RSS Feed
Mitt's a Locke
I once had a student--oh what a funny kid!--who when called upon to read passages aloud would recite them in a thick, nearly incomprehensible, Scottish brogue. He first stumbled upon this innovation during a discussion of John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration (about which more anon).
His attention to historical detail led him to speak like a seventeenth-century Scottish guy (even though Locke was born in Britain). His comic sense led him to speak like an old seventeenth-century Scottish guy. What led him to pronounce certain gutturals with those harsh, mucusy inflections one hears in modern Schweizer Deutsch is anyone’s guess.
My students and I loved it. So much so that by mid-semester we implored him to unleash his impersonation on all the theorists we studied in the “Introduction to Secularism” seminar. Gentle reader, you have not glimpsed joy until you hear the sentiments of Voltaire, Marx, Nietzsche, Weber, Arendt, Russell and Sartre (especially Sartre) being spoken by a fellow who sounded like a sheep herder from the Mormaerdom of Angus.
Why am I mentioning all of this? I have found myself thinking incessantly about Locke since Mitt Romney’s Faith and Values speech last week.
As you recall, my surmise was that the former governor of Massachusetts had given an address which was a calculated attack on nonbelieving Americans (who he confused with secularists in general). He seemed to suggest that they had no legitimate place in Romney’s America.
After all, what is the logical corollary to the following statement: “any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me”? Romney’s “symphony of faith” is a nice idea. But what to do with those Americans who are--in Max Weber’s famous phrase--“religiously a-musical”?
There are, of course, many differences between Locke and Romney, not least of which is that one expressed his views in 1689 and the other in 2007. But on the question of atheists I detect a similarity. Let me explain.
A Letter Concerning Toleration is crammed with those glorious ideas that would eventually shape the thinking of our founding fathers: That no magistrate can compel his religion on others: That a Church must be distinct from the commonwealth: That freedom of conscience was a God-given right: That “Catholicks,” Jews, and what Locke called “Mahumetans” must be fully tolerated by the government (even though their opinions were “false and absurd.”)
But, as I always tell my students, the only really interesting question about tolerance concerns what cannot be tolerated. And for the enlightened and forward-thinking Locke, “Atheists,” were not to be granted this indulgence:
Lastly. Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the Being of a God . . . Beside also, those that by their Atheism undermine and destroy all Religion, can have no pretense of Religion whereupon to challenge the Privilege of a Toleration.
Locke probably meant what he wrote and truly disliked and feared atheists. Romney, I bet, has worked closely with more than a few godless folks during his career and probably got along with them just fine. His nonbeliever-baiting is Huckabee-driven.
Romney articulates an ideology of “ecumenicism”--one that would have been quite alien to Locke’s contemporaries. As we learned from Thursday's speech, Catholicism, Evangelicalism, Pentacostalism, Lutheranism, Judaism, Islam—it’s all good!. Romney’s implication was not only that it was “all good,” but that it was all equal. No references to the falsity and absurdity of other religions here.
Yet looking at the text of Romney’s speech I wonder if he is truly any more ecumenical than either Locke or the aforementioned sheep herder. It was sprinkled with scriptural citations, all of which came from the New Testament. He used the phrase “gain the world” an obvious allusion to a well known line from the Gospels (Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25). He directly cited a verse from Matthew 25:35. And rounded it off with a verse from My Country 'tis of Thee.
This ecumenical appeal to Faith In General would have gained in credibility had he mentioned some other religious texts in his address. Aren't non-Protestant texts valued instruments in the symphony of faith? What about a Qur'anic verse? A saying of Rabbi Akiva? A little Augustine? Or maybe even something from the Book of Mormon?
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
December 11, 2007; 8:47 AM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Romney Plays the Atheist Card |
Next: Fashion and Faith and Values
Posted by: Al | January 16, 2008 12:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Two handsome young Mormon men in business suits appeared at my front door and outlined a summer vacation program which seemed to offer a positive experience for my two sons aged 10 and 6. I asked if they would be injecting Mormon teachings into the program (we are Methodist) and they answered "No". When my sons returned from the second experience in the program, my 10 year old said that one of the young men told him that he would not go to heaven unless they were Mormons. When the two young men came to take my boys to their summer program, I asked if they had told my sons they couldn't go to heaven unless they were Mormons. They young me both answered that is what they told my sons. Is this Mitt Romney's belief?
Posted by: Al | January 16, 2008 12:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
(Note: Some parts of our post were truncated; we apologize for any inconvenience of posting again.) To answer...
================
E favorite,
>>D&A Stevens -- Do you work for the Romney campaign?
No. We have donated money and time at the Iowa caucus. We are marginally active in politics; more at the local level.
=========================
Norrie,
It will not matter what our response is to your post so this will be our only response. It appears that you are anti-religion.
>> His recent speech told me that I can't be considered a good American citizen because I don't believe in a phantasmagoric diety such as he believes in.
Phantasmagoric? We must have missed that word. Romney said that good Americans would not judge people according to which faith they held. The speech was not aimed at non-believers; it was aimed at people of faith. We also believe, secularists “are wrong” in trying to take all religion out of our society.
>>I also know that his major civic accomplishment in Belmont was his successful evasion of Belmont's zoning ordinance on behalf of the LDS.
We’re sure the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) is capable of dealing with local zoning and code issues without Mitt. BTW… We didn’t hear you mention the fact that a Mormon chapel was torched in a “suspicious” fire in your pleasant community? Hmmmm… tolerance we suspect.
Besides, it wasn’t just Mormons defending the Temple in Belmont, thirteen other faith based groups (Baptist, Jews, et al.) were willing to file "friend of the court” briefs. Ultimately, the courts allowed the temple to be built.
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/mass6.htm
>>The result was the building of a grotesquely oversized Mormon Temple which is totally inappropriate for the location. It desecrates the landscape of a once pleasant New England town.
Desecrates the landscape? We wonder what many American Indian tribes are saying under their breath about the desecration of land?
All this has nothing to do with the Presidential campaign anyway?
We’re glad you agree that he is at least a great guy!
While the MSM and narrow minded bloggers stand ready to crucify, belittle, and try to subvert the politics of electing a leader of faith and values, our desire is that the American people will see through the rhetoric, bigotry, and propaganda and nominate Mitt because he is a man of integrity, intelligence, leadership, and compassion. –D&A
Posted by: D&A Stevens, Ohio | December 13, 2007 6:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Norrie,
It will not matter what our response is to your post so this will be our only response. It appears that you are anti-religion.
>> His recent speech told me that I can't be considered a good American citizen because I don't believe in a phantasmagoric diety such as he believes in.> I also know that his major civic accomplishment in Belmont was his successful evasion of Belmont's zoning ordinance on behalf of the LSD.>The result was the building of a grotesquely oversized Mormon Temple which is totally inappropriate for the location. It desecrates the landscape of a once pleasant New England town.<<
Desecrates the landscape? We wonder what many American Indian tribes are saying under their breath about the desecration of land?
All this has nothing to do with the Presidential campaign anyway?
We’re glad you agree that he is at least a great guy!
While the MSM and narrow minded bloggers stand ready to crucify, belittle, and try to subvert the politics of electing a leader of faith and values, our desire is that the American people will see through the rhetoric, bigotry, and propaganda and nominate Mitt because he is a man of integrity, intelligence, leadership, and compassion. –D&A
PS... we do not work for Romney
Posted by: D&A Stevens, Ohio | December 13, 2007 6:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
No E,
I don't work for his campaign, though I have contributed.
I based my contribution upon which candidate could look at all sides of a question (even if he doesn't agree with it) and is the most effective at actually getting the job done.
There are things I don't like about ALL the candidates, but I do have to make a choice. I'm fiscally conservative and socially so-so.
Posted by: Sean | December 13, 2007 3:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
E Thinker,
You asked if Mormons had worked out a way for non-believers to get into the after-life, avoiding Christian hell-fire.
The answer to your question is yes, I guess. We don't exactly "work it out" in a contrived way, but this is basically what we believe.
Mormons basically believe that all people are resurrected and partake in the afterlife, whether they are good, evil, or somewhere in the middle. But in the Mormon faith, the afterlife is not a one-size fits all scenario.
We have something we refer to as "degrees of glory." Those who have been wicked and evil in this life go to the lowest, which is described as being a glorious, wonderful place. What makes this lowest kingdom hell is only the personal knowledge that you could have chosen better, but didn't. No demons, no lake of fire and brimstone.
This makes many Christians angry, because many (not all, of course) basically feel vengeful against those who do not adopt their program and wish to see harm come to them. I would prefer not to level that charge against many people of faith, but I do beleive it is accurate.
However, in LDS theology, the unrighteous people of the earth are also God's children. And as a parent, he no more wishes to see harm come to an errant child than you do.
The next level is for the good people of the world who didn't choose to be really bad, but didn't choose to be particularly stalwart either. Honorable people of the world, essentially....
The highest kingdom is for those who really dedicate themselves to living good lives, loving their neighbors, aspiring for righteousness and fulfilling all covenants and obligations they made to the Lord.
But, nobody's perfect.... We may intend to do well, but we screw up. That is why there is repentance, which at its most basic level means to turn around.
There's a problem though. Billions of people never had a chance. They were born into circumstances where they might not have ever been taught moral or ethical behavior. Basic survival was what their lives were about. What of these? Do they get dumped into the bottom tier (or Christian hellfire?) because they didn't know any better?
No. Mormons believe that we will be judged according to what we individually know. Did we live in accordance to what we believed to be right and good, even though we may have been mistaken...? In many respects we will judge ourselves. Would we feel comfortable in the presence of God...?
So, where does that leave atheists? If they live good lives in accordance to their sincere beliefs, nobody need charge them with going to hell. They're going where most of the rest of us are going, because they are good, honorable people too. Of course, it would probably not be a good idea for anyone to persecute people for their beliefs, whatever they are....
So, there is no such thing as Christian hell-fire. Christian hell-fire, as atheists correctly suppose, was an invention to coerce people into obeying the (medieval) Church.
When Mormons use the word hell, we are usually talking about a state of mind. There is another way the word hell is used, and that is the one applied to Satan, who does not get to go to the lowest degree of glory. He receives no glory, but I don't think it involves fire and brimstone either.
Well, I realize that must sound very odd. That is a tiny snippet cut out of a big cloth. When you see it in context of the full picture, it makes much more sense. :-)
Posted by: Eric | December 13, 2007 2:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
mid century historian:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Posted by: Chris Everett | December 13, 2007 8:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sean: “Since the field consists only of religious candidates, well, he certainly seems to be the most rational thinker of the lot.”
Do you work for the Romney campaign too?
Eric – have Mormons worked out a way for atheists to get into the mormon afterlife, thus avoiding Christian hellfire?
Norrie - keep it coming
Posted by: E favorite | December 13, 2007 8:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
From the New York Times
Islam’s Silent Moderates
By AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Published: December 7, 2007
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with 100 stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. (Koran 24:
"The key to ending this tyranny of interpretation of the Koran is within the Koran itself, if the people have the courage to use it."
IN the last few weeks, in three widely publicized episodes, we have seen Islamic justice enacted in ways that should make Muslim moderates rise up in horror.
A 20-year-old woman from Qatif, Saudi Arabia, reported that she had been abducted by several men and repeatedly raped. But judges found the victim herself to be guilty. Her crime is called “mingling”: when she was abducted, she was in a car with a man not related to her by blood or marriage, and in Saudi Arabia, that is illegal. Last month, she was sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes with a bamboo cane.
Two hundred lashes are enough to kill a strong man. Women usually receive no more than 30 lashes at a time, which means that for seven weeks the “girl from Qatif,” as she’s usually described in news articles, will dread her next session with Islamic justice. When she is released, her life will certainly never return to normal: already there have been reports that her brother has tried to kill her because her “crime” has tarnished her family’s honor.
We also saw Islamic justice in action in Sudan, when a 54-year-old British teacher named Gillian Gibbons was sentenced to 15 days in jail before the government pardoned her this week; she could have faced 40 lashes. When she began a reading project with her class involving a teddy bear, Ms. Gibbons suggested the children choose a name for it. They chose Muhammad; she let them do it. This was deemed to be blasphemy.
Then there’s Taslima Nasreen, the 45-year-old Bangladeshi writer who bravely defends women’s rights in the Muslim world. Forced to flee Bangladesh, she has been living in India. But Muslim groups there want her expelled, and one has offered 500,000 rupees for her head. In August she was assaulted by Muslim militants in Hyderabad, and in recent weeks she has had to leave Calcutta and then Rajasthan. Taslima Nasreen’s visa expires next year, and she fears she will not be allowed to live in India again.
It is often said that Islam has been “hijacked” by a small extremist group of radical fundamentalists. The vast majority of Muslims are said to be moderates.
But where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say, in the case of the girl from Qatif, that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted — and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done?
Usually, Muslim groups like the Organization of the Islamic Conference are quick to defend any affront to the image of Islam. The organization, which represents 57 Muslim states, sent four ambassadors to the leader of my political party in the Netherlands asking him to expel me from Parliament after I gave a newspaper interview in 2003 noting that by Western standards some of the Prophet Muhammad’s behavior would be unconscionable. A few years later, Muslim ambassadors to Denmark protested the cartoons of Muhammad and demanded that their perpetrators be prosecuted.
But while the incidents in Saudi Arabia, Sudan and India have done more to damage the image of Islamic justice than a dozen cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, the organizations that lined up to protest the hideous Danish offense to Islam are quiet now.
I wish there were more Islamic moderates. For example, I would welcome some guidance from that famous Muslim theologian of moderation, Tariq Ramadan. But when there is true suffering, real cruelty in the name of Islam, we hear, first, denial from all these organizations that are so concerned about Islam’s image. We hear that violence is not in the Koran, that Islam means peace, that this is a hijacking by extremists and a smear campaign and so on. But the evidence mounts up.
Islamic justice is a proud institution, one to which more than a billion people subscribe, at least in theory, and in the heart of the Islamic world it is the law of the land. But take a look at the verse above: more compelling even than the order to flog adulterers is the command that the believer show no compassion. It is this order to choose Allah above his sense of conscience and compassion that imprisons the Muslim in a mindset that is archaic and extreme.
If moderate Muslims believe there should be no compassion shown to the girl from Qatif, then what exactly makes them so moderate?
When a “moderate” Muslim’s sense of compassion and conscience collides with matters prescribed by Allah, he should choose compassion. Unless that happens much more widely, a moderate Islam will remain wishful thinking.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Posted by: Anonymous | December 12, 2007 9:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Norrie Hoyt..
As we suspected, to you unbelievers means Jews. Why do you alwyas try to hide it?
Your quotation of Shylock and Shakespeare, of course, confirms it. BUT the reason Shylock was under scrutiny was his handling of money.
Money. It was his BEHAVIOR, not who he was, notwithstanding that his behavior was so cliche as to be funny, even a few hundred years ago.
Some things never change.
AND never change.
Posted by: mid century historian | December 12, 2007 8:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks, Jd1. The reason I thought it was interesting because they have a scanned version of the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormom.
Posted by: Gaby | December 12, 2007 6:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Gaby,
That is an evangelical anti-Mormon website. Not to say you shouldn't read it, but just know it is no less agenda driven than a pro-Mormon site. To see pro-Mormon answers to their claims, which are typical claims of Protestant anti-Mormonism, see http://www.fairlds.org/apol/
Personally, I think scholarship on religion published in academic venues is the best "neutral" information on Mormonism.
Best,
Jd1
Posted by: John D the First | December 12, 2007 6:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Gaby,
That is an evangelical anti-Mormon website. Not to say you shouldn't read it, but just know it is no less agenda driven than a pro-Mormon site. To see pro-Mormon answers to their claims, which are typical claims of Protestant anti-Mormonism, see http://www.fairlds.org/apol/
Personally, I think scholarship on religion published in academic venues is the best "neutral" information on Mormonism.
Best,
Jd1
Posted by: John D the First | December 12, 2007 6:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Britain includes Scotland.
Posted by: Spinoza | December 12, 2007 5:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Britain includes Scotland.
Posted by: Spinoza | December 12, 2007 5:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Here is an interesting link:
Posted by: Gaby | December 12, 2007 5:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reasonable Not Hateful,
Concerning Blacks & Non-believers:
Both are people.
Both have been, and are, disparaged, rejected,and excluded by many people, not for their actions, but for who they are.
Personal rejection and exclusion hurt the person rejected and excluded.
Blacks are generally not tortured and lynched today, though their black ancestors were, and many despise blacks today.
Non-believers are generally not tortured and burned at the stake today, though their nonbelieving ancestors were, and many despise nonbelievers today.
Both non-believers and blacks can say:
Hath not we eyes? Hath not we hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means,
warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer
as a white Christian is?
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us,
do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 12, 2007 4:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reasonable Not Hateful,
Concerning Blacks & Non-believers:
Both are people.
Both have been, and are, disparaged, rejected,and excluded by many people, not for their actions, but for who they are.
Personal rejection and exclusion hurt the person rejected and excluded.
Blacks are generally not tortured and lynched today, though their black ancestors were, and many despise blacks today.
Non-believers are generally not tortured and burned at the stake today, though their nonbelieving ancestors were, and many despise nonbelievers today.
Both non-believers and blacks can say:
Hath not we eyes? Hath not we hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means,
warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer
as a white Christian is?
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us,
do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 12, 2007 4:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
REASONABLE NOT HATEFUL:
Perhaps I misunderstood you. You said:
"When people realize that religion is about their own assessment in OPINION about something that cannot be proved or disproved, people on opposite sides of the aisle in this instance will get along better"
I interpreted this as you asserting that religion AS IT EXISTS NOW is about personal opinion, and once atheists realize this they will be able to get along better with religion. I now see that you are calling for a RELIGIOUS REFORMATION in which believers dial back their claims to absolute truth and instead take the stance that Unfounded Belief X is "just my personal opinion." I couldn't agree more! Under those conditions, I might find myself a little less threatened by other people's superstitions.
By the way, and I assume you've been asked this before, but WHY do you believe ANYTHING that is unsubstantiated by evidence? Is it comfort in security? Is it sufficient cynisism about our ability to know even ANY truth that you feel there's no loss in simply making it up? Is it something deep from childhood that can't be seen any other way? I'm honestly baffled - it's the question of our time. Personally, I have a hypothesis (just a hypothesis, mind you, not a theory) that there are two kinds of "sense" that can be made of the world: mechanistic sense, in which order is brought by physical law and everything happens impersonally; and moral sense, in which order is brought by justice and everything happens because those to whom it happend deserve it. Those with mechanistic sense find order in science and nature, and nature appears complete. Those with moral sense need to see the scales of justice balance, which ultimately requires some supernatural realm in which the balancing takes place (e.g. afterlife or karmic reincarnation).
Posted by: Chris Everett | December 12, 2007 4:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry this is long, but please read it.
The whole God thing gets so mixed up with all of this.
Let me make it real simple for you all: If George W. Bush followed to the letter (or even to the concept) the teachings of Jesus Christ as reported in the New Testament he would find himself incapable of waging war upon any country, organization or person regardless of what they had done. To paraphrase:
If any man strikes at your cheek offer to him the other.
If any man flies an airplane into the World Trade Center offer to 'him' (in this case - by extension his people) not so much another landmark full of people, but the understanding that a man does not do this lightly, fanatacism aside (for fanatacism is not thought, but instead the absence of it and as such can not be dealt with as behavior which can be addressed any more than attempting to command the tide not to roll in). Understand that striking back does not produce the desired result - at best the illusion of the desired result. And that is only if you 'win'.
The point here is that no government leader with Christian dogma as the underpinning of his true moral convictions can lead a country that may have to fight. I know, I know, there are many passages in the Bilble supporting the actions of violence against an enemy... but Jesus changes all that. Again to paraphrase, this time from the sequence when the Pharases attempt to trick Jesus into answering the question "Teacher, which of the ten commandments is the greatest?"
I come to offer you an 11th commandment, and that is to love one another.
Again, what we have here is the negation of all antagonistic action (who can aim to hurt those they love?), and in essence an antidote to the list of 'No' which is the 10 commandments. Anyone truly atempting to live as Jesus mandates, and by that I mean anyone claiming to be a Christian (which includes Mormons, Catholics, Protestants - and I believe that covers the entire religious gamut of not only this crop of candidates for President but every major party candidate for President throughout the history of the United States) could in essence not act as an agent of his religion when making decisions of state.
Oh how I wish all these Presidents had used their Christian beliefs when making decisions. How much better the world if after 9/11/2001 we had said to the world we realize this hatred could only come from insanity or a desire to change the balance of power and welath in the world. Nothing can be done about the insanity - so let us turn our attention to the imbalance and make it right.
America in the form of George W. Bush squandered what may well be our last chance to get it right... and I doubt that too many of the current candidates would have handled it all that differently.
Bottom line - none of them are Christian... so stop worrying about which flavor of Christian they pretend to be.
PS I am an athiest. I just really think that the philosophy of Jesus is admirable and should be practiced. But it never is, and if the philosophy isn't practiced all you really have is a lie when you say you are a Christian.
Posted by: Paranoid | December 12, 2007 4:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Boy Scouts have been a tremendously positive and productive thing in America.
So many of our best citizens, most productive, most liked, have been scouts.
Iwonder if thecolumnist who deliberately, and with the usual design of his type, (probably while sneering) strted this religious embriglio,
is proud of the nasty,ugly posters he has produced.
Probably. Undoubtedly.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 12, 2007 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thishowiseeit,
What were you told??????
Posted by: Gaby | December 12, 2007 4:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeez, so many posts, so much to respond to.
You can't equate atheists to black people Norrie. You are mixing RACE with what people believe. Why would a Christian want to join a club of Muslims, for instance? They would not.
So, Are you really equating the kind of discrimination that you "think" or perceive that atheists get when they won't recite the oath and get kicked out, to the kind of treatment African Americans were treated to for decades? Sorry the analogy does not wash at all.
Chris Everett- You must be kidding- as I have said before, Not all truth can be proven as factual but all facts are truth. It is my opinion that God exists and that the precepts of Christianity are true. No one can disprove or prove it. So we are not going to meet anywhere close to the middle on this opinion. The mature response on your part would be to just swallow your pride and say "that is the way things are". Just agree to disagree.Can you do that?
Mr Mark: I never said it was where I wanted to hang my ethical hat. I only claimed that what they were doing was their right to do so. Clubs exist all over the place that other cultures, creeds, etc- different people should not, and mostly do not , want to be part of. It is their right under the constitution to do so. Now whether it is right or not is a completely different question. My personal opinion is that I probably would not know how a atheist kid would feel under that scenario, as I have not encountered that in my life much- it would have to be very hurtful and I can see Norrie's angst on this, but it is nothing like being black in the forties.
It would obviously hurt the child very much. The differences in the mindset between atheists such as yourselves and deeply religious people that want their kids in something like the Boy Scouts- that schism is a large one to overcome. It is not just the oath but the philosophical bent that each person brings to the table. They are just too different.
Posted by: Reasonable not hateful | December 12, 2007 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jim,
I have never read such tripe in all my life!
If Mr. Romney does not discuss the particulars of his faith it is because they are irrelevant to the job he is applying for! If you want to know about what you think it is Romney is hiding, go to www.lds.org and look it up yourself! Must you people all be spoon fed? Why do you need a government employee to do everything for you? Sheesh!
And no, no living person has had a proxy baptism done for them! They are called baptisms for the dead because the people are DEAD! And Mormons perform these proxy baptisms BECAUSE they were performed in the New Testament, AND because there it also reads that ALL of mankind must be baptized, AND because MOST people who have ever lived have not had a chance to even hear the gospel let alone be baptized. Other churches just send these unbaptized people straight to hell.
And we don't believe God works that way. That would not be merciful and it would not be just...
But here is a MAJOR point about baptisms for the dead. Mormons believe that the deceased person (that person's soul) must ACCEPT the baptism for it to be valid. There is no such thing as coercion in the LDS church. If you had the faintest knowledge of LDS theology you would know that the entire plan is based upon AGENCY!
You think we believe that only members of the LDS faith can achieve salvation? First, you don't understand the meaning of the word salvation. ALL mankind receives salvation (redeemed from death) by virtue of Christ's sacrifice, and will receive a kingdom of glory according to what he/she does in this life. If one wishes to achieve more than basic salvation, then you had best live your life in a decent, even exemplary way!
There is no such thing as non-Mormon kids having to register last for school. Have you ever heard of the Separation of Church and State? If your kids DID register last, I suspect it was because you were too busy reading them anti-Mormon literature to sign them up for their classes in time. Even then, I suspect that there were more than left-over classes for your children to take, because many of the LDS high-schoolers in heavily populated Mormon areas opt out of a class in order to take seminary.
FYI, I was a girl scout when I was young. It was not operated by the LDS church. I went to one run by the Catholics. The LDS church does not run Girl Scout troops because it operates its own program for girls, which is frankly much better.
There are plenty of Boy Scout troops not run by the LDS church. If you were too busy reading anti-Mormon literature to go find one for your boys, that is not the fault of the LDS Church. Again I speak to your need for being spoon-fed...
There are community-run Scout Troops in addition to those run by other faiths. If there were not any to be found in your area, then that is because no non-LDS parents wanted to be bothered with running the program! It would be up to you to start the program if it were wanted.
LDS legislators do NOT meet with the president of the Church for guidance. If they did, we'd be seeing Harry Reid in lockstep with Orrin Hatch. Duh!
The only thing you managed to get right was that non-members may not enter the temple. However, all people are welcome once they meet the requirements of a temple recommend.
If you do not enjoy being publically corrected, you are free to get your facts straight at www.lds.org, which is the official church site. If you'd prefer getting answers to weird accusations against the church, you can read this one, which is pretty interesting: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/
Posted by: Helen | December 12, 2007 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As a nonbeliever I was not offended by Mitt Romney speech. But years ago when I took a guided tour in Salt Lake City of the Mormon complex I got a little offended by the answer the tour guide gave me when I asked what happened to the original Book of Mormon. The answer was so unbelievable that made me feel as I was regarded as less than a normal person.
Posted by: thishowiseeit | December 12, 2007 4:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jazzylady:
ALL religions are cults!!!
Posted by: Gaby | December 12, 2007 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Joet writes:
"Just by asking the question, of course, he is signalling his evangelical crowd not to buy Romney's speech. what a christian thing for a minister to do."
I'm not so bothered by one superstitious believer (Huckabee) arguing with another superstitious believer (Romeny) over which one's superstition is true.
I'm very bothered when a candidate (Huckabee) believes some superstitious belief (creationism) over a factual explanation (evolution).
Truth be told, neither Huckabee nor Romney is worth serious consideration for the office of president.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 12, 2007 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jazzylady:
Some of the posts DO talk about specific Mormon beliefs, although I cannot speak to how comprehensive they are since I'm not a Mormon.
What I can say is that to a non-religious person such as myself, Mormonism isn't particularly more absurd and ridiculous than Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, etc, and I don't need to know specifics to know that. All I need to know is that it's a "revealed" religion.
Concern over specifics seems to come primarily from members of other religions, which to me is just the clattering of pots calling the kettle black.
It IS so, it is NOT so, it IS so, it is NOT so...
Posted by: Chris Everett | December 12, 2007 3:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I do not understand. I do not understand at all why no one will talk about and dissect that so called religion of Romney's, and why no on will denounce it for what it is, a pure and complicated cult. I know you will all get there, sooner or later, so I will just sit and wait.
Posted by: Jazzylady | December 12, 2007 3:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
well, it took all of about a couple of days for Huckabee to succumb to temptation. He is questioning whether Romney is a Christian by asking if Mormons believe Jesus and Satan were brothers. Just by asking the question, of course, he is signalling his evangelical crowd not to buy Romney's speech. what a christian thing for a minister to do.
Posted by: JoeT | December 12, 2007 3:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
INFORMATION (NOT OPINION) - ASTONISHING!
MAXIMUS IS RIGHT! THERE ARE BUDDHIST SCOUT TROOPS AND BUDDHIST BOY SCOUTS!
I checked this on the internet. I'm delighted, but have to point out that the BSA only arrived at this position by ignoring its own membership requirements.
Go to any Scout information site: to become a member you have to swear that you owe a duty to God.
An elementary fact of Buddhism and Buddhists is that they do not believe in God or anything like a god. Their cosmology doesn't allow for such a being.
My guess is that the BSA didn't want the bad publicity they'd have if they publically rejected Buddhist boys. So they silently transmuted their requirement of belief in God to a requirement for some kind positive thought about good things in the universe, just as the courts have held that you can be a conscientious objector by simply following your own personal code of non-violence, rather than having to have a religious affiliation, which is what the law seems to demand.
I suspect, though, that if an unaffiliated non-believing boy showed up on the Scouts' doorstep and declared his non-belief, he wouldn't be allowed in.
I bet the same thing would also happen to a Buddhist boy who wasn't affiliated with a Sangha ("Church").
If the Scouts actually have a practice that's more liberal than their stated requirements, they'd be doing themselves a great favor if they proclaimed that publically. Americans don't like discrimination.
If the Scouts aren't willing to do the right thing and go all the way toward religious tolerance, perhaps they should adopt a "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" policy in regard to religion.
That would allow all boys to join and would spare the Scouts a lot of grief
Many governments and churches have denied the Scouts the use of their facilities because of their publically-stated discriminations.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 12, 2007 3:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
INFORMATION (NOT OPINION) - ASTONISHING!
MAXIMUS IS RIGHT! THERE ARE BUDDHIST SCOUT TROOPS AND BUDDHIST BOY SCOUTS!
I checked this on the internet. I'm delighted, but have to point out that the BSA only arrived at this position by ignoring its own membership requirements.
Go to any Scout information site: to become a member you have to swear that you owe a duty to God.
An elementary fact of Buddhism and Buddhists is that they do not believe in God or anything like a god. Their cosmology doesn't allow for such a being.
My guess is that the BSA didn't want the bad publicity they'd have if they publically rejected Buddhist boys. So they silently transmuted their requirement of belief in God to a requirement for some kind positive thought about good things in the universe, just as the courts have held that you can be a conscientious objector by simply following your own personal code of non-violence, rather than having to have a religious affiliation, which is what the law seems to demand.
I suspect, though, that if an unaffiliated non-believing boy showed up on the Scouts' doorstep and declared his non-belief, he wouldn't be allowed in.
I bet the same thing would also happen to a Buddhist boy who wasn't affiliated with a Sangha ("Church").
If the Scouts actually have a practice that's more liberal than their stated requirements, they'd be doing themselves a great favor if they proclaimed that publically. Americans don't like discrimination.
If the Scouts aren't willing to do the right thing and go all the way toward religious tolerance, perhaps they should adopt a "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" policy in regard to religion.
That would allow all boys to join and would spare the Scouts a lot of grief
Many governments and churches have denied the Scouts the use of their facilities because of their publically-stated discriminations.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 12, 2007 3:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As I've said before, Romney can't have it both ways. Either one's religion is inconsequential to one's candidacy or it's not. If you state that belief in a diety is central to your campaign, you have nullified the idea it is inconsequential, and so becomes consequential. If consequential, what that faith is, and what its tenets are fair politics.
HAD Romney gone the route of JFK, he would have done himself and the country a great service.
By the way, for a REAL American spawned religion, y'all need to head for the nearest sweat lodge. The Native Americans have the only real non-imported religion.
Posted by: Ethan Q | December 12, 2007 3:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Wilson Roberts,
I guess I don't understand your concern....
If you live outside of religion, why would you be concerned about what Mormons think their eternal potential is...? Isn't it ALL mumbo jumbo to you? Why would the idea of a man or woman eventually becoming like God be offensive to you, particularly since you don't believe in God in the first place?
I would think that this would arouse no emotion in you whatsoever. It's no weirder than the virgin birth or walking on water, after all. But you are "chilled" by this idea...?
And I'm not sure what your reference to MAN becoming a god meant. I'm an English speaker, and as such I tend to shorten words as much as possible. It used to be OK to use the word "man" instead of saying "men and women" but certain folks are now so offended by that, and are so sure that someone is not including them. Sigh.
LDS theology of course includes women in the concept of eternal progression.
I think it important to not inflate and catastrophize Romney's speech. While he may not have acknowledged the contributions of non-believers in our society, he in no way said anything about revoking their right to vote!
Posted by: Eric | December 12, 2007 3:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mindless. totally mindless, both the editorial and most of the comments.
Posted by: Richard | December 12, 2007 2:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Romney's speech rang with brotherhood. It was an ecumenical feast. It implored us to accept that Mr. Romney, a member of the Latter Day Saints, should not be viewed in terms of his religion. But Mr. Romney, in pandering to the protestant right, wears the religion he wants us to ignore on his sleeve. And the religion he so freely exhibits, is not the religion he professes privately. Mr. Romney will not talk to the doctrine of his religion. If Mr. Romney wants to believe he is a protestant, why doesn't he become a protestant. Since he is in fact a member of the LDS, why doesn't he speak to planet Kolb. Why doesn't he speak to Garden of Eden being just outside of Kansas City. Why doesn't he speak to the Prophet, Sear, and Revelator. Why doesn't he speak to the position of women in his religion. It is a conscious decision, and a dictate of his religion that the doctrine not be discussed in public. The church dictates this and Mr. Romney follows that dictate so that he and his church will appear more mainstream in their belief. And if they are not mainstream why should it matter. As Mr. Romney so elequently put it, it is not what religion you have, but that you have religion.
My difficulty with this conversion to inclusion is that it is anthetical to the beliefs of his religion and the practice of his fellow believers in Kingdom of Deseret, which includes much of the mountain west. LDS doctrine holds that only members of that religion can achieve salvation. Because they recognize that is a smidge harsh they secretly baptize in abstentia millions of the heathen, so they will have a chance at salvation. You may be LDS and not know it.
If you live in their community and are a gentile your child will register for school last, and take the leavings, because "normal" registration is for the LDS children who must schedule their LDS education as part of the normal school day. If you are a gentile, your male children will become a boy scout only if he wants to go to meeting at an LDS house of worship and include LDS ritual in the meetings. All troops belong to the church. Your daughter will not be a girl scout, because the LDS don't believe in girl scouts. Your legislator will meet with the prophet, sear, and revelator prior to the start of each legislative session for "guidance". And, oh, in this religion that now speaks for inclusion, you will never be able to enter their temple, because only members with a "Temple Recommend" can enter this place of worship. All others are excluded.
The contradictions and the duplicity are consistent and wearing on non-members, and jack (non-practicing) mormons alike.
It is difficult not to believe, that Mr. Romney as a true believer, only wants us to include him; but that inclusion will end shortly after the vote is cast.
Posted by: jim | December 12, 2007 2:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Romney's speech rang with brotherhood. It was an ecumenical feast. It implored us to accept that Mr. Romney, a member of the Latter Day Saints, should not be viewed in terms of his religion. But Mr. Romney, in pandering to the protestant right, wears the religion he wants us to ignore on his sleeve. And the religion he so freely exhibits, is not the religion he professes privately. Mr. Romney will not talk to the doctrine of his religion. If Mr. Romney wants to believe he is a protestant, why doesn't he become a protestant. Since he is in fact a member of the LDS, why doesn't he speak to planet Kolb. Why doesn't he speak to Garden of Eden being just outside of Kansas City. Why doesn't he speak to the Prophet, Sear, and Revelator. Why doesn't he speak to the position of women in his religion. It is a conscious decision, and a dictate of his religion that the doctrine not be discussed in public. The church dictates this and Mr. Romney follows that dictate so that he and his church will appear more mainstream in their belief. And if they are not mainstream why should it matter. As Mr. Romney so elequently put it, it is not what religion you have, but that you have religion.
My difficulty with this conversion to inclusion is that it is anthetical to the beliefs of his religion and the practice of his fellow believers in Kingdom of Deseret, which includes much of the mountain west. LDS doctrine holds that only members of that religion can achieve salvation. Because they recognize that is a smidge harsh they secretly baptize in abstentia millions of the heathen, so they will have a chance at salvation. You may be LDS and not know it.
If you live in their community and are a gentile your child will register for school last, and take the leavings, because "normal" registration is for the LDS children who must schedule their LDS education as part of the normal school day. If you are a gentile, your male children will become a boy scout only if he wants to go to meeting at an LDS house of worship and include LDS ritual in the meetings. All troops belong to the church. Your daughter will not be a girl scout, because the LDS don't believe in girl scouts. Your legislator will meet with the prophet, sear, and revelator prior to the start of each legislative session for "guidance". And, oh, in this religion that now speaks for inclusion, you will never be able to enter their temple, because only members with a "Temple Recommend" can enter this place of worship. All others are excluded.
The contradictions and the duplicity are consistent and wearing on non-members, and jack (non-practicing) mormons alike.
It is difficult not to believe, that Mr. Romney as a true believer, only wants us to include him; but that inclusion will end shortly after the vote is cast.
Posted by: jim | December 12, 2007 2:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
REASONABLE NOT HATEFUL:
You write: "Norrie, what we talking about are opinions here. When people realize that religion is about their own assessment in OPINION about something that cannot be proved or disproved, people on opposite sides of the aisle in this instance will get along better."
You're flat out wrong (my opinion). How often is religion characterized as mere opinion? Quite the opposite - it's generally held as absolute truth. So firmly held as truth, in fact, that it becomes anathama to even question it. And proved vs. disproved? From the Sun-centric solar system to evolution, scientific inquiry has been actively fought by religion, often using government institutions as the sword (e.g. Kitzmiller vs. Dover).
What you should say is that religion is about mistaking opinion for truth, ignoring the issue of whether the opinion can be proved or disproved, except when it can be disproved, in which case lie, cheat and steal in the service of ignorance and hypocracy.
Posted by: Chris Everett | December 12, 2007 2:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
HATEFUL NOT REASONABLE,
I've taken the liberty of rewriting your last post as it might have been written in the 1950's:
"Norrie and Mr. Mark -
"It seems to me you believe in the Constitution when it favors your position, and when it does not, you get all up in arms about something like Negroes not being able to attend white schools.
"You really do need to understand something, and it is something you won't like to hear. Being a Negroe will always be anathema or set apart in this country. It does not make you, a Negroe, any less a citizen than anyone else.
"But- when an organization wants to enforce its own rules, then they can. You may not like it, may not think it is right, but that is the way it is.
"Personally I have the same opinion you have for Christians ... as I have for colored people. However, I would defend your right to believe what you want to about Negroes, and for any organization to believe what it wants to, such as that Negroes are unfit for membership. You may not like it, but that is America.
"phantasmagoric?" Nice word, but really Norrie, what we talking about are opinions here. When people realize that thinking about race is about their own assessment in OPINION about something that cannot be changed, people on opposite sides of the aisle in this instance will get along better.
"Time to start a Negro boy scout organization is your alternative, is it not?"
Fortunately, RNH, your way of thinking about the BSA will be dying out in a few years. The younger generations coming up won't stand for it, any more than people today would stand for your way of thinking about non-believers being applied to blacks.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 12, 2007 2:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As one who exists outside the confines of any relgious dogma, I am chilled by Romney's exclusion of non-believers from his circle of concern. I am further chilled by the prospect of this country being governed by someone whose disregard of my unbelief leads him to disenfranchise me. I am still further chilled by the prospect of this country being governed by a man who adheres to a religious which holds that a man (man note, not person) can become a god in his own world, according to inscriptions on gold tablets, that no on has ever seen.
God save us from religion.
Posted by: Wilson Roberts | December 12, 2007 2:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
THEORY (from the Great Ben Franklin):
"Many a long dispute among divines may be thus abridged: It is so; It is not so. It is so; it is not so."
PRACTICE:
"Mormons are Christians; Mormons are not Christians; Mormons are Christians; Mormons are not Christians"
GET IT?!
Posted by: Chris Everett | December 12, 2007 2:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
CAN YOU IMAGINE what a couple of Jewish boy scout mothers would do to this democratic group where being well bred counts so much.
The scouts would have to change this, then this, then add this...after shrieking accusations of Hilterism, etc..and then fend off a takeover.
Posted by: Maurice | December 12, 2007 2:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I think the problem that the Parents of Boy Scouts have with it becoming a secularized version of the same, is that over time, the religious observances that they would like to be part of their son's program, wound tend to get shouted down as non-inclusive and discriminatory.
So, you'd have this Boy Scout troop composed of mostly religious Boy Scouts, but the parents of non-believer Scouts eventually get all offended that the Scout Troop prays at the beginning of the meeting, and Johnny feels uncomfortable (meaning they are mad about it, most likely not Johhny). Then they'd start demanding that the troop not have religious observances at all, because they don't include everyone's faith or non-faith. Eventually, there's no this, that, or the other because it might offend someone, and you have a Scout Troop that has its hands tied.
So, if you want your son to belong to a club that includes religious observances as part of its practice, then you might have to create bylaws that state "This is the way it is, folks!"
And if others want their kids in clubs with no such observances, that is totally fine....
Posted by: Eric | December 12, 2007 2:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"The BSA allows Buddhist scouts The Scouts even include an Buddhist religious award program similar to the Altari Die for Catholics and the God and Country for Protestants. Many of you suffer from abysmal ignorance"
So the part of the BSA oath which reads "To do my duty to God ..." is just an empty, hollow promise?
Which god does this oath refer to?
If it's the god of the bible, how can a Buddhist boy meet this obligation given that he doesn't believe in the god of the bible?
Do the boy scouts accept pagans also? How about satanists?
If so, why the prohibition against atheists?
Seems like a boy who lacks any belief would be far less threatening than a boy who worships the wrong god(s)?
Posted by: Freestinker | December 12, 2007 2:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Just to expand on my scouting comment above with a little personal history.....
I achieved Eagle Scout and the Catholic Ad Alteri Dei awards when I was 15, and frankly gave no thought to the fact that I was the only Catholic in my local Explorer troop (older boy scouts). I was always miffed that I was never nominated for the Order of the Arrow - but this was the direct result of winning a popularity contest in my day, and I have yet to win my first (do we ever really change much??).
Well, I'm over all of that nearly 50 years later, and must say that scouting in this day and age needs to divest itself of all barriers and limitations (religious and otherwise) when it comes to recruiting for membership. The military is wrestling with the same issues, and thus far is not much further ahead than the BSA (which probably views itself as a pre-military organization anyway).
As for myself, I wouldn't qualify for BSA membership today - while I have no particular religious preference or affiliation, I'd pick Buddhism over Christianity as the likely winner in the philisophy contest that comes closer to answering the deeper truths that we seek in religion and philisophy - and not to exclude science by any means (in time I believe religion and science will blend into a grand cosmological overview, but not in this century!)
John the First - thanks for your recommendation and also to another Mormon poster regarding life after death, it's good to see that the Mormon concept of the after life is not as exclusionary as the typical fundamentalist (or Catholic)approach - which is be saved or burn for ever.
From my own perspective, we may indeed find ourselves in a 'continuum of consciousness' status
after passing from this mortal coil - there's a ton of anecdotal evidence that says it's so. On the other hand, that still hasn't gotten us to the fundamental truth that we seek - and that's what will likely bring us back for yet another round on the wheel of fortune.
Posted by: Terry | December 12, 2007 1:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Locke was less likely to be opposed to atheism than he was protecting himself against the charge that broad toleration of the sort he espoused was an atheistic belief.
Posted by: Neal Kramer | December 12, 2007 1:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Reasonable -
As Freestinker pointed out, a non-discriminatory alternative to the BSA already exists (Camp Quest).
I'd assume that both organizations are equally adept at teaching kids how to tie knots, paddle canoes, help old ladies across the street and start fires with two sticks. Ergo, I think it's safe to assume that the oath to god aspect of the BSA has no bearing on the life views and skills that inform those aspects of scouting.
Which leaves us with the ONE area that is directly influenced by the oath to god aspect of the BSA, ie: discrimination against their fellow American kids who won't aver belief in some phantasmagoric being.
If that's where you wish to hang your ethical hat, well, I think it speaks for itself.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 12, 2007 1:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The BSA allows Buddhist scouts The Scouts even include an Buddhist religious award program similar to the Altari Die for Catholics and the God and Country for Protestants. Many of you suffer from abysmal ignorance
Posted by: maximus | December 12, 2007 1:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reasonable NH -
Thanks for your comment.
Question: what would you think of the BSA if they excluded Xians? How about white people? How about Republicans?
I look forward to your reply. Please try not to answer my question with a question.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 12, 2007 1:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Time to start a atheist boy scout organization is your alternative , is it not?"
Camp Quest! Check it out ...
Camp Quest is slightly different from BSA in that they do not discriminate against kids based on religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Treating all kids equally, how novel an idea that is.
Posted by: Freestinker | December 12, 2007 1:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Mormons are not Christians."
That is your opinion based on your definition of what a "Christian" is but you don't get to define another person's religious beliefs for them.
Religious liberty means a person's beliefs are theirs to choose and theirs to define, your opinion is irrelevant to the question.
Posted by: Freestinker | December 12, 2007 1:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Norrie and Mr Mark-
It seems to me you believe in the Constitution when it favors your position, and when it does not, you get all up in arms about something like the boy scouts.
You really do need to understand something, and it is something you won't like to hear. Atheism will always be a anathema or set apart in this country. It does not make you any less a citizen than anyone else.
But- when an organization wants to enforce its own rules, then they can. You may not like it, may not think it is right, but that is the way it is.
Personally I have the same opinion you have for Christians ... as I have for atheism. However, I would defend your right not to believe, and for any organization to believe what it wants to. You may not like it, but that is America.
"phantasmagoric ?" Nice word, but really Norrie, what we talking about are opinions here. When people realize that religion is about their own assessment in OPINION about something that cannot be proved or disproved, people on opposite sides of the aisle in this instance will get along better.
Time to start a atheist boy scout organization is your alternative , is it not?
Posted by: Reasonable not hateful | December 12, 2007 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Not Christian:
I apologize if my post came across as unkind when I wrote, "Even though you may not act like it very often."
I did not mean to be insulting. It was a reference to your previous assertion that Christians are saved by faith only, and not by works. To me this seems to imply that Trinitarian Christians believe they can behave in any unChristlike way they want, because they are already saved....
As you pointed out, I don't subscribe to that belief, but I don't wish to disparage yours either.
Faith AND works, brother.... :-)
Posted by: Eric | December 12, 2007 12:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks for the suggestion Terry,
It sounds like an interesting book. I believe God has and does inspire many people, not just those associated with the Mormon tradition. Since your interested in religion, I suggest you read the book "By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion" published by Oxford University Press. It does a good job of explaining why the Book of Mormon has been taken seriously by believers and skeptics since its conception.
Thanks for the freindly post.
Best to you!
Jd1
Posted by: John D the First | December 12, 2007 12:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Not Christian:
It seems to me that you have a real bee in your bonnet about what Mormons beliefs concerning themselves and God. Let me help you....
(Will the atheists here suspend their disbelief for a minute and think in hypotheticals?)
Assuming there is life after death then:
So, Not Christian, what do you think heaven is like? What will you be doing there? I imagine you will be there for a very long time. Actually, forget time. We are talking about eternity....
Will you be learning anything during this eternity there in heaven with God? Or will your acquisition of knowledge cease?
I don't know about you, but Mormons believe that they will continue to learn. In fact, it seems pretty reasonable to me that if I have eternity in which to learn the physical laws that govern the universe/s, I might eventually know pretty much all of them. Same with biological principles. And spiritual principles.
Now, I also believe that that may be too grand a concept for some. Some people will no doubt prefer a fluffy pink cloud somewhere. And if that is their dearest desire, I am sure that they will attain that.
Mormons interpret some scriptures very differently, as you no doubt realize. Some scriptures we interpret symbolically, some we interpret literally. For instance: Creation in 6 days...? Symbolic. Creative "periods" over eons is more like it. We have no argument with evolution. And to me, it's obvious....
We do tend to be more literal with how we see our relationship to God. We see ourselves as his children in a more literal way than you do.
Now, in this world the way it works is that if my dad were a king, I would likely grow up to be a king too. If I were royalty, I'd be a prince at the very least. And in this world, most parents have the hope that their children will achieve what they have achieved and even surpass them. There is usually not jealousy in this regard: we want our children to be all they can be.
Well, Mormons think God works pretty much the same way. We believe that he wants us to become like him and achieve what he has achieved. We have eternity to learn what we need to know. We have royal blood in our veins.
As I mentioned, not all people find this idea desirable. The point about heaven is that it is not hell. Ie, if learning and progressing seems like misery to you, then that is not what you would be doing there.
Since I used the word hell, I had better explain how we use it. That lake of fire and brimstone? Symbolic! There is no eternal punishment for those who do not belong to the "right" church.
Heck, I really don't want to write a treatise on hell in a forum of mostly atheists.... Basically, we don't believe that God punishes his children with eternal torment. At worst, they get a time out in the corner (in a very nice place) and don't get to progress, because they are not trustworthy. That's hell, sorta.
Those concepts are total heresy to many Christian faiths because they need that BIG STICK to keep their believers in line, to keep them from converting to other churches, or from abandoning religion altogether. And the LDS belief that God progressed himself is not supernatural enough....
If you really want to know, see here:
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/
So yeah, we don't believe God will toss any of you atheists into a volcano for not believing in him, any more than you would toss your own kid into a volcano for giving you lip (though you might be tempted on occassion).
Anyway, Not Christian, I think you would do well to realize the word Christian is a very broad term and that nowhere does your particular church have exclusive access to it. Furthermore, if we were to apply your reasoning consistently, and if it is you that is incorrect in your doctrine, it is YOU that is not the Christian. And I really don't believe that. I believe that you are a Christian, though you may not act like it very often.
Peace.
Posted by: Eric | December 12, 2007 12:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
John D the First - you speak of the complexity of the Book of Mormon by a relatively uneducated Joseph Smith.
Here I recommend that you get a copy of the Urantia Book if you revel in theological complexity (available in most book stores or online). This book was alleged to have been written by the anonymous author while in a trance state (actually via automatic writing) over a comparitively short period of time. Needless to say, the inspiration was thought to be divine in origin, but only relatively so. These are said to be the words and thoughts of higher (perhaps angelic) beings, but not the word of God directly.
There is an active Urantia Society even today and whether you believe a word of it or not, it is a vast and impressive cosmology in it's own right, although rather slanted toward the Christian perspective.
Even more impressive is the work of Edgar Cayce, an uneducated man from the hills of Kentucky who was familiar mainly with the bible - that is, until he went into the trance state. His trance readings on a wide variety of topics covers some 30 years of his life as a 'seer'. The Edgar Cayce Institute is located in Virginia Beach, VA.
For not being a particularly religious person, I've always liked religion in all it's various forms.
Posted by: Terry | December 12, 2007 11:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry for the typo in my last post above.
I abbreviated the Mormon Church's name to LSD when I meant to write LDS.
On the other hand, maybe LDS does = LSD.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 12, 2007 11:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
D & A Stevens,
I know something about Mitt Romney too.
I went to school on the street that he now lives on in Belmont, Massachusetts. I think that one or more of his boys also went there.
His recent speech told me that I can't be considered a good American citizen because I don't believe in a phantasmagoric diety such as he believes in.
I also know that his major civic accomplishment in Belmont was his successful evasion of Belmont's zoning ordinance on behalf of the LSD.
The result was the building of a grotesquely oversized Mormon Temple which is totally inappropriate for the location. It desecrates the landscape of a once pleasant New England town.
He's a really great guy.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 12, 2007 11:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jovevz,
Thanks for your post.
You have my best wishes for the Holidays.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 12, 2007 10:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
D&A Stevens:
Thanks for that background. Since the field consists only of religious candidates, well, he certainly seems to be the most rational thinker of the lot.
I have tried to be as paranoid as possible, but really can't conceive of any act of tyranny that he would impose upon non-believers.
Posted by: Sean | December 12, 2007 10:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Eric,
I take the Scouts' discriminations very seriously for the reasons I expressed above.
But the Scouts and we should try to have some perspective; Scouting should be all about the boys.
All this business about boys believing or not believing is really of concern only to grown-ups. I doubt that any boy gives a hoot whether the kid next to him is a Catholic, a Congregationalist or a "non-believing" Buddhist.
All of them just want to do scouting things.
I suspect that no "non-believing" boy is at all concerned that the Scouts have an oath that mentions God, and that he'd be mad at his parents if they kept him out because of the religious oath.
So a Catholic boy is o.k. What does he really know or believe about religion? Maybe not much. Maybe he's a shoplifter despite his family's religion. But he's allowed in because he's nominally or formally a Catholic.
On the other hand, a Buddhist boy may live an absolutely fine life and have a sophisticated understanding of his family's compassionate belief system. But he can't join.
Does the wonderful, caring, BSA give a hoot over the pain, shame and humiliation they cause the Buddhist boy they won't accept?
By the way, this insistence on diety-belief is a hangover from what the very eccentric Baden-Powell demanded when he founded scouting: a profession of loyalty to God, King or Queen, and England, at a time when he saw the Scouts as young paramilitary warriors in training for a future war with Germany.
His ideas have no place in today's America.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 12, 2007 10:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
D&A Stevens -- Do you work for the Romney campaign?
Posted by: E favorite | December 12, 2007 10:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Not Christian:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that DOETH the will of my Father which is in heaven.
You might just want to ignore that one though, since it doesn't fit into your system....
Posted by: Matthew 7:21 | December 12, 2007 10:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
JZ - I'm doubtful of all religons that are less than 2000 years old, and that were actively invented by solitary individuals - Islam, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Scientologists, and the entire polyglot of churches emerging from the Reformation all fall into this category - and this is the short list.
Now that we're done with that grouping, we can get started on the credibility of the 'more established' faiths. Nah, that's entirely too much trouble.
As to the scouting issue -
Just imagine the trauma if you find yourself a gay Buddhist Eagle Scout at the age of 25? Who knew?? I suppose that person should just turn themselves in to the national BSA council along with all awards and merit badges!! :)
We do the sublime and ridiculous equally well
in the good old USA.
Posted by: Terry | December 12, 2007 10:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
We don’t think Mitt Romney is perfect. Nor believe he’s never made a mistake. But we do think he is intelligent enough to see something others don’t see – the common sense solutions ignored by many politicians. He’s creative enough to develop new ways of thinking, doing, and spending, and fearless enough to tackle a flawed government system. We believe that he will earnestly strive to serve our nation with the best of his already proven leadership abilities. His Faith in America speech demonstrated his ability to inspire the nation and remind us that we can still be proud to be Americans. Romney will lead the United States of America with integrity, enthusiasm, and honor.
We first looked at Romney because we have personal friends that have known him and his family for over 20 years and they say Mitt and Ann are remarkable and wonderful people. Our friends are remarkable people in their own right, so their recommendation made us want to find out more about him. Here are just a few things that caught our attention:
His work history in the private business sector of taking businesses and turning them around in a relatively short time is impressive. Matthew Rees says this about Mitt:
“Romney sees something others didn’t see… He was willing to pursue—and analyze—data that others wouldn’t bother to chase down. His dogged persistence paid off. During the 14 years Romney headed Bain Capital, the firm’s average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was a staggering 113 percent. At that growth rate, a hypothetical $1,000 investment would grow to $39.6 million before fees. Few, if any, VC [venture capital] firms have ever matched Bain Capital’s performance under Mitt Romney.”
http://www.american.com/archive/2006/december/mitt-romney
Romney possesses a willingness to analyze tedious data to make the most informed decisions. With the financial crisis our country is in, wouldn’t you like to have an astute financial person leading decisions on our country’s spending?
We had a chance to meet with Meg Whitman, CEO of eBay, who at one time worked with Mitt at Bain & Co. She said when he called and asked her to head up his campaign finance committee she was hesitant because she had never done anything politically active like that before. After working with Mitt on his campaign and looking at the other candidates, however, she said she couldn’t imagine anyone else being able to do the things she knew Mitt was capable of – things that our country needs at this critical point in our history. She told the following stories about Mitt:
1) On a personal level, Mitt is great because he honestly doesn’t care who gets credit for something as long as the proper thing is accomplished. So he is happy to acknowledge and recognize everyone involved. That is what makes people enjoy working with and for him. He’s a great mentor and believer in volunteering and public service and supported his employees in such endeavors.
2) In Massachusetts (MA), they needed many millions of dollars to refurbish up to 100 old courthouses. It cost millions per courthouse and Mitt said that while he understood the importance of preserving history and having courthouses in good repair, he recognized that was a lot of taxpayer money to be spent. He asked for some research to be done – if no one had to drive more than 90 minutes, how many courthouses would be needed in the state. The data came back with five. Mitt proposed they refurbish 50 courthouses – more than enough to fit the needs of the state and put the rest of the money toward other areas needing attention. Government tends to always add but doesn’t necessarily think of eliminating inefficiency. There are probably historical groups angry that the state didn’t fund every old courthouse in the state – but as governor he worked to benefit the people by eliminating longstanding duplication. How much duplication do we have at the Federal Government level? How much inefficiency can be eliminated?
3) MA educational ranking in the nation had slipped considerably before Mitt became governor. Many schools reported up 1/3 of high school students were not graduating with average achievement scores down and disruptions up. Schools, like the old courthouses, were in disrepair. Mitt said that in order to compete with the rest of the world, children need better education. He provided monies for school refurbishing programs, after-school teaching assistance, and mandatory parent prep courses to show how to deal with unruly students. He increased pay to science and math teachers. Soon, they had some of the best teachers seeking jobs in MA. Mitt then said he wanted to give the top 20% or 25% of MA high school graduates full college tuition at state universities. Soon students (probably with parental support due to the financial incentive) were working hard to improve their grades and test scores. Within four years, their schools had moved up to the top of the national ladder. Who would have thought it possible to give scholarships to the top 25%? That’s “outside the box” kind of thinking! Mitt invested in the future by investing in infrastructure, teachers, and scholarships. In addressing our education woes in Ohio we have a motto: “In the Lottery we trust.”
4) There are MA residents “for and against” his Healthcare program. But, to us, the bottom line was this... We all need health insurance coverage. Romney looked at how much money the state was spending on uninsured medical costs (can you hear Carl Sagan say, “Billions and billions?”). Leading a by-partisan effort, he figured out how the state could make better use of the people’s money; instead of just paying the people’s medical bills, the government used the money to assist in buying or subsidizing all residents health insurance. This obligates people to act responsibly, choose personal healthcare providers, and end healthcare waste. Again, that is “outside the box” thinking. Using money they already had... just allocating it differently. That is what we need, someone to see something others don’t see. Do you really want the Federal Government administering our healthcare?
Like most voters, we want to hear what qualifies potential candidates to take the mantel of President. Looking at a candidate’s actual record of achievement tell what you can expect. To quote Ralph Waldo Emerson: "What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say."
We’re supporting Romney! -D&A Stevens, Ohio
Posted by: D&A Stevens, Ohio | December 12, 2007 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You better watch out
You better not cry
Better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town
He's making a list
And checking it twice;
Gonna find out Who's naughty and nice
Santa Claus is coming to town
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!
O! You better watch out!
You better not cry
Better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town
Posted by: 1st santa clausian | December 12, 2007 9:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
1Mormon – God was once a man like us.
1Christian – God was, is, and always will be God.
2Mormon – Many Gods, an unknown number of them
2Christian – One God. Isaiah 44 “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God…Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any.”
3Mormon – Salvation by grace AND works 2 Nephi 25:23
3Christian – Salvation by faith alone. Many verses, one example Ephesians 2:8-9
4Mormon – Men become Gods, have a marriage and children in Heaven
4Christian – “Men become Gods” is blasphemy. Jesus said we will be neither married nor given in marriage in Heaven. Matthew 22:29-30
Posted by: Mormons are not Christians | December 12, 2007 8:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear JZ,
"But Mormonism does a thorough brainwashing of its kids growing up (probably a lot more so than other authoritarian religions)."
How do you figure? Yes Mormons have programs for teaching their youth as any successful movement and community does. We, however, send our kids to public schools, encourage higher education, and even during the period where you say we "have them" as missionaries, they are dealing with people hostile to Mormon beliefs for two years. We do not build Mormon high schools or elementary schools, and we certainly don't try to get government funds for our religious education. In other words, we raise our children in the faith without isolating them from the market place of ideas. I have done graduate work in Europe in a field in which studies have found that 80% are non-believers. While doing so found my faith and belief in Mormonism only strengthened. Your explanation for Mormon belief is just plain lazy. It's easier to cry "indoctrination" than to do the work of seeing things from another's point of view. It is a typical way of accounting for the conviction of "the intellectual other" without contemplating anything unsettling.
Furthermore, you speak of the circumstances surrounding the composition of the Book of Mormon as "laughably contrived." Well I can tell you that Joseph's dictation of the entire book to his scribe Oliver Cowdery in 60 days is as solidly backed by historical evidence as anything. Even hardened skeptics accept this fact. That there actually were plates is also documented by those who handled and saw the plates and had motivation for disavowing it later in life had they been lying. Were their existence not an extraordinary claim, it would not be questioned by the standards of historical evidence. Also, Joseph's claim to have found metal plates in a stone box written on by ancient people of Semitic origin is not too implausible since we now know metal plates were written on anciently and kept in stone boxes. (See http://www.mormonfortress.com/box1.html)
The text of the Book of Mormon contains what are called "Hebraisms" sentence structures that correspond to Hebrew linguistic convention as opposed to English conventions. It also has complex inverted parallel texts called Chiasmus, that were a common literary style among ancient Hebrew. Statistical analysis found that it has multiple authors and that its word prints do not match Joseph Smith's or any of those in his vicinity. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is peppered with Hebrew and Egyptian names unavailable to Joseph Smith.
We do not know where the narrative took place in America, but we do have a good idea of where the beginning of it took place in the Old World. Retracing Lehi's (the character who originally left the Old World with his family) trail finds the geography described in the Book of Mormon matches it to a "T." Including a place name "NHM" that is in the exact place the Book of Mormon says it should be and it dates at the right time period. Furthermore the Book of Mormon narrative displays intimate knowledge of Volcanism, Olive culture, sound military strategy and typical survivor behavior. Even non-Mormon scholars have been surprised to find it containing pre-exilic (pre-600 BC) Israelite symbolism Joseph Smith could not have aware of.
See http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margaret-barker-talk.html
These are just some of the amazing aspects of the book dictated in 60 days by a man with no more than a 3rd grade education.
Best,
Jd1
Posted by: John D the First | December 12, 2007 2:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Having served as a den leader in the Boy Scouts, I can tell you that it would be a rare occurrance for someone to actually ask a little kid who wanted to be a scout whether he believed in God. They are very careful about leaders though, particularly in regards to abuse potential.
However, if your son enters Scouts, a big part of the program is participating in flag ceremonies, and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and such(you know tha God part). I don't know how many atheists would really want that for their kids. Many churches incorporate the Boy Scouts into their Youth Programs. Finding a scout troop not associted with a church is possible, but a great many are run by churches.
So, the bottom line is, why are you worried about not being invited to something you probably don't want to belong to...? I suppose you could form your own boys organization. And maybe you wouldn't want religious kids in it....
Posted by: Eric | December 12, 2007 2:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Addicted:
About the boy scouts...
Why should the boy scouts (even if we assume the premise dont get ANY favors from the government, which is not true but bear with me), disbar someone based on their belief?
_____
I was 10 when Pa forced me to join the goddam Scouts. We met, of course, in a church basement. I loathed it -- the whole schmear. The little Hitler youth uniforms, the ghastly recitations.
Q: who CARES about the Boy Scouts, founded by the profound bigot Baden-Powell? They are a holdover from a much fouler, more rotten age. WHO GIVES A SH!T??
Posted by: jonny | December 12, 2007 1:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
About the boy scouts...
Why should the boy scouts (even if we assume the premise dont get ANY favors from the government, which is not true but bear with me), disbar someone based on their belief? That is discrimination. The right way to go about it would be to allow them in, and if they start not living up to the requirements (e.g. not willing to say the oath when they are supposed to) then they can remove that child from the organization. Take a look at all the churches in the country. As an atheist, I can still walk into them, say my prayers, and confess my sins. However, if I do not stand when asked to, or proclaim loudly "Jesus was a hoax" then they have all the right to bar me from entering in the future.
Religious discrimination (e.g. In God we Trust) receives special privileges in the world (and US especially) and although this is not ideal, considering the history, its not a problem when it is trivial (again, In God we Trust). However, when it denies a kid an opportunity to better himself (no one I know from the scouts talks about how it helped improve their faith in God. They talk about how they learned to camp, etc) then why should a child be denied based solely on the beliefs of his parents? Somewhere a line needs to be drawn, and this certainly crosses that line.
Posted by: addicted | December 12, 2007 1:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
So I am skeptical of Mitt maybe more so than someone whose religion is at least more "normal" whatever that means.
Comments???
_____
Irrational, mystical, magical thought all boils down to one thing: power. It always has. It always will.
There is NO "normal" magical thinking -- unless power-thirst is the NORM.
Q: if the quest for power by any means, including supernaturalist hucksterism, were "normal," why is it not pursued by a better class of people? Why do they always turn out to be con artists of the lowest stripe? HMMmmm?
Posted by: Anonymous | December 12, 2007 1:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
All this hulabaloo about whether Mormons, or Romney himself, believe in JC. The point is: what if any effect will being a Mormon have on the man's deliberations and decisions if he is elected?
As a youth, Romney was a proselytizer for the Mormons in France for a year or so. So he definitely was one of their "flock" at least then.
But Mormonism does a thorough brainwashing of its kids growing up (probably a lot more so than other authoritarian religions). Otherwise how could so many continue to believe in such a strange religion? From what I have read (from sources such as the Smithsonian magazine), their founder, Joseph Smith was a con-man at fairs and such. He wrote the original draft of the book of Mormon under laughably contrived circumstances. I have leafed through the book and I personally think the foundation of it is totally absurd.
So I am skeptical of Mitt maybe more so than someone whose religion is at least more "normal" whatever that means.
Comments???
Posted by: JZ | December 12, 2007 1:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Watching this ridiculous pack of neofascist theocrats maul each other to pieces about their imaginary friends is EXACTLY what is priceless about American politics. Pass the popcorn, please.
Posted by: jonny | December 12, 2007 1:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark,
"But the decision has not been overturned, so until it is, we are forced to vent our displeasure through our individual acts as none of us has standing to bring a case to overturn the decision."
You're absolutely right. Every year my wife and I get invited to the Scouts' annual shindig in the largest city of our state.
Every year I compose an angry screed about the Scouts' discriminations. Every year I plan to enclose it in the prepaid Scout envelope in which we're supposed to enclose our payment for the dinner. I enjoy the thought that the Scouts will have to pay for having my polemical attack delivered to them.
Then, every year I don't do it. My wife, who didn't get where she's gotten to by antagonizing people, implores/demands that I don't do it THIS year. And I oblige.
And every year neither of us goes to the dinner. Marital compromise prevails.
Actually, I know that in our state a number of people high up in our local Scout Councils have been working hard to persuade the Scouts nationally to give up their discriminations (which, as with the Mormons, used to include Blacks).
No success as yet, but I really am hesitant to bash our local Scout organization which these good people are working hard to reform.
Someday though.
All the best to you.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 12, 2007 12:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Norrie -
Thanks for the reminder on the SCOTUS decision on the BSA. I have read extensively about the case, and I - naturally - disagree with the decision. But the decision has not been overturned, so until it is, we are forced to vent our displeasure through our individual acts as none of us has standing to bring a case to overturn the decision.
I have no doubt that the BSA's open bias against gays and atheists will cease in our lifetimes, either because the leadership of the BSA becomes more enlightened, or because the kids who are now of scouting age will cease to belong to an organization that so discriminates. If membership drops significantly, they'll change their ways.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 11, 2007 11:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jd1 - I think Romney's exclusion of atheists was unconscious. He and his ilk are so used to forgetting or insulting non-believers that they don’t know when they’re doing it. That’s why they need to be reminded every time they do it. I did it early this year – and saved my emails to Romney’s website – here they are:
“I was very disturbed to see the clip of your recent visit to Florida in which you made the statement, ‘We need to have person of faith lead this country.’ This implies you think that a person of any religion, would be preferable to an atheist or agnostic president, irrespective of their qualifications and their respect for the US Constitution.
There’s no need to single out non-theists, as none will be running for president, at least in the 2008 election. Certainly all the candidates will profess their faith in God, either out of sincere belief, or out of the concern that they could not be elected if they professed otherwise.
It’s an insult to all the loyal Americans who love their country but don’t believe in a supernatural being to state that a “person of faith” is needed to lead the country. Please retract this statement. Thank you.”
Then, when I heard that he made a different kind of comment the following week, I wrote again. Here’s an excerpt from the second letter, 2/28/07:
“I was very pleased to hear that in your recent visit to Iowa, you said, ‘I don't try to distinguish people based on their faith or lack of faith. Instead I look at what they're contributing and supporting this great land and our citizens.’ This is a vast improvement over your statement in Florida last week…to learn from your mistakes is a good thing. We certainly don’t need another intransigent occupant of the White House.”
__________
Obviously, he forgot – he’s so entrenched, I guess and I doubt there are any atheists on his staff reminding him to be inclusive. But now that he’s “bigtime” he’s hearing all about his gaffe in the mainstream media. That’s progress.
Posted by: E Favorite | December 11, 2007 9:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark,
You wrote:
"Unfortunately, the BSA went to court and won the right to be discriminatory."
Here's a legal note, the substance of which I'm sure you're already aware:
Until 2000, American courts (including the Supreme Court of New Jersey) were increasingly holding that the nature and activities of the BSA were such that state anti-discrimination statutes barred the Scouts from discriminating on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.
In 2000 the Supreme Court reversed the New Jersey Supreme Court and ruled for the Scouts.
The vote was 5-4. Guess who the five were:
The same five Justices who ignored the Constitution's provision that disputed federal elections are to be settled by the Congress, usurped the Congressional prerogative, and handed the Presidency to George W. Bush.
So much for judicial restraint!
Despite the Republican activist judges' ascendancy on the Supreme Court, sociological changes will undo the result of their corrupt decision in a few years. The Scouts will be taking gays and atheists into their ranks.
So be of good cheer, enlightened ones!
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 11, 2007 8:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
No fan am I of WAPo editor, or "keeper" this post...
But clearly said keeper has been MORE THAN
lenient with norrie Hoyt
Not only the Hitler card, which many of us surely have COME TO EXPECT, WHATEVER THE SUBJECT on these posts...
But the "curious"information regarding BSA founders association with Hitler Youth. Perhaps such absurd assertions are necessary when the Hitler/means holocaust club has been used.
Posted by: Mariam | December 11, 2007 8:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
With all this serious talk going on, it's time for a nit to pick.
Mr. Berlinerblau wrote about John Locke: "His attention to historical detail led him to speak like a seventeenth-century Scottish guy (even though Locke was born in Britain)."
Since Great Britain includes Scotland, this distinction is meaningless. I am assuming, therefore, that he meant to write "England".
We now return you to your regularly scheduled serious discussion...
:)
Posted by: Robert B. | December 11, 2007 7:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Gaby,
I entirely agree with you that no one should be forced to join an organization they don't want to (except maybe a military draft).
Some state supreme courts require all lawyers to join the state bar association, which is a private, non-governmental organization. I think that's a misguided, unwise and annoying imposition that serves no useful purpose.
Fortunately I never had to protest that because my state (Vermont) never adopted such a rule. In part this was because Vermont lawyers generally made it clear to our Supreme Court that they didn't want to be subject to such a rule. And thankfully the Court heard us.
I quickly scanned the web and some sites say that membership in the Hitler Youth was voluntary from 1922 to 1936, when it became compulsory. I might have joined HY at the point of a literal or figurative gun, but not otherwise.
By the way, the original version of my 6:54 post above gave specific examples of how the BSA and the pre-1936 voluntary HY discriminated in similar ways.
The WaPo censors rejected my post until I deleted that paragraph. As usual, you never know why they censor particular things. The paragraph was entirely innocuous.
Dealing with the WaPo is like Joseph K's trying to deal with his prosecutors in Kafka's The Trial.
Regards.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 11, 2007 7:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Berlinerblau,
"The USE AND ABUSE of the BIBLE in POLITICS..."
Is that from the Jewish point of view? Your
field, almost excluslively, as it seems.
Or from whose point of view? We hope you will please answer that relevent question!
Posted by: Vincent | December 11, 2007 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
E. Favorite:
You said
"I think he could have gotten the fundamentalist votes he wanted without insulting atheists."
I agree with you. It has me scratching my head a bit that Romney didn't include non-believers in some positive way. When he listed faiths he admired he could have easily said something to the affect of "and I have known many people who are not religious but have individual qualities I admire" without much political liability. I don't know if he figured the scope was narrow enough for this particular discourse that he should focus primarily on the concerns of Religious folks, or if he actually wanted to tick off secularists as some pundits have speculated. I would be curious to hear his explanation.
Best,
Jd1
P.S. I think the anti-Mormon Sunday school lessons might be more prolific in the west where there are more Mormons, I am not sure. I was invited to quite a few of them growing up. One was held in a stadium at my High School (not during school hours, of course).
Posted by: John D the First | December 11, 2007 7:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
HOW MANY of you belong to jewish organization...or a club connected with your synagogue.
Have a lot of Christian memgers do you?
Welcome them with open arms?
OR are they (*oh gasp) ABSOLUTELY excluded? How about Mormons. Or as the off shoot example above, how about Buddhists?
Let's hear it.
Posted by: Meredith | December 11, 2007 7:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Distinctive Differences,
I've just spent the last hour composing a lengthy post in response to yours.
However my computer ineptitude caused it to evaporate irretrievably into outer cyberspace.
I don't want to have to go through trying to recreate it, so here are just a couple of points:
You said it was despicable for me to compare the BSA with the Hitler Youth. Actually, that's an interesting topic that has been much written about.
See: "Hitler Youth and the Boy Scouts of America: A Comparison of Aims" (1947) by Herbert S. Lewin.
By the way, Lord Baden-Powell, one of the four founders of the scouting movement, called Hitler's "Mein Kampf" "a wonderful book" and urged international scouting organizations to form close ties with Hitler Youth organizations.
America's changing rapidly. Most young people today don't see anyone's homosexuality as an issue.
Americans generally don't like religious tests for participation in what are basically public, secular activites, which is what scouting does.
As one judge said, "The Scouts are not a church - why do they have a religious test?"
I think that before long we'll see the Scouts ending both their religious and sexual orientation discriminations.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 11, 2007 6:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"At first I was surprised by the people who've referred to Romney's religion speech as a "great speech." Then I realized that everyone I've seen bragging about that speech is a conservative Christian or Mormon."
Notice the two Mormon panelists, Richard Bushman and Kathleen Flake, offer comments critical of Romney's speech.
Posted by: John D the First | December 11, 2007 6:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Norrie,
In addition to responses by others comparing the BSA to the Hitler Youth, here are my two cents. BSA is a voluntary organization, the Hitler Youth was not. Belonging to the HY for boys or to the "Bund Deutscher Maedchen" for girls was compulsory and it was for "Arian" children only. You went whether you liked it or not.
While I find it wrong to exclude a segment of society from joining a voluntary group based on their religous beliefs, I find it equally wrong to force someone to join an organization they do not care for.
Posted by: Gaby | December 11, 2007 6:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I think most atheists and agnostics assume that Mormons are christians, that's what I think of them anyway.
There's the catholics and the methodists and the eastern orthodox and the amish and the anglicans and the pentacostals and the evangelicals and jim jones and david koresh and the jehovah's witnesses and the christian scientists and the mormons and the greek orthodox and the snake handlers and the seventh day adventists and the speaking in tongues crowd and the [fill in the blank].
They're all christians as far as I can tell. At least each of them claims to be christian, why should I think they are not? If it walks like a duck ...
Posted by: Oort | December 11, 2007 6:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jon: "How many of you non- or quasi-believers have been subjected to the theological propaganda that Mormons are evil and destined to hell since you were little children in Sunday School? Millions of kids, now voting adults, have been told week after week and year after year that Mormons do not believe in Jesus, and that they are not Christian.”
All I knew about Mormons as a kid was that they had this angel named Moroni and a guy named Joseph Smith who found golden tablets in New York.
What did you learn about atheists and pagans? I learned they were devil worshippers who had no morals. I wouldn’t hesitate to vote for a Mormon or any religious person. I know, from having once believed in the supernatural myself, that it’s possible to compartmentalize such beliefs and leave them completely out of the rational thinking process. I won’t vote for Romney because he obviously excludes atheists when he says “religion requires freedom and freedom requires religion.” I think he could have gotten the fundamentalist votes he wanted without insulting atheists.
Posted by: E Favorite | December 11, 2007 5:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Oh, and by the way, I'm no fan of this "civil deism" idea that's going around.
Martin Marty's all over it. He says we invented civil deism instead of slitting each other's throats over the question of grace.
I'm not so sure.
I think the U.S. Supreme Court is in a pickle barrel on this issue.
So, "In God We Trust" is innocuous, huh?
If the Supremes hold that, then, to one set of minds, they've killed God. The government has "devalued" a religious sentiment.
If the Supremes hold that the God in God we trust is the god of Abraham and Issac, of Jacob and David, then the government has picked one religion over another and has violated the First Amendment.
I posit that that this is all a bunch of logical gymnastics to get God on the coin but then avoid the nasty discussion about whose God it is.
This is something that believers, agnostics, atheists and all other flavors could work on together: the God in In God We Trust is an authentic God, and as such doesn't belong on the money or over the judge's bench.
If he's an authentic God then the name on something as common as money has got to be blasphemy. And it's also got to be an affront to the freedom of religion and its corollary, freedom from religion.
What we're talking about is that In God We Trust is an artifact of the Old American Protestant Hegemony, not some new thing "public deism."
I know you all have figured this out already, so please pardon me for thinking in public.
Posted by: Ego Nemo | December 11, 2007 5:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Mark:
I see you agree with me!
Um, ... , disregard my previous post.
Thanks, man.
Posted by: Distinctive Differences | December 11, 2007 4:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Mark, you've misread me.
I wasn't equating anybody to anything.
I was trying to point out that your principle of using state power to force people into groups could be used against you.
You would not have those things happen, but you would take away BSA's power to define its own members -- even if that definition is damn wrong and hateful -- because, this one time, you think its OK to trammel another's rights.
But what if another group, using your logic, forces you to do something you don't want to do (and we know you always want to do the right thing, right?) what will you do then?
Posted by: Distinctive Differences | December 11, 2007 4:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reasonable (thanks Carol): and a great big Gilda Radner "never mind." sorry.
having been a boy scout, I think the Supreme Court's reference to some arguments made before it to the effect that In God we Trust, etc. mean something are without merit because they are so historical, and traditional as to be almost secular is apt. Secularists would be well advised to draw the line elsewhere, like at the 5 ton commandments, and declare victory, leaving the evangelicals with no one to demonize. Romney is hoping that when he refers to what 'some' secularists would advocate, his listeners ignore the 'some' and the marginalized position he is actually taking issue with, and assume that he really wishes us all ill and wants to make our courthoses safe for judge Moore.
Posted by: JoeT | December 11, 2007 4:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Distinctive Diffs -
I agree with you, and it's not just because I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU (which I am).
I just don't like being equated with Republicans... :)
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 11, 2007 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark, the truth of the matter shouldn't depend on whose ox is getting gored.
By example, the ACLU has defended both the Klan's right to march and the Civil Rights worker's right to march.
The issue isn't what each believes, the issue is the right to march, which is absolute -- Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to peaceable assemble for the redress of greivances.
I suppose every person would have everyone else discriminate the way they discriminate.
I say, no discrimination.
Posted by: Distinctive Differences | December 11, 2007 4:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Distinctive Differences has just equated gays and atheists with thieves and racists...and even (worst of all!) Republicans!
I doubt that that will win many non-believers over to DD's argument.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 11, 2007 4:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark has got it, I think.
He's using the power of his mouth and his purse to express is displeasure.
He's got as much right to that as anybody else.
So that's it, that's how a free civil society works.
It's messy, people argue and disagree.
Now, please don't get me wrong. I'm not for segregated lunch counters.
That's a different issue. That is not about free association in private. That's about accommodation in public.
You open your doors to serve meals or drinks, the only qualifications ought to be whether your peaceful and whether you've got the money to pay the tab.
Private groups are something else altogether.
Posted by: Distinctive Differences | December 11, 2007 4:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Book of Mormon actually includes many passages regarding liberty. Several chapters in the Book of Alma tell the story of a great leader who raises the "Title of Liberty" - a banner of sorts - to rally his people in defense of the God-given liberties during a time of great peril to their society. Gov. Romney could have used all of this in his speech, of course, but he was wise no to make specific references to Mormon scriptures. The media and the evangelicals would have had a field day with that!
Posted by: Thomas | December 11, 2007 4:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Norrie raises good points about the BSA, an organization I detest for its discriminatory practices.
Unfortunately, the BSA went to court and won the right to be discriminatory.
That doesn't mean that I have to put up with it. That's why my son will never be in Scouts as long as they have their biased policy. That's why when parents approach me and ask if I'd like to put my son in Scouts, I immediately ask, "Has the BSA stopped discriminating against gays and atheists?"(the answer is, "no, they haven't"). And, BTW, I especially ask them that if their Scout-member kids are standing right there with them. Maybe their kids will learn something useful about the organization they're involved in. I find that most kids are very attuned to bias and discrimination these days, and most of them won't countenance such discrimination for even a nanosecond. If they're not going to hear about how it rots the BSA from their parents, then - as long as their parents are asking me the question - they will hear it from me.
That's why I will not donate money to my local United Way (our local branch still gives money to the BSA. Many local chapters don't. You need to call and find out the policy of your local UW).
And that's why the BSA sucks.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 11, 2007 4:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
REASONABLE NOT HATEFUL wrote:
"Not sure why an Atheist would want to be part of a organization that in its oath mentions God prominently."
Because we're talking about boys here, not philosphy professors.
They probably think what the Scouts are doing is neat and anyway their friends are all doing it.
They simply want to join the Scouts, but, when asked, they're honest enough to say that no, they don't believe in a "God".
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 11, 2007 3:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I think the Boy Scouts of America should let in all who wish admittance, but I'm fair-minded enough to see that the higher principle here is freedom of association.
Hoyt, you've thrown down the Nazi gauntlet, a despicable rhetorical practice. How is anybody supposed to have a peaceful exchange of ideas with you, when you go thermonuclear on the first exchange, resurrecting the image of Adolf Hitler?
Here's the distinction -- the BSA is not a government agency, it is a private organization. It has a congressional charter, which is perhaps nothing more than a pretty piece of paper. I don't find a reference in Article I of the U.S. Constitution to congressional charters, do you?
The Hitler Youth, as you wretchedly point out, was a wicked, official organization of the government of Germany.
The government of the United States, as outlined in the constitution, as amended, cannot deny due process of law to any citizen. The U.S. government has a youth organization. It is called 4-H. It does not discriminate generally in its membership.
The question comes down to this: May the power of government be used to compel a private association to individuals to admit a person that association does not want as a member?
The answer, for anyone who loves freedom, is no.
Would you have the power of the government force the Democratic Party to accept Republicans into its ranks?
Should a judge force a church to accept as a member a person who holds contrary beliefs?
Should your bridge club be forced to accept someone who wants to join, but who has clearly stated his intention to steal the cards?
Should the NAACP be forced to accept members who are racists?
To ensure freedom of association means allowing, in the private sphere, things that you might consider odious: fraternal organizations and golf clubs discriminating on the basis of race or sex, political parties discriminating on the basis of political beliefs, etc.
Here's the answer: If you want a group to change, change it. You have rights, too. Speak out, as you have done.
Use your free-speech and free-association rights to persuade groups to change their minds and their policies.
If you have never heard of this sort of non-violent organization, look up fellows named Ghandi, King and Nader.
You also have another option: Start your own organization.
Set up along your own lines. Compete with BSA. And when your outfit prospers, get a congressional charter for it.
Posted by: Distinctive differences | December 11, 2007 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Boy Scout oath specifically the oath pledges the scout to OBEY GOD!
So why would someone who didn't believe want to take the oath?
OH! I GET IT. We must all, the majority, change that oath to suit the usual and constant complainers.
And that isn't buddhists, incidentally.
Norrie Hoyt above complants that HITLER YOUTH didn't admit Jews. That was the whole point, wastn't it?
Posted by: Carmine | December 11, 2007 3:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Boy Scout oath specifically the oath pledges the scout to OBEY GOD!
So why would someone who didn't believe want to take the oath?
OH! I GET IT. We must all, the majority, change that oath to suit the usual and constant complainers.
And that isn't buddhists, incidentally.
Norrie Hoyt above complants that HITLER YOUTH didn't admit Jews. That was the whole point, wastn't it?
Posted by: Carmine | December 11, 2007 3:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jon,
Are you speaking of the same Protestant Pastors who used to show up on the side of Satan in the Mormon temple rites?
Posted by: Roy | December 11, 2007 3:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Norrie Hoyt posting above
complains about Hitler Youth banning Jews.
That was pretty much the whole point, wasn't it?
Posted by: Cammie | December 11, 2007 3:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Norrie Hoyt posting above
complains about Hitler Youth banning Jews.
That was pretty much the whole point, wasn't it?
Posted by: Cammie | December 11, 2007 3:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Norrie Hoyt
wants to talk about Hitler youth barring jews.
That war pretty much the whole POINT, wasn't it?
Posted by: cammie | December 11, 2007 3:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Norrie Hoyt
wants to talk about Hitler youth barring jews.
That war pretty much the whole POINT, wasn't it?
Posted by: cammie | December 11, 2007 3:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
More thoughts about the Boy Scouts of America's refusal to let non-Abrahamic-God-believing boys join the organization:
1. An organization with a federal government congressional charter should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.
2. If the BSA were a restaurant in any major city of the U.S. and refused service to prospective diners on the basis of religion, it would lose its reataurant and alcoholic beverage licenses at a minimum, and might be subject to other sanctions as well.
3. The BSA poses as an organization supporting generally-held moral values and decent behavior. How does that square with barring perfectly fine boys and young men from joining because they don't hold a particular philosophical opinion?
4. If the BSA were a parent of a ten year old who had invited all his friends to his birthday party, and intervened to bar his child's best friend from attending because he was a Buddhist, what would you and most Americans think?
5. Compare the Boy Scouts of America banning Buddhists and the Hitler Youth banning Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses.
If you find a difference between the two situations, please post it for our consideration.
And please, no distinctions without a difference.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 11, 2007 3:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The more I hear Romney speak, the more I'm reminded of Peter Sellers' character in "Being There." The main difference seems to be that Chauncy Gardener didn't change his positions almost daily.
Posted by: Jim Carlson | December 11, 2007 3:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Joet- I left out the context. I was speaking about the Boy Scouts, that is it.
Read all the posts next time.
Posted by: Reasonable not hateful: | December 11, 2007 3:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Locke, of course, had a hand in the formation of early America, notably in North Carolina.
In that state's constitution, here are Locke's ideas -- freedom of the press, tolerance of religious ideas, and this gem, from Article VI, Section 8:
"Disqualifications for office.
The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. ..."
Posted by: Amateur law scholar | December 11, 2007 3:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You guys have seriously got to stop mischaracterizing what other people say.
If you distorted your spouse's words the way you consistently distort the words of those you disagree with, you would all be divorced most miserably.
Posted by: Carol | December 11, 2007 2:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hoya Paranoia - keep working on that "A" in his course! :D
Posted by: Athena | December 11, 2007 2:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Joet,
Reasonable was referring to admission to the BOY SCOUTS, not the government!
He asked why he would want to belong to Boy Scouts, when, as an atheist, he would have to claim a duty to God....
Scout Oath:
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
Posted by: Carol | December 11, 2007 2:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
VOTE: JACQUES for PREZ 2008 Ya Ya!
Posted by: Anonymous | December 11, 2007 2:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I love you Prof. Berlinerblau!
Posted by: Hoya Paranoia | December 11, 2007 1:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I tend towards skepticism - whether it be from secularists or religionists. I found Romney's speech to be genuine and stirring. So what if he didn't speak to the agnostic crowd? He wasn't adressing their concerns.
How many of you non- or quasi-believers have been subjected to the theological propaganda that Mormons are evil and destined to hell since you were little children in Sunday School? Millions of kids, now voting adults, have been told week after week and year after year that Mormons do not believe in Jesus, and that they are not Christian.
Romney clarified that. He also clarified that for YOU. He stated that he does believe in Jesus Christ, and you may wish to vote against him for that fact. And he refused to go into it further.
Many, many people have incorrect views about the Mormon Church. Due to Protestant pastors guarding their turf and their incomes, millions of people think Mormons don't believe in Jesus. The propaganda is so pervavsive that even non-believers may have bought into that description.
Due to pastors promoting hate and distrust, we have politicians who have to prove they are "worthy" of the flock's vote. They "should" not have to do this, but "should statements" are cognitive distortions. They DO have to correct the record.
Romney stated what he was. So why are you comlaining about that?
Posted by: Jon | December 11, 2007 1:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
At first I was surprised by the people who've referred to Romney's religion speech as a "great speech." Then I realized that everyone I've seen bragging about that speech is a conservative Christian or Mormon.
Note that Romney says no one should have to give a doctrinal statement about their faith...right after answering the question of what he believes about Jesus being the savior.
SO: it's okay to ask candidates if Jesus is their savior, but it's not okay to ask other questions. In other words, once we've determined they worship Jesus, that's all we need to know to accept them.
Posted by: skeptimal | December 11, 2007 1:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Joet:
Actually, the critical thing is elimination of the property tax exemption for churches, temples, etc. Forcing me to subsidize religion is far worse than just dealing with the activities of the majority.
Posted by: DZ | December 11, 2007 12:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You want a little quote from everything to make you feel that Romney is inclusive enough...? I insist upon one from "Anne of Green Gables."
Posted by: Mark | December 11, 2007 12:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
so Reasonable: you think atheists really don't belong in government because god is mentioned in the oaths?
the last time the Supreme Court heard someone use the In God We Trust (added to the coins during the red scare - somehow no one thought of it was needed for nearly 200 years) argument in an establishment case, a justice, perhaps the catholic Scalia, rejoined that stuff like that was so trivial and merely traditional as to be practically secular, such that it shouldn't offend anyone.
I actually don't disagree. Romney's straw man of the secularist (he can't quite get the distinction with atheists) who wants to drive religion out of the public arena is just that. I don't think most secularists or atheists for that matter care about our coins all that much, and if a park or two has a manger, who cares. I draw the line at 5 ton granite slabs of the Ten Commandments placed inside the lobby of a courtroom by a judge who says that's his law. I think that's a reasonable place to draw the line, don't you?
Posted by: JoeT | December 11, 2007 12:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
No Romney for me!!!
Posted by: Gaby | December 11, 2007 12:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I haven't paid much attention to Romney, but the more I see and hear of him, the more he emerges as THE empty suit in this campaign.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 11, 2007 11:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Locke talked about toleration of Jews? The question arises because your quotation marks are strange and perhaps contrived in paragraph #8...
Please answer
And if you suffer Punditry's Tedium...perhaps some other subject than how dastardly are the
Christians, or at least be a little up front about your propogandizing.
Posted by: Lee | December 11, 2007 11:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Locke talked about toleration of Jews? The question arises because your quotation marks are strange and perhaps contrived in paragraph #8...
Please answer
And if you suffer Punditry's Tedium...perhaps some other subject than how dastardly are the
Christians, or at least be a little up front about your propogandizing.
Posted by: Lee | December 11, 2007 11:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm still trying to get an email response from the Romney campaign site that explains his comment that 'you can't have freedom without religion.'
I suspect they did with that email what they did with my earlier one asking why, if he is such a strong backer of war, have none of his five sons (or he) have ever served in the military.
I've probably become spam.
Posted by: Jim Carlson | December 11, 2007 11:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Not sure why an Atheist would want to be part of a organization that in its oath mentions God prominently.
Posted by: Reasonable not hateful | December 11, 2007 11:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Norrie:
Not just Buddhist boys but atheist boys as well. I was one of those denied admission when I was 11. I didn't understand it very well then, but it was a formative event.
Posted by: DZ | December 11, 2007 10:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Someone should ask Romney what he thinks of Buddhists (including the enlightened Dalai Lama).
Buddhists and the Dalai Lama are atheists.
There will be no place for them in Romney's America.
I imagine Romney supports the Congressionally- chartered Boy Scouts of America, who prohibit Buddhist boys from joining the Scouts because they don't believe in a Romney-type "God".
The WWII Japanese internment camps are about to be rehabilitated - for nonbelievers in an Abrahamic God.
Beware.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 11, 2007 10:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
test
Posted by: test | December 11, 2007 10:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Two handsome young Mormon men in business suits appeared at my front door and outlined a summer vacation program which seemed to offer a positive experience for my two sons aged 10 and 6. I asked if they would be injecting Mormon teachings into the program (we are Methodist) and they answered "No". When my sons returned from the second experience in the program, my 10 year old said that one of the young men told him that he would not go to heaven unless they were Mormons. When the two young men came to take my boys to their summer program, I asked if they had told my sons they couldn't go to heaven unless they were Mormons. Both young men answered that is what they told my sons. Is this Mitt Romney's belief?