posted
I would like this to be a positive statement, but it is not. Rather, the attitudes that persisted in the minds of the Missouri mobs are returning.
First, it was Krouker's hate literature "Banner of Heaven" that postulated that Mormons as a whole were violent and uncivil.
Just recently, however, Hollywood and book publishers are getting on the bandwagon of fear and loathing against the Mormons.
Recently a book "Leaving the Fold" was published that goes beyond mere stereotypes. It reads like the old 19th Century gothic literature with Mormons as lunatics and hate mongers. The positive reviews of mainstream reviewers makes me cringe. If taken seriously, and to its logical conclusions, to be Mormon is to be illegal.
Then there is a spate of Television shows that portray Mormons as a dangerous subset of American culture, if not downright deviants.
Although "Angels in America" is tame in comparison to recent representations, it still hides behind stereotypes and preconceptions of Mormon belief and lifestyles. However, it is the growing trend that is not just making me angry, it is making me frightened.
In a recent "Cold Case" episode, the Mormons were seen as fruitcakes with a desire to kill anyone or anything that was not Mormon. They so distorted Mormon characters that the only familiarity would be the nickname placed on the Character's religious affiliation. As one reviewer put it, "it was mean and callous" to the point of cruel obsurdity.
Then there was the potshot in "Revelations" where the Satanists were pointed out as Mormons. Once again, we have seen the enemy and it is me and my people.
The only other people I can think of that gets this kind of treatment is Muslims, although other Christians are represented badly. I am not saying that we are yet in a crisis point where I feel my very life is at steak. However, if this trend in publishing and broadcast continues, how long will it be before a Mormon is killed just because that is what they are? How long before gettos are created simply to portion off the Mormons from "decent society" and protect the future. As I have said in other places, Mormons are the new German Jews on American soil.
quote:I am not saying that we are yet in a crisis point where I feel my very life is at steak.
Well, after all, you're not a baby anymore. You are probably better suited for stew or soup. Something that can simmer for a long time to make the meat tender.
Anyway, hate literature is always floating around. Today Mormons, tomorrow Jews, next week Muslims.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There seems to be a level of hatred in this country that is slowing becoming more and more obscene. Hatred shown towards Mormons (and, in fact, any religious group that is remotely zealous in their discipleship) is terribly high. What I fear, more than hatred towards my religion, which will only serve to make the church stronger (That's really all it did before), is the possibility that all this hatred will eventually result in wide-spread violence against any person with opinions that deviate from those established by popular culture.
[ May 07, 2005, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but this is mainstream hate literature. No one is questioning it, other than those directly involved.
Again, I am not saying Mormons are the only ones. However, the level of vitrolly and outright offensiveness and mischaracterizations is beyond even the usual suspects of such attacks. They read more like, and I know this is usually a no-no comparison, Nazi propaganda leading to extermination. Lest it sounds extreme, there is an historical presidence. A law was passed that basically gave legal gounds to killing a Mormon for existing. Many of the same arguments starting to be heard today were printed during that time.
posted
I don't know, gays have it much, much, much worse, (which is why I am alwasy a bit relunctant to tell anyone about it, lest they want to beat me up or worse) but, it's still unfair for ANY group to have a bunch of stereotypes thrown at them and to be hated on. I just don't know how to counter something like this. On the bright side, South Park has been rather kind to mormons on 2 occasions with the "only Mormons get into heaven" episode and that cool episode with the nice Mormon kid and his family. Something needs to be done though, but what? Can more Mormons come out with books and literature that says, we are just people who deserve compassion like everyone else? Lost Boys completely touched my heart and I knew ever little about Mormonism.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then there was the potshot in "Revelations" where the Satanists were pointed out as Mormons. Once again, we have seen the enemy and it is me and my people.
I'm not certain I'd put the same intent or meaning on this that you seem to. While it's possible that it could indicate an extreme lack of understanding or research by the writers, I thought it more likely a comment on the fact that few people know much about Mormonism, and the Satanists were relying on the police officer (sheriff?) falling into that category, thinking of Mormonism as some "fringe element" that would have strange reasons for what they do. Therefore it wouldn't be a big deal for them to be out in the snow with their son during school time and before/after hunting season. Rather than a "dangerous subset," they portrayed them as being thought of as rather harmless.
I lean toward the "assume motives were good (or at least neutral) and execution was lacking." Maybe they were intending to be insulting -- I think they more likely fall into the "ignorant" category, failing to do adequate (if any) research, and defining things as they need for the sake of what they consider the plot. (I've really only continued watching the show because I know it's ending soon -- if this were a new series I'd have given up on it already.)
posted
Well, in honesty, I think these people are trying to make a fast buck by writing/producing material that has a high potential of generating a fast audience. There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people who dig and dig for stuff that proves their view on a certain group of people. That they are allowed to do this to mormons and not jews/blacks/muslims/whatever is due to the fact that the church does not attempt to defend itself against such attacks. There is no reason for us to attempt to defend against such attacks, because they will not destroy the church. If you've ever read "The Standard of Truth" contained in Joseph Smith's "History of the Church", particularly the line that says, "Mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calomny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldy, nobly, and independant..."
This has always been the view of the church leadership concerning hate material focused against the church, and I don't think that will ever change.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did see a movie called Later days which annoyed me a bit because some of the information they had about Mormoms seemed somewhat... incorrect and inaccurate. But, it's alternative "Hollywood". What do they know about religions? Seriously. If Mormons have a problem with homosexuality they would be a lot more civil about it and have biblical based reasons for it. I don't agree with it, but what can I do about it? Certaining hating on a group of people will not help, which is why compassionate education is the key. If people do not know enough about something, they will fear it irrationally. I tend to have a bit of fear of the Right...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Moose about Revelations. I took it to mean that Mormons are a bit odd, so why wouldn't they be out there. And Mormons are so good, that heavens no, they wouldn't have guns, for heaven's sake.
But I agree with you about Cold Case. I was offended watching it. And I wanted it to be good because Barry Bostwick was in it, playing the suspect of a murder that took place during a showing of Rocky Horror! It was funny to see him on the screen and then in the interrogation room. And the acting in the "cold" part was so bad and cheesy it really was reminiscent of Rocky Horror. It was a hoot!
But then, for no reason, they had to go and make him Mormon and talk about garment! Then, I was just annoyed and uncomfortable.
But, we do have a religious president. You're just the wrong religion. Now you know how the non-religious feel all the time with this president in office. Most days, it seems like a full scale attack to be something other than the perfect, non-descript Christian.
Just not too Christian.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's all the Southern Baptists, you know. They spread hate propaganda. I've never met a good one in my life, really. They just seem so weird and . . . extreme. We should do something about them.
Angels in America is (imho) an excellent movie about AIDS set in 1985 New York. It's an adaptation of a play written in the late 80s or early 90s that took 10 years to get funding, etc. to be filmed and then played on HBO. I recently watched it through a Netflix rental because it came up under a search for Emma Thompson.
There is a husband & wife who are Mormon, and then his mother becomes involved partway through. I don't understand what point was trying to be made about these two being Mormon beyond the lifestyle choices they'd made that (based on posts here at Hatrack and on comments in the movie) I knew to be frowned upon. Why they couldn't be some other religion - or no specified religion at all, for that matter - and still have the same issues was beyond me. There was one part I would have liked to see expanded out of simple curiosity, not because it added anything to the story, but because that subject led to a pair of locked threads here at Hatrack I won't specify.
And I don't watch CSI either so I have no idea what that one was about.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the worst they can throw at us is network television and crappy movies, I'm a little more amused than worried.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every group in this country has their detractors. Mormons are not special or singled out over any other group, and in fact have a lot of catching up to do with, say, Catholics or Communists or Jews. As well, Mormons certainly aren't shy about bitching about their own concerns or singling out groups over and above others. So, it's not like you don't sling your own mud.
Get over yourself and accept the fact that you are a peer in the country and being a religion doesn't make you immune to criticism, being made fun of, or being potrayed as the bad guy every now and then for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:As well, Mormons certainly aren't shy about bitching about their own concerns or singling out groups over and above others. So, it's not like you don't sling your own mud.
When it comes to individual Mormons, I think you're correct. However, the Church does a pretty good job of avoiding mud slinging, I think.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think "get over it" is a horrible way to face bias and descrimination. Too many atrocities start with asking those involved to shut up and sit down.
However, I have to go with scott on this one. The LDS Church as an institution rarely gets involved with counter-attack defensiveness. The last one I can think of is the Krouker book. As for "mud slinging," I can't think of anything other than respect for those who disgree, even if it is about differences in politics and doctrine.
I guess in today's climate, if you disgree it isn't that you see things differently. Rather, its that you are ignorant or evil.
posted
If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out (don't watch so much primetime TV, maybe.) Is Leaving the Fold book the same one as Martha Beck or is it different? Anyways, it stinks to have Oprah thinking we endorse the systematic sexual abuse of children but then I haven't watched her show in a long time. The only people it will matter to is those who look to Oprah as a spiritual leader- which is creepy in its own right.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, here's the deal: pretty much nobody worth talking to hates Mormons. The only people who do that are fundies with sticks already stuck in various nether regions. People think Mormons are boring and humorless and occasionally creepily in lockstep -- perhaps because, in many cases, that's the public face that the LDS church chooses to present to the world. But almost nobody thinks Mormons are dangerous in the sense you mean; at best, you're fun to poke fun at, precisely because you're all so concerned about being taken seriously.
That said, there's the occasional fruitcake out there who thinks you're a bunch of pagan, devil-communing polygamists. And I'm sure that sucks.
But when push comes to shove, Mormons still call themselves Christian. So when the big war comes and you're all lining up the homosexual pagans to kill, me and mine are going to go first (or possibly second), and you're only going to get around to killing each other after I'm already dead. So, frankly, I couldn't care less.
posted
For every example of Mormon-bashing, we can probably find examples where LDS are portrayed positively.
Tom Clancy is pretty popular, and he uses "Mormon" as a shorthand way to create a character that is honest, trustworthy, loyal, maybe a bit square, but generally a good guy.
And then there's the cultural phenomenon that is Ken Jennings.
The lead Democrat in the Senate (Harry Reid) is a Mormon, and there's a Mormon (Mitt Romney) on the short list of Republican presidential candidates for 2008.
It's not time for us to pack for Missouri yet. And if it were time, I imagine we'd be hearing rather more about the issue in General Conference. Instead, we have things like President Hinckley, along with other leaders of organizations that do good, getting a medal from President Bush, as happened a little while ago.
[ May 08, 2005, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But, we do have a religious president. You're just the wrong religion. Now you know how the non-religious feel all the time with this president in office. Most days, it seems like a full scale attack to be something other than the perfect, non-descript Christian."
Wow, have YOU been believing the propaganda. Bush's statements of religious faith while in office are not out of line with similar statements on many occasions by MOST previous presidents. Only because the insane left has become paranoid about religious influence in politics are we hearing about how horrible it is to have a religious president.
But stay tuned to the "mainstream culture" channel. The attacks on Mormons are part of the general attack on "right-wing religion" or "the religious right" or "organized religion" that is gaining currency, with the equivalents of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion already circulating out there to "prove" that there is a vast conspiracy of Religious People to take over the world and restore the Dominion of Christ.
In a world where there really IS a religious conspiracy to take over the world (Islamism) that is killing people regularly in order to accomplish it, I suppose such conspiracy theories become more plausible. And it is not IMpossible for such a conspiracy to arise among Christians of one stripe or another. However, the targets of these conspiracy theorists are NOT any real conspiracy, but merely ordinarily religious people living their lives as normal citizens - including voting for what they believe to be right.
It's as if some on the extreme, intolerant left won't be content until all religious people feel like they HAVE to leave their religious beliefs behind in the voting booth in order to prove their "tolerance."
And heaven help the religious person who dares to run for office without checking his conscience into a blind trust. Because if you are a person of faith and become president, people will talk about you as if you were somehow beating up their children or stealing money from them every time you speak as if you were a believer in your religion.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The attacks on Mormons are part of the general attack on "right-wing religion" or "the religious right" or "organized religion" that is gaining currency...
This just isn't true, you know. Outside of Utah, the only Mormons being attacked by non-Christians for anything are being attacked for specific political stances -- like, say, opposition to gay marriage. (In Utah, the occasional non-Christian group takes a potshot at the Mormon culture just to remind people that they exist, I suspect.)
Any anti-Mormon literature out there is being written by your fellow Christians, I'm afraid.
quote: And heaven help the religious person who dares to run for office without checking his conscience into a blind trust. Because if you are a person of faith and become president, people will talk about you as if you were somehow beating up their children or stealing money from them every time you speak as if you were a believer in your religion.
You set up another straw man here, Scott. Speaking as if you're a believer -- even if I grant that such speech is a political liability, which I most certainly do not -- is not the same thing as having a conscience; one does not need to "check one's conscience into a blind trust" to avoid babbling about God in inappropriate ways at inappropriate times.
quote: Then there was the potshot in "Revelations" where the Satanists were pointed out as Mormons. Once again, we have seen the enemy and it is me and my people.
I have to agree with Pop here, Occasional. I didn't see it as a potshot, just a lie told by a Satanist to look harmless and non-threatening to a cop, so he would let his guard down.
But the Cold Case episode sounds harsh.
Chris, that ad is funny. I want the "40 page "Dictionary of Mormonese." Is that even a word?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something about the role of religion and religious groups in the current Administration, and in the Republican party in general just seems different to me than what has gone on in the recent past few presidencies. Certainly its different from that of George HW Bush (41st) or Ronald Reagan (40th), which might have included oblique references to God or "the creator" here and there, (with maybe a "great Satan" thrown in).
For one thing, while the overall vote-getting success can be debated, it's hard to deny that much of the past two elections have had within them an element of the GOP working with and through religious organizations more than ever before.
Funding, of course, comes up as another factor.
As do the various religion-based groups getting involved in things like pushing the GOP to address the filibustering of judicial nominations by the minority party. Something that seems like it'd be rather far afield from an issue that religious groups would care about, until we remember that "activist judges" is a rallying cry in several religion-based campaign issues (like overturning Roe v. Wade, gay rights, homosexual unions/marriage, and a few other things that really ARE religious as well as political issues).
And there are organizations trying to make government work the way their religion says it should, regardless of whether that would trample the religious freedom of others. The recruitment and funding of school board candidates has continued. Funding congressional campaigns, etc.
None of this is illegal.
None of it is anything that those opposed to such ideas couldn't also do.
that's not the point. The point is that the party of the right really HAS become the party of the Christian Conservatives. It is perhaps not yet completely bought and paid for, but it is happening.
This is not to say that every Republican is a Conservative Christian. But I'd be willing to assert that there's probably not very many Republicans willing to take a stand on any issue that would play negatively with this part of the GOPs very vocal power base.
Sadly, I think it's getting to the point where anyone who feels like less religion-based control of our legislative process is a good thing is going to be accused of being anti-Christian. We hear only about the judicial nomiations that the Democrats are trying to block, not the hundreds that have been readily approved.
Finally, although this isn't about oppression of the LDS in particular, I do believe that Christians talking about persecution in America are trying to have it both ways. They are now a big part of the powerful majority now running things. You can be THAT and, at the same time, be the persecuted. Who's persecuting them? The weakened left of the political spectrum can't do much (in the grand scheme of things filibustering a handful of judicial nominees is nothing). The press has moved decidedly to the Right. NPR now has a board of review hand-picked by the GOP who are intended to ensure that NPR's reporting doesn't put too much of a liberal spin on things.
Specific oppression aimed at the LDS does, I believe, go on. Most of the negatively I've heard about the LDS have come from members of three groups: 1) clergy from some evangelical, "bible-based" churches. Not all, mind you. But some. Many of the ones I've met who are based in Utah were among the most vocal critics of the LDS church. Not sure why that should be, but I have theories.
2) ex-LDS members themselves.
3) Obviously ignorant people who are scared because of something that the LDS church did recently -- like moving back into communities and, because of all the big money coming in with the LDS, driving up prices for the less affluent folks who lived there all along.
The story I heard was one community where, back in the old days, the townspeople burned the LDS out and ran them off, and now the LDS is back... People aren't really afraid of the LDS' beliefs so much as that they will no longer be able to afford to live in the town they've known all along. A few mentioned a fear of reprisals once the LDS takes over the town council...things like that.
I submit that this last group sound like folks who really have had zero contact with any LDS members and don't know what the positive benefits will be for their community. Change is scary.
Oh well...I'm sure there are other examples of anti-LDS sentiment around out there. I'm just sharing the ones I know of personally. If there are things out in the mainstream media putting forth lies about the LDS church and members, I haven't seen them. I wouldn't bother with them.
Frankly, most people I know couldn't care less. As far as they're concerned, the LDS consists of a lot of people in Utah, some rules or doctrine they have a hazy notion of that are somewhat different from their own denomination's rules/doctrine, and something about polygamy, but they're not quite sure what.
While it's never comfortable having one's group of primary identification slandered or otherwise misportrayed, I think that concern over whether the average American thinks about the LDS negatively is simply misplaced. I suspect the truth is that the average American doesn't think about the LDS (or any particular religious group other than their own -- maybe) at all.
Finally...on the point of Islam fostering an attitude of "death to non-believers" fueling conspiracy theories, I don't really think that's what is going on. The truth is that you don't have to have that example to feel like the religious right is trying to take over American politics. They are. They say they are. And they have been successful the last few years like never before. Maybe the word "conspiracy" is distasteful. A better way to say it might be that the religious right have started flexing muscle that they've had all along, but now are using it in a much more coordinated fashion. In part, they've done that by organizing within the GOP -- a party with a history of better organization and rallying around the candidate(s) (squelching dissent in a timely fashion) more effectively than the Democrats or other parties have.
The combination is indeed of concern to those who truly do want a separation of church and state. Not because it is a conspiracy, but because the tactics of this group are working. And to many on the left, it feels like the undoing of much of what they counted as progress over the past few decades.
Sadly, I think the fit between the GOP and the religious right is not really a good one at all. The fiscal policies of the current GOP are not those that would fit in with most Christian denominations if they really examined it closely. Social policies have become ascendent. Unfortunately, this allows the GOP to also muscle in its own fiscal policies, which is what the party really has always cared about. When the dust settles, I wonder what will become of the traditional values of helping the poor when the GOP's view of personal financial failure takes hold.
I really don't think the groups will see eye to eye for the long run but maybe it'll mean a softening of the right's fiscal policies, rather than an abandonment of the GOP by the religious conservatives when they finally see what the party really stands for.
It's going to be an interesting few years ahead of us.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sadly, I think the fit between the GOP and the religious right is not really a good one at all. The fiscal policies of the current GOP are not those that would fit in with most Christian denominations if they really examined it closely. Social policies have become ascendent. Unfortunately, this allows the GOP to also muscle in its own fiscal policies, which is what the party really has always cared about. When the dust settles, I wonder what will become of the traditional values of helping the poor when the GOP's view of personal financial failure takes hold.
I don't think I could have said it better myself, Bob.
EDIT: And this is why I didn't vote Bush in in '04; because as despicable as I find the Democrat's social agenda, I find the Repub's financial gambling just as inane.
[ May 08, 2005, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow, have YOU been believing the propaganda. Bush's statements of religious faith while in office are not out of line with similar statements on many occasions by MOST previous presidents. Only because the insane left has become paranoid about religious influence in politics are we hearing about how horrible it is to have a religious president.
While this is possibly true, I think you are missing the point. Those previous religious presidents were just as bad when it came to feeling that you had to be a Christian to be worth anything. But only in the current climate of secularisation does anyone dare point it out.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, isn't most of Islam NOT trying to take over the world but instead responding to a fear of having their culture drowned out by American culture? At least this is how it seems to me...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But, isn't most of Islam NOT trying to take over the world but instead responding to a fear of having their culture drowned out by American culture?"
Well, no. Both Islam and Christianity have as one of their stated goals primacy over the hearts and minds of all men. They will, in that sense, always be in conflict.
That said, I'm sure one of the factors that has led to savagery in Islamic societies over the last hundred years is in fact a perception -- however accurate or inaccurate -- of marginalization.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sadly, I think the fit between the GOP and the religious right is not really a good one at all. The fiscal policies of the current GOP are not those that would fit in with most Christian denominations if they really examined it closely. Social policies have become ascendent. Unfortunately, this allows the GOP to also muscle in its own fiscal policies, which is what the party really has always cared about. When the dust settles, I wonder what will become of the traditional values of helping the poor when the GOP's view of personal financial failure takes hold.
Yay! yay yay yay!
*becomes a brainwashed Bob-head*
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion " What's this? Maybe I do need to start watching TV again. Then again, maybe I'll wait until someone offers to pay me to start watching TV again.
Wow, Tom rebutted with "straw man". Didn't see that coming Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wow, Tom rebutted with "straw man". Didn't see that coming.
I agree that it's a shame that a certain someone uses straw men so often in political conversations that it's actually tiresome to point out their ubiquity.
That said, I think it's important to point out that the argument in question is in fact a straw man -- and while you might find that observation repetitive, it is certainly not inaccurate. Neh?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
"one does not need to "check one's conscience into a blind trust" to avoid babbling about God in inappropriate ways at inappropriate times."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The truth is that you don't have to have that example to feel like the religious right is trying to take over American politics. They are. They say they are.
Everyone is trying to take over the world. The right, the left, religious and areligious, black and white, everyone wants to make major changes to the current world order such that their will is done and their needs are met.
And it's always, always, always at the expense of someone else-regardless of whether or not that expense is reasonable.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, Scott's argument doesn't look like a straw man to me.
I think you're wrong here.
In any case-- we've seen a gazillion times here on Hatrack alone, the call for religious people to forsake what they believe is correct in order to acheive secular equality.
And when a religious politico (such as Kerry, for example) vacilates on his own religious point of view (on abortion, for example) in order to obtain greater political favor, there is a rally to his defense: he's being tolerant. . .
So, yeah-- as far as I can see, Scott's got the right of things.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everyone is trying to take over the world. The right, the left, religious and areligious, black and white, everyone wants to make major changes to the current world order such that their will is done and their needs are met.
posted
I do think that's a common sort of disjoint -- some people assume that everyone's out to get their way, or that nobody'd pay someone to criticize them, or the like, when there are really plenty of reasonable people who don't feel that way.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everybody is out to get you, fugu. That's just common sense. Paranoia is when you think they are conspiring.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mothertree, the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a fake document created to discredit Jews by portraying them being behind a conspiracy to take over the world. It's being cited here as a reference to similar absurd conspiracy theories.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sadly, I think the fit between the GOP and the religious right is not really a good one at all. The fiscal policies of the current GOP are not those that would fit in with most Christian denominations if they really examined it closely.
I'm suprised no one has responded to this yet. My understanding of Christian charity, or any sort, is that it is something freely given. When the government takes money from some people and gives it to the poor, the people who are losing the money are not doing so for charitable purposes, they are doing so in order to not go to jail. This is force. Charity has no place in it. Free will must exist for the action to be benovelent. While conservative Christians might not believe in government forced welfare programs, that does not mean they don't believe in taking care of the poor.
So depending on your view of taxation, the GOP fiscal policy does make a good fit with many Christian denominations.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And heaven help the religious person who dares to run for office without checking his conscience into a blind trust."
This statement fails a number of tests. For one, it assumes that talking about religious faith is a prerequisite for conscience. For another, it assumes that talking about religious faith is a political liability.
I submit that neither is true, and that both are assumed in this statement.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:it assumes that talking about religious faith is a prerequisite for conscience
No, it doesn't.
quote:it assumes that talking about religious faith is a political liability
No, he states immediately afterwards that "people will talk about you as if you were somehow beating up their children or stealing money from them every time you speak as if you were a believer in your religion." And he's right. Whether that's a net plus or minus doesn't take away from this statement.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"people will talk about you as if you were somehow beating up their children or stealing money from them every time you speak as if you were a believer in your religion"
In a very literal sense, it's accurate that some people are indeed likely to say this about you. But compared to the number of people who will take this as a sign from God that they should vote for you, it's a pretty vanishingly small number.
By the same token, I might argue that people will complain if you give free candy to a crowd. Some will, no doubt, but -- as you observe -- the effect is likely to be a "net plus."
So if it's unnecessary to check your faith at the door to get elected, which is the whole point of the "net plus" bit, and if it's possible to have religious faith -- and live according to that faith -- while elected, what's left of OSC's statement?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
adam, did you miss the last sentence you quoted there?
Tom, so are you admitting his statement doesn't "assumes that talking about religious faith is a prerequisite for conscience"?
quote:So if it's unnecessary to check your faith at the door to get elected, which is the whole point of the "net plus" bit, and if it's possible to have religious faith -- and live according to that faith -- while elected, what's left of OSC's statement?
That you'll be accused of horrible things merely for expressing your faith.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Tom, so are you admitting his statement doesn't 'assumes that talking about religious faith is a prerequisite for conscience?'"
Nope. But I'm willing to concede that he may not have meant it that way. The implication seems clear to me, but there's a conditional in there -- that this might only apply to people with religious faith in the first place -- which may temper it.
"That you'll be accused of horrible things merely for expressing your faith."
People will also accuse you of horrible things for not having faith at all. And, in fact, so many more people will accuse you of horrible things for not having some faith that we don't have a single openly atheist person in Congress, have never elected an openly atheist president, and have inserted a statement of faith into a pledge of allegiance to this country.
So while it's true that you may alienate a vanishingly small minority by talking about your God, you'll alienate a much more impressive majority by not talking about one. Or is it not still the case that every presidential candidate's church attendance is exhaustively examined in the media?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, it's a HUGE step from that to saying that everyone is trying to take over the world.
In my view, a candidate who gains office is supposed to represent ALL THE PEOPLE in the geographic region he or she represents.
I don't like ideologues. I vote for people who demonstrate an ability to to think, consider, and make reasoned decisions.
That's not an attempt to take-over in any reasonable sense that I can discern. If it is, it's a pretty weak one in that I expect them to pay attention to the needs of all their constituents.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And if it were time, I imagine we'd be hearing rather more about the issue in General Conference. Instead, we have things like President Hinckley, along with other leaders of organizations that do good, getting a medal from President Bush, as happened a little while ago.![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
Maybe I do need to start watching TV again. Then again, maybe I'll wait until someone offers to pay me to start watching TV again.![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
