 years, nationwide, probably through the courts.)
So again, here’s the real secret: there is no secret. I really do believe the nonsense that I post. Regular readers should know that I’m a rather blunt character. I would never hide my true reasoning behind my loathing of a politician. I have made it abundantly clear, for instance, that part of the reason that I considered Jerry Falwell (and today consider Dinesh D’Souza) a treacherous Islamofascist-appeaser was his partially blaming homosexuality for 9/11. No reason to hide behind anything.
So, to sum: If I disliked Romney solely for his opposition to gay marriage, I’d say so, but it should speak volumes to discerning readers that I support politicians that support the FMA, oppose politicians that support gay marriage, and state outright when I passionately dislike someone due to their stance on homosexuality.
- I have never once argued against monogamy. In fact, I have argued the opposite: that monogamy is a beautiful thing and that it’s one of many reasons that mainstream gay marriage proponents are pro-family: they admire the traditional family model and want to emulate it.
That’s (hopefully) the last I’ll have to post of this on the front page. I’d have ignored this, but for the fact that it misrepresents what I believe.
I have no problem with being ideologically hated for what I do believe, but please don’t attack me for what I don’t.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
So who cares Alex Knepper does not like Romney. Why don’t we all post reasons why we like or dislike people and pretend people really care.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
This post wasn’t about Romney. It was about me. I don’t want any readers having misconceptions about what I believe.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Bravo!
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I admire your effort for a truce. I think that this is the way it should be. Argue your points of view but realize that we are going to have to come together for the general election.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I disagree because I believe in the Heliocentric worldview. The earth revolves around the sun not around…
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Hah, don’t give me too much credit. I’m a confrontational person, myself, but Kavon didn’t want personal arguments cluttering the front page. (In fairness to me, though, I wasn’t the one that made a personal argument; I always kept it about Romney)
I just wanted to clear up false claims about my ideology. I didn’t want that left in the comments section, which wouldn’t be as widely-read.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
waiting for Jason to apologise to Alex for suggesting he is an ignorant fa…
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Alex:
Excuses such as “weirdness” or disagreeing with particular beliefs of that faith do not warrant the constant harping of Mormonism in the political sphere. Truly, there has to be some other motive. If it is not some sort of a religious bias, then what is it?
You state that “I have no reason to believe that Mormonism is any sillier than Catholicism or Islam.” Fine but with this in mind, you single out Mormonism as being weird when you did not single out other faiths at the same time. I think you are projecting your bias on the voting general electorate.
Romney’s Mormon faith should be about as relevant as the color of socks he wore on Saturday. When bloggers continually point to something so irrelevant like this, day after day, they can expect a strong response.
Religious specifics such as this should be taboo in the context of an election debate.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
You state that “I have no reason to believe that Mormonism is any sillier than Catholicism or Islam.” Fine but with this in mind, you single out Mormonism as being weird when you did not single out other faiths at the same time. I think you are projecting your bias on the voting general electorate.
Yes I did. Go back to the thread. I said that Islam is the most sexist religion in the world and implied that the Catholic Church has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. Want me to go off on tangents about Islam, Judaism, or Catholicism? I can. But if the topic is Mitt Romney, well, my options are rather limited, now aren’t they?
If you’re going to accuse me of lying, well…
You can believe what you want, I suppose, but come on, now.
Romney’s Mormon faith should be about as relevant as the color of socks he wore on Saturday.
Ludicrous. He says that it profoundly affects his life; surely that has some relevancy to the presidency.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:09 pm
“Yes I did. Go back to the thread.”
I was referring to your prior post, not this thread. You did single out Romney’s Mormonism as a case against him. Did you not?
I understand you are trying to make amends with this post. That’s fine, you should do that. I’m trying to help you understand how irrelevant these things should be in the proper context of an election.
If Romney’s faith is relevant as you state, then your lack of faith is also relevant. Are you OK with that? Are you fine with fellow atheist being fairly or unfairly attacked like this should they seek office?
I should think not…
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
“If you’re going to accuse me of lying, well…”
That’s a tough charge, I never said or implied any such thing. I’m seeking to understand, not inflame..
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
It annoys me how so-called conservatives tolerate various sorts of anti-religious bigotry. It is foundationally opposed to the principles of our nation.
The bigotry aimed at Muslims is particularly offensive. We have Muslims dying serving our nation. My cousin-in-law, Atif, served in Iraq and still gets hassled when he goes to Republican events with his wife… from so called broad minded secular folks.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Actually, Alex, what you said was insulting enough that I don’t have to hunt for other reasons to be offended. Calling all religions “silly” (as in, “no one is more silly than the rest”) reveals what you actually think of most of us. You are insulting the vast majority of Americans who believe that Christianity is quite true, quite relevant to their lives, and perhaps the greatest force for good in the world.
You want to pat yourself on the back because your condesencion is universal and not specific to LDS? “Don’t worry, as an atheist I’m superior not just to Mormons, but whatever brand of Christian or theist you may be.”
Nice.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:11 pm
If we are going to continue to have these discussions about Romney’s mormonism…I may just have to find myself another site. And that would be sad, because this is a great site.
I mean that from the standpoint of hearing from people bashing and supporting mormonism…if people didn’t bash it there wouldn’t be peopl defending it and we could get on with real politics.
I hope this is done now.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I say we should declare a sort of all Romney truce. I’ll even make it look formal:
Resolved: We, the anti-Romney faction of Race42008 do hereby propose a cease-fire with the forces favoring Romney unless a thread specifically addresses the former Governor of Massachusetts.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I was referring to your prior post, not this thread. You did single out Romney’s Mormonism as a case against him. Did you not? I understand you are trying to make amends with this post. That’s fine, you should do that. I’m trying to help you understand how irrelevant these things should be in the proper context of an election.
Of course I did. But it’s not irrelevant, since it is a factor in the votes of millions.
If Romney’s faith is relevant as you state, then your lack of faith is also relevant. Are you OK with that? Are you fine with fellow atheist being fairly or unfairly attacked like this should they seek office?
Of course it’s relevant. An atheist politician should expect to be asked how his lack of faith would affect his decisions in office, just as a Mormon politician should be expect to be asked how his Mormonism would.
Also, if it’s going to keep too many people from voting for him, then that’s a legitimate argument against nominating him. The goal is, ultimately, to win, after all.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Alex, you said - “Of course it’s relevant. An atheist politician should expect to be asked how his lack of faith would affect his decisions in office, just as a Mormon politician should be expect to be asked how his Mormonism would.”
There is a bigger point here and that is that we shouldn’t be having these discussions. The matter of religion is personal and while it does affect the way people behave and believe, we shouldn’t be worrying about it. An atheist politican, a muslim politican, a mormon politican. Who cares?
What I care about - and what most people care about - is how is this person going to lead. Are they going to help get spending under control? Are they going to work on the economy? Are they going to protect us against jihadists?
These are the questions that matter. Not what house you choose (or not choose) to worship in. The whole debate is mind-numbing.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
*sigh* I’m sick and tired of people saying that Evangelicals don’t like Romney or whatever else because he’s a Mormon. A lot of us voted for him in the primaries, including me and my family. So please, people, stop using us as an excuse for your own prejudice.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
The bigotry aimed at Muslims is particularly offensive. We have Muslims dying serving our nation. My cousin-in-law, Atif, served in Iraq and still gets hassled when he goes to Republican events with his wife… from so called broad minded secular folks.
I agree. It’s terrible when people can’t separate the religion from its followers. Islam itself is despicable, but there are millions of fair-minded Muslims that are unfairly smeared by association with the fanatics.
Actually, Alex, what you said was insulting enough that I don’t have to hunt for other reasons to be offended. Calling all religions “silly” (as in, “no one is more silly than the rest”) reveals what you actually think of most of us. You are insulting the vast majority of Americans who believe that Christianity is quite true, quite relevant to their lives, and perhaps the greatest force for good in the world. You want to pat yourself on the back because your condesencion is universal and not specific to LDS? “Don’t worry, as an atheist I’m superior not just to Mormons, but whatever brand of Christian or theist you may be.”
When did I use the word “superior”? Surely as a Christian, you believe that your faith is superior to that of, say, Muslims’ faith — since they do not believe in Jesus, they can’t, according to the Bible, go to Heaven, and you will. (Unless you’re one of those liberal Christians that believes in more than one path to Heaven; I don’t know.) Reason is superior to faith, but I said nothing about whether I am superior.
There is a bigger point here and that is that we shouldn’t be having these discussions. The matter of religion is personal and while it does affect the way people behave and believe, we shouldn’t be worrying about it. An atheist politican, a muslim politican, a mormon politican. Who cares? What I care about - and what most people care about - is how is this person going to lead. Are they going to help get spending under control? Are they going to work on the economy? Are they going to protect us against jihadists?
Well, I agree, but people aren’t quite so reasonable all of the time. Let’s look at things as they are, rather than as they should be.
*sigh* I’m sick and tired of people saying that Evangelicals don’t like Romney or whatever else because he’s a Mormon. A lot of us voted for him in the primaries, including me and my family. So please, people, stop using us as an excuse for your own prejudice.
I never even meant to imply that a majority of Evangelicals dislike him for his Mormonism, let alone all. But a significant number does. And that could hurt us electorally. A lot.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
#8, I disagree.
Faith.
The single most important “issue” for any Presidential candidate. It is more powerful and important than “Hope”. In McCain’s case, many question his religious faith, but not his faith in country. Faith discussion has benefitted and damaged Obama (Islam and Rev. Wright).
So let us not discount faith in our discussions, for any candidate.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:24 pm
“An atheist politician should expect to be asked how his lack of faith would affect his decisions in office, just as a Mormon politician should be expect to be asked how his Mormonism would.”
Such a philosophy applies a religious litmus test. It is not Constitutional, but you have every right to apply whatever litmus test you want as an individual voter. You error in two big ways:
First, you project your litmus test upon all voters as if the general electorate will instantly reject Romney on his faith regardless of his qualifications & credentials. I have more hope & faith in the American voting public than that.
Second, you try to make amends by not just singling out Mormons in your 2nd post (this post), but all faiths! Seriously Alex, I feel much better now.. You succeeded in offending those of other faiths now. That is not making amends in by book..
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I think a lot of evengelicals didn’t vote for Romney not because he was a Mormon, but because most evangelicals are social conservatives and saw Mitt as a pro-choice liberal who only changed positions because he ran for President.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
But Alex, if you look at things as they are all the time, never trying to change the status quo then we will never be out of where we are.
If we would like to be in a place where we take a candidates religion as a part of a larger picture and not bring it into the discussion, we have to start to act like it.
While you are right - we have to be realistic - we have to also start to stand up for what we want and start demanding for things to be that way.
Don’t you agree? And if you do, you wouldn’t so much care what “how things are” and you would start acting like the way you “want things to be”.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
“Reason is superior to faith, but I said nothing about whether I am superior.”
You just did (again). You’re too bright for me to have to explain your own logic, where you begin by (incorrectly) putting reason and faith at odds, and then state that you’re valuing the superior to the inferior. Where would that leave the rest of us who value our faith, in your eyes?
C’mon Alex, you’re abandoning your own premise: that you don’t mind being hated for what you believe. You go around insulting lots of people, they’re not going to like it.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
But you do have a point, perhaps you wrote something in the heat of your confrontation with Jason that you’re not willing to stand by.
Are all religions silly, Alex?
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Alex,
“Islam itself is despicable, but there are millions of fair-minded Muslims that are unfairly smeared by association with the fanatics.”
I can really rip you a new one for that statement. But somehow I think it looks worse on screen than what you actually intended it to be, so I won’t. Radical Islam is despicable, not Islam as a whole.
Alex, The lesson you need to learn is that atheists and agnostics need to respect those of faith notwithstanding their obvious disagreements. Similarly, those of faith need to respect other faiths notwithstanding differences between their doctrines & beliefs.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Kristofer:
“Faith.
The single most important “issue” for any Presidential candidate.”
Instead of the term “faith” I prefer the term values. There are significantly more faiths than values. Most of these faiths share the same values.
People of faith need to focus on values and not doctrine or faith. It is the many shared values that most faiths fight strong for that enable us as social conservatives to form this coalition. The petty differences in doctrines and some beliefs are irrelevant to me in the context of an election. I would like to see more social conservatives unite on common values verses divide on beliefs. We would be a stronger Republican party if that were the case.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
#25, yes it can be, Alex is correct. “Religions” have the ability to fill our society with poison.
I am getting tired of the over-sensatization of our society. You guys are as bad as Obama supporters. “What!, you cannot say that, someone may be offended, stop being constructive and questioning majority thought and join the orgy of conformity”.
As you gentlemen and ladies continue to verbally lash Alex, I remind you that blogs risk losing support, not because they question out thought process and anger and inspire bloggers, but they lose support when important and enlightening intellectual discussion is restricted and controlled by the administrator(s).
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
I think everyone’s problem with Alex is that he has particularly in the last few weeks come across as antagonistic and bitchy, more interested in attacking people, ideas, and institutions than in actually discussing anything or listening to other viewpoints.
And since we’re discussing religion, I guess, I’ve also never understood why people feel compelled to malign anyone else’s faith. As a Catholic, I wholeheartedly respect others’ faith traditions and religious practices, no matter how strongly I disagree with them. I’m concerned with living my life according to my principles (as shaped by the Church) and I’m content with allowing others to do the same. I don’t understand why people feel the need to attack each other over religion. And don’t say, “Well, because they attacked me first.” That’s no justification. The first moral precept I remember being taught is “Two wrongs don’t make a right,” and I can’t imagine why people haven’t grasped the concept. Yes, there are closed-minded Catholics, and militant atheists, and jihad-hungry moslems, and little-girl-marrying Mormons out there. But that’s no excuse to villainize or dehumanize *all* Catholics, or *all* atheists, or *all* moslems, or *all* Mormons.
But then maybe I’m more sensitive than others because I’m only a few generations removed from family who were gunned down in their homes during the Bolshevik Revolution for being Mennonite, and even less far removed from family whose churches and businesses were vandalized by the KKK for being Catholic immigrants. Prejudice and intolerance are still prejudice and intolerance, even if it’s against groups (like Catholics and Mormons and Moslems… and gays) that most people have antipathy towards.
It’s funny to me how people don’t realize this sort of bigotry is cyclical. Alex no doubt feels victimized by conservative sexual standards many religions hold, so he lashes out against religion and justifies it by saying all religion is “ridiculous” anyway. But then all he’s doing is igniting more intolerance towards gays by proving the religious fanatics’ “point”: Gays are morally bankrupt individuals who are in part responsible for the decline of religious values and they must be opposed. So then religious people feel victimized and lash out against gays. And it just repeats and worsens.
Why can’t religious people just say, “We don’t have to hold non-religious people to our standards”? Because non-religious people can’t admit that religion is doing less harm and more good to people than they pretend it does. And why can’t non-religious people admit that? Because often, zealously religious people do more harm than they ought to, even if they aren’t doing as much as their detractors think. Somewhere the cycle has to stop, and it stops when individual people have the courage to say to themselves, “I’m not going to be intolerant. I may think Catholics are morons, but I won’t attack them. I may think homosexuality is repulsive, but I won’t mistreat gays.” That’s the most, and the best, that any one person can do.
I could go on and on, but I feel like I already have, so I’m stopping there. But I am going to plug a little known organization I discovered the other day, a group that stands up for mutual respect of all and any religious traditions and is working towards a genuinely pluralistic community where people of different belief systems don’t feel frightened or oppressed by each other. It’s a great cause, I think: http://www.becketfund.org/
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
My first sentence in that post sounds much harsher than I intended, sorry Alex. It’s just lately you’ve been whiney and attack-y, and it’s unflattering.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:47 pm
our* - out
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Nice post Seth #29. We’d be a more civilized society if many would orient themselves to the tenants mutual respect notwithstanding belief differences.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I’d just like to say to the religion bashers out there that millions of people were killed in the name of atheism in the last century alone. Hitler and Pol Pot were pretty gung-ho about their atheism and killed millions. And guess what? Only about 10% of the world’s population claim to be atheist. It’s easy to cherry pick religious atrocities and judge religious followers, but it’s wrong.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Truce?
Can’t stop the warring factions
Global tension starts aggression
Peace breaks out then
Breeds contempt, unrest
SLAAAAAYYYYEERRRRRRRRR!!!
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
“As a Catholic, I wholeheartedly respect others’ faith traditions and religious practices, no matter how strongly I disagree with them.”
This is pure multi-cultural mush, and it’s one of the aspects of the Romney debate that made me uneasy. I never adopted the standard Romney supporter line that “religion doesn’t matter”, because it’s manifest nonsense. What I said, instead, is that Mormonism ought not matter, because it’s a relatively benign faith, who’s members are extremely productive, and who seem to have no problem using reasonable thought processes outside of their religion. I was under no obligation, because of this conclusion, to “respect” their faith, or to give it a spot in some “great panopoly of faith traditions”. I do not see any reason for treating faith, generically, as a positive attribute, worthy of respect. I don’t judge faiths in an absolute sense, and I’m always open to exceptions to general ideas. But, while I’m not willing to call Islam “vile” as Alex does, for instance, it has done nothing to earn my respect, and it’s contributions to the advancement of civilization have been, especially over the last 500 years, meager indeed.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
#35, OMG! Are you serious.
The first great advances in medicine, architecture, astronomy, and literature came from Islam. I encourage you to travel through southern Spain and see the contributions.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Matthew E. Miller:
Would you make that same post #35 replacing the word “faith” with the word “values?”
We can never unite of grounds of “faith”, we can only divide. But we can unite on common values that many of these faiths (and those without faith) share.
In my opinion, faith should be completely irrelevant in an election context, values should be extremely relevant.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:32 pm
#37-cwpete, can someone who is pro-choice and equal marriage share values with you?
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:41 pm
First I would like to say I did send Alex an apology via email for making a personal argument against him on the front page earlier this afternoon. I will admit it was poor form and I will do my best not to repeat it. And as much as I disagree with Alex, he is very smart and an asset to the site here, IMO.
The problem I will state here is that we have seen so many posts from Alex for nearly a year that knock Mormons (and believers in any faith for that matter, but mostly Mormons) for their beliefs. He has stated in many board comments that the Mormon faith is a racist faith, Mormons hate Gays, Mormons are hoodwinked, etc. True, in this one post that was erased by Kavon, he said it as if it were a benign independent thought based on some imaginary polling, but when you ad up the some of Alex’s comments over the last year and put the comments of his post in context, you get a radically different meaning than what Alex is trying to pass off here as.
Alex, your post on Romney does not operate in Vacuum as you seem to suggest, unaffiliated with your history on this site of bashing mormons and social conservatives. I am sure you really do think all of those things you say about Mitt. I am just suggesting you arrived to those thoughts based on a premise you are unwillingly to admit, but which seems readily obvious based on your past comments. You see nearly everything you stated can be applied to Guiliani and others, yet you don’t. So when I connect that with your fascination of knocking Mormonisms’s doctrine, history and policy, its hard to really think you hatred for Romney has nothing to do with your loathing of the religion that calls your lifestyle a sin. I honestly feel you are being dishonest with yourself or us.
Kristopher,
I never called Alex an ignorant Fag as you allude to. Stop being mindlessly lazy.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:42 pm
The problem I will state here is that we have seen so many posts from Alex for nearly a year that knock Mormons
I mean comments not posts.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:44 pm
“#37-cwpete, can someone who is pro-choice and equal marriage share values with you?”
The values of pro-choice / open marriages are not my values. As a social conservative, I would probably have few values in common with such an individual. Perhaps they could share other values with me, but certainly not those values.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
22. Sure if you just ignore Huckabees Pastoral network, you may have a point. Unfortunately a lot of it, was driven by anti-mormonism they just won’t admit it in the light.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 pm
#36:
Thanks for saving me the trouble of having to point out Islam’s contributions to society.
#35:
You may “not see any reason for treating faith, generically, as a positive attribute, worthy of respect”, but I *genuinely* do feel that faith is inherently dignified. Religion is a uniquely human phenomenon, like art and music and science and education. Humans are the only creature with the facility to worship, and it manifests itself in every culture - in every person really. It generates all sorts of good, it has often been the preserver and motivator of great things when social structures fail: E.g. when the Roman empire fell, it was Islam that preserved much of the philosophy and science of ancient Greece and Rome; or after the Indian caste system (which is less tied to the Hindu religion than to the socio-political system in which Hinduism thrives) had failed to promote the well-being of all of its society’s members, it was the Buddha who reminded his peers that *all* humans have dignity and who sought to restore that dignity through religious reform.
And I don’t understand why people act like tolerance and respect of religion for its own sake is such a bad thing. Is it wrong to follow in the footsteps of Marcus Aurelius, or Michel de Montaigne, or Leo Tolstoy, or Mohandas Ghandi? All of them saw the value in religion, faith, and philosophy for their own sakes. They also, of course, saw their failings. I’m not pretending that any religion or philosophy or way-of-life or what-have-you is *devoid* of problems (even some aspects of Catholicism bother me, not doctrinally, but in the implementation of certain interpretations of doctrine… such as driving Jews and Moslems out of Spain to “reclaim” “Christian” territory in the 1400s, to name but one example), but I do still believe that all faith traditions have inherent value in society generally and in the lives of their adherents particularly.
And I don’t think it’s wrong of me to feel that way. Certainly if it is wrong, it’s still infinitely better going around attacking others’ religions out of a self-aggrandizing notion that I’m ridding the world of superstition or giving the infidels their comeuppance or whatever. Even if respect for religion isn’t inherently good, tolerance for it still is.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:02 am
You see nearly everything you stated can be applied to Guiliani and others, yet you don’t.
Perhaps I’m doing a poor job of explaining myself.
Giuliani never tried to run as a man of faith, trying to play up his “family values” and love of God as a campaign theme. He ran as a secular candidate. If he had run, as Romney did, as a religious-minded candidate, I’d want to know exactly why he embraced the worldview of a church that is responsible for misery and suffering the world over.
Furthermore, from an electoral standpoint, the Catholic Church — sadly — is not controversial. Certainly not to the degree that the Mormon Church is.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:05 am
The first great advances in medicine, architecture, astronomy, and literature came from Islam. I encourage you to travel through southern Spain and see the contributions.
He said over the last 500 years.
Islam started off with a bang and then just kind of retreated back into the Dark Ages. This isn’t an accident. Christianity is far more adaptable to modernity than Islam is. The latter will have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the modern world.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:07 am
And I don’t understand why people act like tolerance and respect of religion for its own sake is such a bad thing.
Because it discourages critical thinking.
(Didn’t Europe have some sort of revolution in thought over this a few hundred years ago? There’s got to be a term for it…)
July 24th, 2008 at 12:10 am
#39 Jasen, I was actually going to say “fairy”, not __g.
In the context you used “Homosexual”, it was somewhat degrading.
You have to admit, you fire the word “ignorant” at a lot of bloggers on this site and imply it. It makes you come across smug, and I know you are not a smug person, just very passionate, like Alex.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:10 am
I’d just like to say to the religion bashers out there that millions of people were killed in the name of atheism in the last century alone. Hitler and Pol Pot were pretty gung-ho about their atheism and killed millions. And guess what? Only about 10% of the world’s population claim to be atheist. It’s easy to cherry pick religious atrocities and judge religious followers, but it’s wrong.
First of all, this has nothing to do with the validity of atheism.
Second, while Hitler (whose atheism was rather dubious; the man used Christianized propaganda all the time, with European Christianity’s ugly history of anti-Semitism) and Pol Pot were against religion, they weren’t exactly rational people. As Sam Harris points out: the regimes of Pol Pot and Stalin are not what you get when you become too rational.
The point of abolishing religion would not be to replace it with another life-destroying dogma, like socialism, but to be rational, critical thinkers while getting rid of it.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:10 am
#46, The enlightenment.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:14 am
In the context you used “Homosexual”, it was somewhat degrading. You have to admit, you fire the word “ignorant” at a lot of bloggers on this site and imply it. It makes you come across smug, and I know you are not a smug person, just very passionate, like Alex.
What I dislike about the robotic term “homosexual” instead of the lighter “gay” is the fact that it plays up the sexual angle so much. This is, sadly, very pervasive. When a straight person encounters a gay person, often the first thought is of anal sex or how “unnatural” homosexuality is. I’ve spoken with several other gays that get this vibe, too. (So it’s a real wonder why we’d feel discriminated against.)
July 24th, 2008 at 12:15 am
#46, The enlightenment.
It was a joke, meant to point out that it was supposed to be so revolutionary, and yet some people have not learned its basic lessons or can even recall its existence.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:16 am
#45, are you serious? Over the last 200 years Muslim scientists have been leaders in biomedical research and natural product chemistry.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:22 am
#45, are you serious? Over the last 200 years Muslim scientists have been leaders in biomedical research and natural product chemistry.
I don’t think I can take you seriously if you think that the Muslim world and the West are even remotely close to being remotely close to equal in modern advancements.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:27 am
#53, you are changing the subject from the original statement.
#35 - Islam “vile” as Alex does, for instance, it has done nothing to earn my respect, and it’s contributions to the advancement of civilization have been, especially over the last 500 years, meager indeed.
Kristofer: I said this was incorrect.
Alex Said; “He said over the last 500 years.”
Kristofer: Not actually true, but I played along (#52).
Now you are shifting the subject comparing advancements in the Islamic world to the west.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Alex,
But you’re evading the point, you can’t disassociate your year of comments from your post. You can’t write a years worth of comments knocking mormons and then argue you can write about Romney’s mormon problem in some vacuum. It’s nearly laughable.
Furthermore, that’s cheap and easy to say because Rudy ran as “not so religious” we can ignore his religion, yet with Mitt we should harp on a single topic that really has no bearing on anything he will do as president. You have never once tried to explain how Mormons not allowing blacks the priesthood would effect Romney’s ability to govern, yet you use it as a disqualifier nearly daily. It’s not honest, I am sorry, it’s just not. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.
And I think it’s really a dishonest ploy to try to get people off of the homosexual word, it sounds like more of an effort in branding than honesty. Last I checked Homosexual is about anal sex, just like heterosexual is about vaginal sex. The only reason you would sugar coat is of there is something to sugar coat.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Eh, I see what you’re doing, but you have to balance it out overall. The umma is in an utterly backwards state, relative to the West.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:40 am
But you’re evading the point, you can’t disassociate your year of comments from your post. You can’t write a years worth of comments knocking mormons and then argue you can write about Romney’s mormon problem in some vacuum. It’s nearly laughable.
I wrote a year’s worth of comments knocking Mormons because there was context for it. If there were an Islamic candidate, I’d have spent time knocking Islam.
Furthermore, that’s cheap and easy to say because Rudy ran as “not so religious” we can ignore his religion, yet with Mitt we should harp on a single topic that really has no bearing on anything he will do as president. You have never once tried to explain how Mormons not allowing blacks the priesthood would effect Romney’s ability to govern, yet you use it as a disqualifier nearly daily. It’s not honest, I am sorry, it’s just not. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.
Of course it wouldn’t affect his ability to govern. I don’t care that he’s a Mormon. It honestly doesn’t bother me. But it would bother a lot of people — people that we need in order to win. It’s not a total disqualifier, but it’s something that we should think about.
And I think it’s really a dishonest ploy to try to get people off of the homosexual word, it sounds like more of an effort in branding than honesty. Last I checked Homosexual is about anal sex, just like heterosexual is about vaginal sex. The only reason you would sugar coat is of there is something to sugar coat.
Not all gay couples have anal sex (some just don’t find it enjoyable) and a lot of heterosexual couples (about a quarter, according to most reliable sex studies) have anal sex. It doesn’t need “sugarcoating”. It’s a sex act, like any other, really. But when I encounter a straight couple, the first thing that springs to my mind isn’t vaginal sex.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:41 am
47. Why didn’t you just complete it then? Is fairy a bad word here?
July 24th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Of course it wouldn’t affect his ability to govern. I don’t care that he’s a Mormon. It honestly doesn’t bother me.
Um, I have no idea how you can say that with a straight face. Seriously. It sounds like a bad cover up almost.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:46 am
59. It actually reminds me of the time you claimed Mormons view their prophet as infallible, but when I told you they didn’t you said “I know that.” I mean, just be honest here.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:46 am
#58, after Telemonian’s Jewish and Gay bashing, I was afraid to say anything negtive.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Alex,
About a quarter of straight couples do not think about anal sex when they see gay people. My lady and I can attest to that.
As well, who thinks of anal sex when they see gay women? As a straight male, I can tell you, that is not what I am thinking of!
And what is the first thing that comes to your mind (when you see a straight couple)?
Alex must be tired, he is stereotyping hetero’s.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Ridiculous! I used to think this site was a good read. Kavon…about time to give Alex the boot?
July 24th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Alex- to lump all Evangelicals together in this gross generalization about risking their support is a huge mistake. And I think something should be done, something bold, to show them that there is nothing to fear. The faith of a candidate is unimportant. We need to be religion-neutral. Don’t pander, don’t cater to those who won’t let go of their prejudices. It only encourages them the hold on to them. Its wrong. And if we begin to act like it does not matter, then eventually, it won’t matter. Now is the time. Enough of the bigotry or concern, skepticism, wariness, whatever you want to call it. Start now to show people it does not matter. A bold pick like Romney will begin to show the naysayers that they have no need to fear and so much to gain.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:14 am
#63 James Poniewozik (Time) actually admitted in an artcle he voted for Obama.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Ridiculous! I used to think this site was a good read. Kavon…about time to give Alex the boot?
See, Lori? This is what I’m talking about.
For many of these people, agreeing to disagree ain’t enough. They walk, or demand, in Independent’s case, censorship.
I have never once called for Jason — or any other Mormon — to be given the boot for his political or religious beliefs.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Mormonism influences Romney in the same way that homosexuality influences Alex. People are bound to unfairly stereotype each of them, and I think they realize this and do what they can to combat it. Can we leave it at that?
July 24th, 2008 at 1:26 am
#67 Romney made a choice, and still has one, Alex did not.
Good night.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:58 am
I completely agree with Alex. Jason is doing precisely what is he is accusing Alex of.
I read this site multiple times per day and sometimes post comments, but will leave if the administrators take the advice of the narrow minded people saying that Alex should be “booted.” As a gay atheist moderate Democrat/Independent who supports John McCain, Alex speaks for more people than you realize.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:11 am
Look, any discussion of politics necessitates the analysis of behaviors of large, sweeping groups of people, which is inevitably going to lead to stereotyping - some deliberate, some inadvertent. Any discussion of the voting patterns of, say, evangelicals is going to result in some evangelical voter angrily insisting that his views are being misrepresented. It boggles my mind how controversial Alex’s simple observation that the Mormon faith is far more electorally troublesome than a conventional Christian has proved. I haven’t been following this site for more than a month or two so I may not be privvy to any long-standing feuds between Alex and the Mormon population, but I don’t see how one couldn’t take that assertion as a simple matter of fact at this point.
And as for the chorus of outrage over Alex’s comment about religion being silly, well, all I can say is, grow a thicker skin. Of COURSE any organized religion seems silly to an atheist. It goes without saying; that’s usually why one is an atheist - because religion appears silly. I go to mass twice and week and eat a cracker that’s supposed to be the flesh of a guy who’s been dead for 2,000 years and drink wine that’s supposed to be his blood. I mean, that’s silly. It also, to me, is a holy sacrament that’s the cornerstone of my faith and of ironclad importance in my life. And that’s sufficient for me; Alex or anything else thinking this bizarre ritual is silly doesn’t remotely detract from its paramount importance to me. (Actually, what I really think detracts from my faith are priests molesting little boys or telling gay people that they’re going to hell, but I digress.) I think there’s a sizeable chunk of the Christian conservative population that’s grown a bit too stridently offended every time someone dare speak a contrary word about the faith. We’re not exactly an endangered species in the United States, folks. Just… calm down a little bit.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:13 am
#69 - Alex isn’t a Republican? Now THAT’S silly. (I kid, I kid.)
July 24th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Jason,
Let Alex keep pluggin’. Makes me realize why I like Romney so much. To admire someone’s values, you have to have a point of reference, and Alex is a good point of reference. Every generation has its ” know-nothings.” Ask the Irish Catholics from Lincoln to Al Smith. Alex is just the latest and his ranting serves as a substantive reminder of why we need a Mitt Romney and his personal values every once in a while in politics.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Who is arguing Alex to leave? I just said I thought he was an asset to the site.
And how am I doing what I am accusing Alex of? I hate a candidate because he stands directly opposed to my lifestyle?
Kristopher,
I think even Alex admitted Gay people sometimes choose to be in straight relationships, so it would be logically correct to then deduce gay people can choose gay relationships as well.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:09 am
“It boggles my mind how controversial Alex’s simple observation that the Mormon faith is far more electorally troublesome than a conventional Christian has proved.”
That’s because he’s not making a simple observation. That’s what he claims he is doing after the fact, but go back and read and you’ll find posts that are much more accusatory … and my favorite, Alex admits that he ‘relishes’ pointing to twisted flaws of Mormonism.
Anyway, I just have a hard time believing someone who keeps punching me in the face and then tells me, ‘hey, i’m just punching in you face to toughen you up for what those other guys might do to you.’
July 24th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Psychoanalyzing members of the LDS church or members of our G, L, B, and T community is where we get outselves in trouble.
These two communities should NOT be off-limites for discussion, but it will be a lot safer if we keep discussion of such communities in a political context.
Jason, for some of the anti-LDS hatred we have seen posted on this site, Alex is certainly not to be lumped in with the extreme group responsible for it.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:40 am
I wasn’t the one that made a personal argument; I always kept it about Romney
For too many, an argument about Romney is a personal argument.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:44 am
#45, are you serious? Over the last 200 years Muslim scientists have been leaders in biomedical research and natural product chemistry.
Maybe individual Muslim scientists, but not scientists working in Muslim societies.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Alex may not want what he writes to be taken seriously. When he calls all religions ’silly’, he’s making a condescending insult. Religious people will tend to tune out everything else he writes because he’s an anti-religious jerk.
I’m not sure if he wants people to consider what he writes or if prefers he to insult people. That is silly.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Jason, for some of the anti-LDS hatred we have seen posted on this site, Alex is certainly not to be lumped in with the extreme group responsible for it.
Actually he is, because he does.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:01 am
What Big S said.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:07 am
BigS,
He slam on Romney all he wants, but as I said previously I have issues with Alex spending a year in the comments section bashing mormons, now trying to bring it to the front page.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Interesting. So we should “roll the dice” with traditional family values by allowing the children of our society to be raised with homosexual parents, instead of “rolling the dice” with a candidate (Mitt Romney) who defends traditional marriage and has lived a life-example of what a good American family is all about, who believes in a pro-family, strong values, charitable religion, and who is one of our country’s most qualified economic leaders in a time of economic turmoil? Wow. With advice like that I don’t think I’ll be paticularly interested in what Alex has to say in the future.
And the fact that he’s made a hobby of bashing a perfectly benevolent religion over the period of a year…not exactly what I’d called an unbiased source.
I’d say its more important to look for common shared values in the Republican Party than it is to spend a lifetime picking on eachother’s religion. Fact is, most active Mormon, Christian, Jewish, and yes Muslim Americans that I know are honest, charitable, and kind people despite differing views on doctrine. There’s a lot that they all have in common that is being attacked by people like Alex right now in our country. And when one faith is attacked by these kind of low-ball efforts, they all eventually hurt, because values are values, and when the day comes that our childen don’t know who their true parnets are, what true and lasting love between a their parents (husband and wife) is anymore, and don’t know how to find God in this life, it will be a day we would have wished we would have “rolled the dice” with a politician of such secular credentials and Christian conviction as Gov Mitt Romney.
Econ Grad Stuf - right on. That “silly” remark of his is pretty low-ball to any God-fearing American (which, incidentally, is most Americans).
The one thing I do agree with Alex on is the war against radical jihad. Again, this is a shared value that we should unite us. So Alex, instead of spending countless hours attacking The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I think I speak for many here in saying we’d rather hear you talk about the issues related to defeating terrorism. We’ll ask Latter-day Saints about their faith if we want to know more about what they believe, ok?
July 24th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Chilren in our society are already raised with homosexual parents - over a quarter million of them.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Good job Alex and as a former Romney supporter, you do give us food for thought re dice roll. I don’t agree, But it is an arguable case.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I haven’t been around here in a while, but I do tend to read Alex’s posts from time to time because I see them on Facebook… have you ever submitted a candidate of your own to the Veepstakes? Who do you prefer, and why? We get that you just plain don’t like Romney, maybe this little feud between the Rombots and Mr. Knepper should end.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I still read, Alex is a defensive gay person who is angry at Mormons, especially achieving Mormons, probably because he feels they will judge him or be too morally strict or I can only guess.
The bummer with trying to accomodate gayness or sexual deviance of any type, is the conversation often digresses into discussing the particulars of sex, which turns me away. I am a family-oriented person, who values both genders and feels they are important to the rearing of children. Sexual deviance, by definition, I believe, is a primarily selfish lifestyle that is not conducive to the nurturing love you need in a family setting to be truly happy. This includes, adultery, Bill Clinton stuff, Larry Craig stuff, no one could possible list every type of deviant behavior. BACK DOWN BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THAT IS AN UNPOPULAR VIEW RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE IN THE VALUE OF THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY. I BELIEVE THAT. Intimacy, or sex acts are private matters, though there are many websites solely for the discussion and solicitation of same. And though I wish Alex (delightful as his personality otherwise is) and others would keep thorough discussion of their sexual tendencies a private matter, I cannot enforce that. Combine it with the anger and hate he conveys towards those who believe in that God that Alex so openly despises, it gets a little much. So I will go elsewhere and find pure political discussion, with a little personality and flair perhaps, but on the clean side, where personal or vulgar stuff is kept personal. I’m old-fashioned like that. There’s been some great folks here, good luck to conservatives in November!
July 24th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I read this site multiple times per day and sometimes post comments, but will leave if the administrators take the advice of the narrow minded people saying that Alex should be “booted.” As a gay atheist moderate Democrat/Independent who supports John McCain, Alex speaks for more people than you realize.
I am a registered Republican, actually, but the label I prefer is ‘neo-libertarian’, if I can get people to use it.
And I thoroughly concur with the people that say that the religionists need to get thicker skin. You sit here and call me a sexual deviant (maya), against morality (econ grad stud), and a bigot (Jason Bonham), and do you know what I do? I reply to your points. Imagine that. (Maybe if you grow up as a homosexual atheist, you just learn to take insults better than if you’re a heterosexual Christian, but that’s beside the point, I suppose…)