|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2008 : 14:02:15 [Permalink]
|
Marf and Cune.....
This Article in the Sunday Times is dead on the point that Dude and I have been trying to make in this thread. Please read it. It might color your perception a bit regarding Mormons!
|
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 01/06/2008 : 18:07:23 [Permalink]
|
| Yeah, bngbuck, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. I was simply standing up for the fact that there are people out there who are unquestionable followers of the Mormon-fringe of Christianity who absolutely qualify as liberal. I am well aware that this is not the norm, and I am in no position to speak to my friend's qualifications to be President except he's not old enough and not an American (so no, he can't be). That's all. Really. I think Romney sucks. I think Huckabee sucks even more. I just wanted to stand up for my friend (since no Mormons seem to post here) and say that the large brush can't paint all of them the same! |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2008 : 18:10:48 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: | He will be a bad president because he is a self-proclaimed "highly religious" christian, |
That statement by itself is meaningless. Got anything with substance? If you don't offer anything, I'm left to assume that you are merely engaging in religious discrimination against Mormons. | and a menber of a faith that professes some of the most insane religious beliefs in the whole panoply of asinine christian theology. |
Still waiting for you to answer to my question Can you put forth a compelling argument that Romney will be a bad president because of reasons connected to his Mormonism?
| The Mormons are, to use Dude's term, delusional. Far beyond the standard shibboleths of Christianity, they literally worship imaginary angels and "latter day saints" of their own invention - Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other "saints" that are strictly products of their own imagination and don't even have the dubious authenticity of being shared with other christian sects. |
I strongly disagree. How delusion a faith is depends first on the individual, then the local religious community they may or may not belong to, and goes out from there. Personal belief is complicated thing. How it relates to actions, how compartmentalized it is, how literal it is, whether it is only a surface response or a reflected on and deeply held thing are all factors. You don't seem to making any kind of sophisticated analysis of Romney when you denounce him as a candidate based on his religious label.
| The Mormons are a cult. Cultists are irrational. I do not want an irrational cultist to hold the power of the presidency of the United States. Anyone who can blindly accept that kind of nonsense is not capable of thinking clearly enough to handle the responsibilities of the presidency. |
Mormonism is most certainly not a cult. Read up on cults. They lack many of the qualifications, such as a charismatic leader and insisting on the isolation of its members. Also, Mormonism is broken up into more than one sect. Being not even unified (much less having a charismatic leader) alone shows it is not a cult. Calling it one waters down the meaning of the word "cult". Not saying the certain Mormon communities aren't cults, some certainly are. But to call Mormonism as a whole a cult is just plain wrong.
| What, other than his fundamentalist Baptist religous fervor, makes you think Huckabee would be a bad president? |
Bush managed to get the fundies to come out and vote because of his lip service to Christian fundamentalism, but ultimately he had name recognition, he came off like a nice, friendly guy, and even though he is really just a silver-spoon fed dolt with a lot of powerful and rich friends and family, regular people felt like they could relate to him. And on top of that there was political corruption at work to help him steal the 2000 election. Many various factors put Bush in the white house.
Huckabee is another animal. He is truly grassroots. The rich and powerful conservatives are already sending out the message that he's not one of them, and they don't like that. The way the game is supposed to go is that the rich fucks win elections by giving lip service to uneducated evangelicals, and maybe even tossing them a bone every once in a while. Huckabee's rise is showing that the rich fucks underestimated how seductive political power would be to Christian fundamentalists. Now I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning because there just aren't that many fundies. But I could be wrong, and if he wins, to me that shows that American culture and people as a whole have done far off the deep end, and I'm not waiting until they start putting people like me in camps. Incidentally, we are also planning to leave in Guilliani wins. It isn't Christianity I fear. It is fascism.
| I am just as violently opposed to Huckabee because of his fundamentalist Baptism. He is another religious nut case, like Bush and Mutt, who puts reliance (or Faith) in a superstition called God above reliance on reason. |
This is where you and I disagree. I don't think that Bush or especially Romney are religious nuts. I think Bush is primarily motivated by big money and Romney is primarily motivated by what he thinks will give him political power. I think that if throwing off their religious convictions were the only way to achieve these other goals, they would do so without hesitation.
| In my view, anyone who is deeply religious; lacks sufficient intelligence, or wisdom, or the ability to think critically, or quite possibly all three, to qualify for the enormously demanding job of the President of the United States! |
Oh yeah, people like Sojourner Truth, Martin Luther King, and William Sloan Coffin, are obviously lacking in intelligence, wisdom, and the ability to think critically and would have made horrible political leaders. And that dirty old fanatic Quaker, William Penn, he did such an awful job founding Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia. I mean, what was it with this religious freedom and being friendly toward Catholics, Jews, and Indians crap? And rational, safety-oriented city planning, what a crock!
The idea that someone's personally-held religious beliefs must automatically impact their other judgments and actions is pure bullshit. It is well known by anyone who pays attention that people can hold the most ridiculous beliefs and still conduct their lives and take actions which are completely rational, as well as compassionate and efficient. If someone's stupid beliefs are going to impact their actions, the evidence is in their words and in their past actions.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2008 : 18:15:26 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | If you are a Mormon, an actual member of the church, then you give 30% of your salary to the church. |
What!? The Mormon Church asked that adherents give ten percent of their surplus income. And if you are going to start judging candidates based on what they spend their surplus income on, how about mansions and vacation homes or any other excessive luxuries? How are those things any less repulsive than giving to one's community?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2008 : 18:23:42 [Permalink]
|
| I'd also like to point out that the majority of tithing funds goes toward helping financially disadvantaged members. Mormons in general are economically conservative, so the tithing is basically a form of private welfare. And while it is expected, there are no Mormon clergy/accountants who go over your finances to make sure you paid your full tithing. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2008 : 21:54:32 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
What!? The Mormon Church asked that adherents give ten percent of their surplus income. And if you are going to start judging candidates based on what they spend their surplus income on, how about mansions and vacation homes or any other excessive luxuries? How are those things any less repulsive than giving to one's community?
|
See, there is your twisted point of view comming out again.
Mormons who are full members of the church pay 30% of their annual salary to the church. Its not a requirement, and they don't kick you out of you can't do it (they are mostly nice people, don't get me wrong), and most Mormons do indeed pay much less, as you say.
But the amount is irrelavent. If you pay money to an organization, like the Mormon church, that openly advocates certain things... then you also advocate those things.
Besides, what am I to think of Romney when he stands up and saus shit like "religion is required" for freedom to exist? What batshitfuckingcrazy kind of thinking is that? And if he is capable of speaking those words with a straight face, then he is manifestly unqualified to be president.
If that amount to religious discrimination, then fuck it, I'm discriminating. And I don't care.
Oh yeah, people like Sojourner Truth, Martin Luther King, and William Sloan Coffin, are obviously lacking in intelligence, wisdom, and the ability to think critically and would have made horrible political leaders. And that dirty old fanatic Quaker, William Penn, he did such an awful job founding Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia. I mean, what was it with this religious freedom and being friendly toward Catholics, Jews, and Indians crap? And rational, safety-oriented city planning, what a crock!
|
Back to your usual style of altered context debating I see. Could you possibly be any more dishonest? I don't see how, but I'm sure you could come up with something.
No one, definitely not me, is saying that religious people can't also be intelligent with good critical thinking skills. To bad for you that none of your examples there were advocating for a specifically religious idea.
The Mormon cult IS an evangelical branch of christianity and they believe some of the most off the wall crazy crap... you have to go scientology to get less sane than mormon doctrine.
And again, if you give them money, you advocate their official positions on topics and support their policies. That is pretty far from acceptable for a US president.
Besides, I don't see any difference between your position on Huckabee and mine on Romney. You are leaving the damn country if he gets elected, because he is batshit religious crazy. Sounds like descrimination, by your apparent standard.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2008 : 23:39:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
And again, if you give them money, you advocate their official positions on topics and support their policies. That is pretty far from acceptable for a US president. |
Well, I can't see how that hasn't been every U.S. President so far, and every major current candidate. They may not have tithed, but you can bet your butt that while in office (or on the campaign trail), they weren't stingy when the collection plate came around every Sunday. From a PR point-of-view, it's the wise thing to do.
And during campaigns, PR is so much more important. For example, the Democrats talked tough in 2006, but have turned out to be spineless. It was good PR, and got them what they wanted. During a campaign, if you're a Republican today, you tell the religious Right that your idea of God is just like theirs (or not far from it) whether it is or not, because otherwise you'll scare the hell out of them. If you're a Democrat, you tell the religious right that your faith is important to you, because otherwise you'll scare the hell out of them and they'll mobilize against you personally. Everything else a candidate says is framed much the same way, just with various different special interests mixed into the equations. I submit that it is now impossible to accurately judge the qualifications of any candidate that has a chance of winning the White House, because asserting a position is only important so far as it will gather votes. People who don't have any realistic shot at winning are free to actually advocate on principle. Kind of a catch-22 there.
So, how a candidate's faith will actually affect his/her governance of the country won't really be discovered until he/she is in the Oval Office and something big happens. But you can trust (for example) the Reconstructionist candidate's loudly avowed faith, because whoever it is this year won't win. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2008 : 00:25:35 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| So, how a candidate's faith will actually affect his/her governance of the country won't really be discovered until he/she is in the Oval Office and something big happens. But you can trust (for example) the Reconstructionist candidate's loudly avowed faith, because whoever it is this year won't win. |
You can go back and look at what they had to say before they decided to run for president. Like Huckabee wanting to quarantine AIDS patients in 1992.
Looking at their entire body of work, or as much as you can find, can still give you a semi-reasonable estimation of how their religion is likely to effect them.
And in the specific case of Huckabee his denial of evolution (be it based on religious thought ot not, but we know it is...) is ample grounds to disqualify him for the top job.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2008 : 04:56:35 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | See, there is your twisted point of view comming out again. |
Just cut the insults. I'm sick of being treated like a jerk just because I disagree with you on certain matters.
| Mormons who are full members of the church pay 30% of their annual salary to the church. Its not a requirement, and they don't kick you out of you can't do it (they are mostly nice people, don't get me wrong), and most Mormons do indeed pay much less, as you say. |
Show me a reference to 30%. The tithing comes from Mormon scripture and is 10%.
| But the amount is irrelavent. If you pay money to an organization, like the Mormon church, that openly advocates certain things... then you also advocate those things. |
Then I guess I advocate the Iraq war since I pay taxes. After all, I could leave or not pay in protest. But even if one argues that paying taxes is not a choice, I will say this: I would pay my taxes regardless because I support the general idea of government and government services. Mormons, and most other religious people traditionally, support the idea of religious community based services. My take on this is a little more sophisticated, not twisted. I look at what the religious services actually are. Most of the Mormon services actually do service people's basic needs in this life, opposed to, say, Catholics who spend a lot of money on fancy art for their churches, or certain Protestant ministries who spent it primarily on proselytizing.
I don't so much disagree with your criticism as much as I differ in how I weigh these things. I heavily weigh things which positively improve the condition of human life, and I'm not very convinced that mere personal beliefs are the huge scourge that many atheists make it out to be. I also am extremely wary of religious discrimination. So if someone participates in a religious community that actually does do things to help people, and they use secular arguments with regards to public life, I pretty much rank them with any good Humanist.
| Besides, what am I to think of Romney when he stands up and saus shit like "religion is required" for freedom to exist? What batshitfuckingcrazy kind of thinking is that? And if he is capable of speaking those words with a straight face, then he is manifestly unqualified to be president. |
Now you mention something is actually said. I have the same concerns with Romney. He does spout things (at least as of late) which imply that he would not maintain proper church-state separation and would be more favorable to Christians than other religious groups and atheists. For that I can oppose him because that is something particular to him. That is not the same as criticizing him just because he's Mormon.
| If that amount to religious discrimination, then fuck it, I'm discriminating. And I don't care. |
I don't think your opinion on this does amount to religious discrimination. From what you've said, your opinion is based on stuff Romney himself has actually said while campaigning. Dude, I was talking to bngbuck about discrimination because he went off about Mormons and then went into Romney without quoting anything Romney said and without having a meaningful segway between the two outside the fact that Romney identifies as a practicing Mormon. That fact alone should not be enough by itself to disqualify him as a candidate because if it does, that is religious discrimination in my book.
| No one, definitely not me, is saying that religious people can't also be intelligent with good critical thinking skills. To bad for you that none of your examples there were advocating for a specifically religious idea. |
Well I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to bngbuck who wrote: | In my view, anyone who is deeply religious; lacks sufficient intelligence, or wisdom, or the ability to think critically, or quite possibly all three, to qualify for the enormously demanding job of the President of the United States! |
bngbuck clearly made a criticism of all deeply religious people, so I mentioned some deeply religious people who have been outstanding political and social leaders.
| And again, if you give them money, you advocate their official positions on topics and support their policies. That is pretty far from acceptable for a US president. |
Again, if I myself were to start judging what candidates do with their expendable income, I'd be just as critical if not moreso of excessive luxuries, and that would pretty much make every candidate unfit in my book. Instead I just accept that people are imperfect, that they will not adhere personally to my own ideology, and I try to focus on the things that I think will matter the most in how they govern.
| Besides, I don't see any difference between your position on Huckabee and mine on Romney. You are leaving the damn country if he gets elected, because he is batshit religious crazy. |
If Huckabee's beliefs were a personal matter, I would not worry about it. But they are not. He advocates policies which are completely discriminatory against non-Christians and which advance Christianity politically. Romney explicitly says that he would NOT do this with his Mormonism (although he does seem as if he would do it with Christianity in general.) Actually, Huckabee's personal beliefs do not matter at all. For all we know, he could be an atheist in Christian clothing, playing on Evangelical sympathies in order to obtain political power. After all, we can't read his mind.
Let me make my point of contention with bngbuck vividly clear: religious discrimination is judging a candidate based on personal religious convictions and participation in their private life. Political candidates should be judged by what policies they would advocate in that role. If they would advocate policies which favor certain religious groups over others, that would make them a corrupt politician. I was simply asking bngbuck to criticize Romney for being Romney, not for being Mormon.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/07/2008 05:00:39 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2008 : 07:48:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Looking at their entire body of work, or as much as you can find, can still give you a semi-reasonable estimation of how their religion is likely to effect them. |
Where's the data from past Presidents that shows that this method does indeed produce "semi-reasonable estimations?"| And in the specific case of Huckabee his denial of evolution (be it based on religious thought ot not, but we know it is...) is ample grounds to disqualify him for the top job. |
But the point you seemed to be trying to make when I stepped in was that Romney simply giving money to his church was enough to disqualify him. My point was that such must be true for every other President we've ever had, and all current major candidates, then. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2008 : 13:12:31 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
| Then I guess I advocate the Iraq war since I pay taxes. |
If you were volunteering money to the US gov, then you may have some point. But really, how can you wonder why I dislike you when you resort to this type of argument? You leave no room for civil discourse.
Dave_W said:
| Where's the data from past Presidents that shows that this method does indeed produce "semi-reasonable estimations?" |
So you don't agree that you can gauge a person's outlook (and likely general actions) based on what they have said and written in the past? That is a fairly radical claim Dave.
| But the point you seemed to be trying to make when I stepped in was that Romney simply giving money to his church was enough to disqualify him. My point was that such must be true for every other President we've ever had, and all current major candidates, then. |
Hrrrm.... so you are saying that every other president has given money to the Mormon church? Interesting.
On the off chance that you didn't actually get what I was saying (maybe I was unclear), giving money in and of itself doesnt't disqualify you, its who you are giving it to. Jefferson, a Unitarian, would not have been giving money to an organization with delusional beliefs if he gave to his church. A person who gives money to the Mormon church is another matter entirely.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2008 : 14:17:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
| Where's the data from past Presidents that shows that this method does indeed produce "semi-reasonable estimations?" |
So you don't agree that you can gauge a person's outlook (and likely general actions) based on what they have said and written in the past? That is a fairly radical claim Dave. |
I think we see enough empty claims made on the campaign trail that we need to re-evaluate how accurately one can predict a candidate's performance in office using nothing more than what they've said and done up until they take the oath.Hrrrm.... so you are saying that every other president has given money to the Mormon church? Interesting.
On the off chance that you didn't actually get what I was saying (maybe I was unclear), giving money in and of itself doesnt't disqualify you, its who you are giving it to. Jefferson, a Unitarian, would not have been giving money to an organization with delusional beliefs if he gave to his church. A person who gives money to the Mormon church is another matter entirely. |
In the past, you've been one of the people here who have equated religious beliefs in general with delusion, Dude. Forgive my generalization from what you've said to that of giving to any church means that you "you advocate their official positions on topics and support their policies." If such a generalization doesn't hold true, what makes the LDS church special in that regard? Why would it not be true for Catholics? Or Assembly of God? Or even the Unitarians? Do these non-Mormon churches not have official positions or policies that they promote using donations? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2008 : 18:06:56 [Permalink]
|
| If you were volunteering money to the US gov, then you may have some point. But really, how can you wonder why I dislike you when you resort to this type of argument? You leave no room for civil discourse. |
Except that right after that I wrote this: | After all, I could leave or not pay in protest. But even if one argues that paying taxes is not a choice, I will say this: I would pay my taxes regardless because I support the general idea of government and government services. |
So you just brought up something that I already dealt with, but in this response you just latch on to the first sentence in my paragraph and conveniently ignore the rest which makes my point.
It might not be all Americans' choice to pay taxes, but it is mine. I'm educated and middle class enough that I could leave this country at any time. I could also go teach abroad and not pay taxes in America for years and years, so long as I don't' earn more than $70K a year. So yeah, it is my choice. My choice to put other things above my distaste for the fact that my tax dollars are supporting a war I hate. I simply compared this to religious folks who give money to religious institutions that they are a member of, even if they don't agree with everything the institution does. Most of the Mormon tithing goes to help financially struggling people. I guarantee that most of my tax dollars aren't going toward things so noble.
And you ignore, and I assume therefore dismiss, everything else I wrote, and with condescension.
Edited to add: Whether or not you like me (or I like you for that matter) is beside the point. I thought this was a debate about a topic on a forum.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/07/2008 20:16:50 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 01:34:24 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| I think we see enough empty claims made on the campaign trail that we need to re-evaluate how accurately one can predict a candidate's performance in office using nothing more than what they've said and done up until they take the oath. |
Complete crap Dave, and you know it. I'm not talking about "what they say on the campaign trail", to the exclusion of everything else they have said, and I find it difficult to believe you are honestly getting that from what I've said. Nor, obviously, am I talking about any specific predictions of behavior. But you can understand what type of energy policy, environmental policy, trade policy, diplomatic policy, torture policy, and what type of judges (again, generally) the person is likely to implement/appoint. Obviously there are many more things you can understand about a candidate by reading what they write, and by observing them in debates, looking at what they have written in the past, said in the past, and so on.
marf said:
So you just brought up something that I already dealt with, but in this response you just latch on to the first sentence in my paragraph and conveniently ignore the rest which makes my point.
......
I would pay my taxes regardless because I support the general idea of government and government services. |
Which is different from a religious person willingly tithing a curch because they support that church.... in what way, exactly?
You pay taxes, when you could avoid some of them, because you like the idea of clean water to your house, a police force, fire departments, and all the other things our government provides for us.
Let me remind you of what you said:
| Then I guess I advocate the Iraq war since I pay taxes. |
In your twisted little world it seems as if you are attempting to refute my point that a willing tithe is given because a person supports the institution and policies to whom they are tithing. Then you say that a person could accuse you of supporting the Iraq war for paying taxes (which are less than voluntary, even for you at this moment seeing as you are in fact living in the US), and THEN you say you stay here and continue to pay taxes because.... you support the policies of the institution (at least the vast majority of them).
And you wonder why I don't bother responding to most of your crap...
Its surreal, really it is.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 01/08/2008 01:35:01 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 04:24:14 [Permalink]
|
Marf.....
By the numbers. Eight quotes of yours, eight points:
1. | That statement by itself is meaningless. Got anything with substance? If you don't offer anything, I'm left to assume that you are merely engaging in religious discrimination against Mormons. |
If thishe is a self-proclaimed "highly religious" christian,.....
and a menber of a faith that professes some of the most insane religious beliefs in the whole panoply of asinine christian theology. |
doesn't register with you as having meaning and substance, your cognitive apparatus is either blinded or broken! Or| The Mormons are, to use Dude's term, delusional. Far beyond the standard shibboleths of Christianity, they literally worship imaginary angels and "latter day saints" of their own invention - Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other "saints" that are strictly products of their own imagination and don't even have the dubious authenticity of being shared with other christian sects. |
What the hell more can I say to be saying something of "substance" to you? Substance is as substance is seen! As to religious discrimination , I would like to state as loudly and clearly as I can be heard that I am prejudiced against and discriminatory toward strongly religious people (who by word and action demonstrate that they really believe their faith) who run for Congress or the presidency!
| I strongly disagree. How delusion a faith is depends first on the individual, then the local religious community they may or may not belong to, and goes out from there. Personal belief is complicated thing. How it relates to actions, how compartmentalized it is, how literal it is, whether it is only a surface response or a reflected on and deeply held thing are all factors. |
The "factors" you mention have nothing to do with the definition of 'delusional' Webster:b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary Marf, delusion is irrational, illogical, inconsistent with reality, distorted,crazy, psychotic! By definition. Deep and devotional religious belief is all of these. As you probably know, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens all make very strong cases for this! If you don't know, please read some of last year's best sellers!| You don't seem to making any kind of sophisticated analysis of Romney when you denounce him as a candidate based on his religious label. |
What the hell else do I, or you, or any other voter have to go on? If it walks like a goose, honks like a goose, and looks like a goose, it very probably is a goose - so fuck it, or at least goose it, 'til it goes away. I am doing everything in my poor power to make all of the stupid, silly geese go away! (I'm not trying to make a case for bestiality, but if it worked, I might consider taking it up -makes as much sense as homosexuality to me. How's that for discrimination?) CHICKENS?!
2.| Still waiting for you to answer to my question Can you put forth a compelling argument that Romney will be a bad president because of reasons connected to his Mormonism? |
Well, you'll wait forever unless you can tell me what "compelling" or "substantive" is in Marfspeak. Dude, and Filthy, and Moakley don't seem to have any trouble with the substance or compelling qualities of my arguments. Haven't heard from Dave, he'll probably have some sort of problem with it as the devil's advocacy is his vocation, but I don't see why you don't see the craziness of Romney's Mormonism as clearly as you obviously see it in Huckabee's fundamental Baptist beliefs - and immediately disqualify him (Huckabee) as a presidential prospect because he is a religious nutcase! And rightly so.| Mormonism is most certainly not a cult. Read up on cults. They lack many of the qualifications, such as a charismatic leader and insisting on the isolation of its members. Also, Mormonism is broken up into more than one sect. Being not even unified (much less having a charismatic leader) alone shows it is not a cult. Calling it one waters down the meaning of the word "cult". Not saying the certain Mormon communities aren't cults, some certainly are. But to call Mormonism as a whole a cult is just plain wrong. |
Thanks for the advice, Marf. I had "read up" on cults long before you learned to type. At age 50, I was deeply interested in the Jim Jones massacre of 1978. I followed the 1993 Branch Davidian Cult of David Koresh ending in disaster when I was 65, and you were a teenager. I know very well that Mormons as a whole fit almost all of eighteen definitions of "cult" that appear in three different dictionaries!
3. Definitions of a cult - three dictionaries!
1. Formal religious veneration - Christ, Joseph Smith, the Restoration and the Latter day Saints.
2. A system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents;the Bible, Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenents, the Pearl of Great Price
3. A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents; considered such by Catholics, most protestants, and many orthodox Jews
4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator; go here
5. Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book). Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, The current President of the Mormons, the angel Moroni, the Book of Mormon
6. A particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies;Celestial marriage, Baptism for the Dead, polygamy (still widely practiced)
7. An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers;Joseph Smith, The Latter Day Saints, The Great Exodus west to the the Salt Lake Valley led by Brigham Young in July 1849
8. The object of such devotion; Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and the Latter Day Saints
9. A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc;Mormons, both en mass, and in small, extreme sects as you mention, and which are numerous
10. Group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols; The Book of Mormon, The Bible, This is the Place (Salt Lake City), The Doctrine and Covenents
11. A religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader;Very evident in many small groups and cities in western Colorado and Eastern Utah
12. The members of such a religion or sect;Seeabove
13 a quasi-religious group, often living in a colony, with a charismatic leader who indoctrinates members with unorthodox or extremist views, practices or beliefs See Above
16 a system of religious adulation and worship directed towards a particular figure or object.Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ
17. a group of people with different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong. See Richard Abanes writing on Mormonism as a cult of Fundamentalist Christianity
18. a group with extreme or dangerous philosophical or political ideas. Again, the Mormons in enclaves along the Colorado-Utah border are strongly all of these!
4.| Now I don't think he (Huckabee) has a chance in hell of winning because there just aren't that many fundies. But I could be wrong, and if he wins, to me that shows that American culture and people as a whole have done far off the deep end, and I'm not waiting until they start putting people like me in camps. Incidentally, we are also planning to leave in Guilliani wins. It isn't Christianity I fear. It is fascism. |
what in the hell does that gibberish mean? What "deep end"? Huckabee and his ilk are going to put you in "camps"? You have no problem with his fundamentalism? What leads you to believe he is a Fascist, aside from his religion? And if it is his religion, how is it so terribly different from Romney's idiotic Joseph Smiths, and Moronic Angels?
Good god Marf, you accuse me of no substance and meaningless statements - where is the meaning and substance in this "American culture and people as a whole have done far off the deep end, and I'm not waiting until they start putting people like me in camps. Incidentally, we are also planning to leave in Guilliani wins. It isn't Christianity I fear. It is fascism."
Giuliani is a whole different breed of political cat. His only professed religion is a token Catholicism nod to Italian voters. His real religion is the worship of Money and Power - true of most real pols - and he is to be feared for exactly the same reasons Cheney, Bush and the neocon boys should have been feared back in 2000, and again in 2004! There is more than a little bit of this in Big Businessman Romney and all of his capitalist crap about knowing how to "get things done"
5.| This is where you and I disagree. I don't think that Bush or especially Romney are religious nuts. I think Bush is primarily motivated by big money and Romney is primarily motivated by what he thinks will give him political power. I think that if throwing off their religious convictions were the only way to achieve these other goals, they would do so without hesitation. |
Bush is stone-dumb enough to want nothing but money and power and simultaneously be a true "born again Christian. He isn't smart enough to be sufficiently duplicitious to adopt religion as a political cover. Sure, Rove put him up to it, but the stupid bastard believes it, thinks he's going to heaven despite being a mass murderer, and is as happy and as stupid as the proverbial little clam!
I'd buy your story on Romney except he has been a pillar in the Church, a lay minister, missionaried, tithed extravagantly, and given every indication from before he got into politics that he is a true Mormon wacko. He'd also rape your grandmother and if she died from the abuse, steal the pennies off her eyes. He is a totally hypocritical, dishonest, True Believer like most Mormons, who can justify all kinds of immoral and illegal activity to gain money and power and pay his Church to support them. It's an old story exemplified in the Catholic Church for centuries, they just have a few Latter Day twists on it! In addition to stupidity, most organized religions are fountainheads of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and hidden (strangely) homosexuality! Gays are fine, I don't like them hiding as Catholic priests!
6. | Oh yeah, people like Sojourner Truth, Martin Luther King, and William Sloan Coffin, are obviously lacking in intelligence, wisdom, and the ability to think critically and would have made horrible political leaders. |
Well I'll be damned if I would vote for Isabella today, or would I in the mid to late eighteen hundreds. Pacifism does not make any political sense then or now. It ain't practical, nor is isolationism. She was an unusual spokesperson for abolition and womens rights in her day - completely impractical in the 1800's. A Baumfree presidency (totally impossible at that time, of course) would have been completely impotent because her notions were way in advance of her time. I have seen nothing that indicated she was a Critical Thinker, she was a good preacher. She certainly had some intelligence, and perhaps wisdom (be careful with that word, we all are going to examine it soon) but I see absolutely nothing in her career to qualify her for the Presidency at any time in history.
William Sloan Coffin is justifiably famous for his civil rights work, pacifism, and zeal for world disarmament. He was an utterly impractical idealist and there are many like him in the religious community today. Liberal, yes, but also out of touch with reality, especially the realities of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Part of their ignorance, unsophistication, and lack of a realistic approach to world affairs is the completely false idealism built into most religions.
Martin Luther King Jr. is certainly to be admired for his astonishing civil rights work. I have read at some length of King, being curious as to what really constituted his charisma. He had a magnetic presence, particularly to members of his race, but so does Creflo Dollar. Charisma is not enough to qualify for aspirance to high political office. I have read nothing showing that King had exceptionally high intelligence nor Critical Thinking Skills nor diplomatic genius nor major problem solving abilities. He was a hell of a preacher and orator, and, but for racial prejudice, might have had an opportunity to run for the presidency. I doubt very much, even if he could have been nominated (never, at that point in History) and elected (also impossible at that time), that he would have been a great president, any more than Jack Kennedy was a great president, (definitely not), nor would Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. All of these men were and are far too narrow and focused on a small part of the enormous complex of problems that a president must face. And solve a few of them, to be successful. I do not feel that any of the three people you mentioned would be qualified to be President today or in their time. Their good and decent liberalism grew, in part, out of their religion - but goodness, and decency, and liberalism, while necessary, are not nearly sufficient qualities by themselves to make a good president. Sadly; few, if any, of the candidates of either party today possess enough even of these basic "good human being" qualities to make a good president.
Of all of them, Obama, shines the brightest today. I don't see him as black, I see him as green and idealistic. I hope not too idealistic to deal with a world gone mad with fanaticism, power, greed, and, yes, ignorance! It is looking tonight, as I write with the snow pouring down, that Obama might[b/] triumph over Hillary in NH and have a hell of a head start on the campaign trail. If he does, I think I will cross all my fingers and toes and try to cheer him on while holding my breath!
Oh Albert, Albert, hath thou deserted us?
7.| The idea that someone's personally-held religious beliefs must automatically impact their other judgments and actions is pure bullshit. It is well known by anyone who pays attention that people can hold the most ridiculous beliefs and still conduct their lives and take actions which are completely rational, as well as compassionate and efficient. |
Well, Marf, you certainly are an expert on bullshit; having defined it for us several times in this thread. I pay a lot of attention to a lot of things and what you say is "well known" is not well known to me. How about a few germane political Presidential examples of that wild, unsupported statement Marf? Doing that is apparently the name of the game around here I have been told, so I guess we have to play by the rules, huh?
As to Presidents who have had nutty ideas and turned out to be terrible presidents, there are plenty of outstanding examples - Bush (Christianity), Reagan(Christianity, astrology), Carter (Christianity, unsubstantiated UFO's, and Killer Rabbits) to name a few. All lousy Presidents!
[b]8. | If someone's stupid beliefs are going to impact their actions, the evidence is in their words and in their past actions. |
Absolutely! And Romney's stupid words and past actions are all over the map. You clearly heard his pronouncements about the rightness of a interconnection of church and state. No man that thinks clearly and critically could publically reverse himself on so many issues as Mutt has! His life and genealogy indicate that he is a True Mormon Believer and he has already shown that he's pretty confused about Taxation, Immigration, Abortion, and a host of other issues. He would be the worst kind of Religious Recruit, Big Business Believer, more- of-the-same-that-we-have-had-for-eight-years, doubled in spades President that I can imagine. Except for Huckabee, who is marginally worse, except that he might have the populist guts to give the finger to big business. Several of the Dems are prepared to do that, tho', so he gets no credit for that small virtue!
Look, Marf, you've got some sort of a soft spot in your heart or brain for certain kinds of Religiosity. What the hell, we all have our peculiarities. But you are just not really thinking it through if you are willing to consider a True Religious Believer, or even somebody that just says he is to get fundie votes, for President!
The abortion issue, the influence of the Supreme Court on all of our lives, Creationism, all the insane revival of Christian Crap that has affected Politics in recent years is damn dangerous. And I'm pretty sure I would move out of the country too, if it started looking like the separation of Church and State was about to be abridged. Anybody that's using religion as a political platform plank has got to be opposed! Huckabee and Romney certainly are. Many congressmen and Senators are. I can only vote for (or against) a handful of candidates. Their religious proclamations and background are of extreme importance to my choice. But I am speaking out in more arenas than this one against any highly religious candidates. They aren't qualified to run this country!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Buck on Huck
