That sound you hear is Kathryn Jean Lopez's heart breaking.

"Oh, Mitt! Here's one Papist who still loves your dreamy self!"

Amy Sullivan, 2003:
"To become America's majority party again, the Democrats will have to get religion."

Amy Sullivan, 2006:

"For the record, I think that's pretty appalling. There is no religious test in this country, and we shouldn't tolerate the de facto application of one."

Progress.

Congratulations, Ms. Sullivan. You know that you have really made the big time when Bob Novak starts ripping you off. Given your writing, it's about time.

There is no religious test in this country..

False! False! False!

Let alone an atheist, even a non-Christian, say a Buddhist, will not go very far in any national election in this country at least for the foreseeable future.

Amy might be surprized to learn Romney is doing well in GOP polling.

And look at Hugh Hewitt's blog - Hewitt is positive about Romney.

And look at Hugh Hewitt's blog...

Haw! And the thing is, I bet you typed that with a straight face!

Who cares? He's not a serious contender for the GOP nomination anyway. He's failed miserably in his only elected office to date.

lib beat me to it, the bastard.

There is no religious test in this country..

False! False! False!

Let alone an atheist, even a non-Christian, say a Buddhist, will not go very far in any national election in this country at least for the foreseeable future.

There may be a de facto one, as Amy points out. but we need to keep reminding people that the Constitution mandates no religious test for office.

Mormonism is a cult, not a religion. And a clannish cult intent on controlling as much of the business structure of the country as it can. We don't need public office holders of this sort.

Is "anonymous" actually Karen taking a break from the regular Jewish banking cabal paranoia?

No de facto religious test to run for president? Hardly. Any religion, no matter how nutty, is prefered to no religion. Atheists and agnostics need not apply.

There may be a de facto one, as Amy points out. but we need to keep reminding people that the Constitution mandates no religious test for office.

Given the contents of Ms. Sullivan's numerous priot posts, I assume that she is not ashamed of being called a hypocrite.

When I first went to college I enjoyed reading Schism magazine. I have not seen one for thirty years, but I enjoy witnessing religious schism, especially among my political opponents.

Amy might be surprized to learn Romney is doing well in GOP polling.Posted by: Frequency Kenneth

Not saying much as anyone looks good compared to the current GOP piece of shit in the White House. Furthermore, no one's going to be voting for anyone from the GOP in 2006 or 2008 unless they start turning their kool aid to wine and raising the dead.

priot = prior.

lib and craigie, we all realize you consider it sport to willfully mischaracterize everything Amy writes, but you might bother to read it once in a while before calling her a hypocrite. As anyone who read that 2003 article of hers knows, by "get religion," she meant that Democrats needed to do a better job of religious outreach because they get their asses kicked among Catholics and evangelicals unless someone like Clinton (who knew how to talk about religion like it mattered to people) was running.

"There is no religious test in this country"

1 word: athiests

No religious test my ass.

And look at Hugh Hewitt's blog - Hewitt is positive about Romney.

Yes, because Hugh "I support the Harriet Miers nomination" Hewitt really has his finger on the pulse of the nation.

For the record, I think that's pretty appalling. There is no religious test in this country, and we shouldn't tolerate the de facto application of one.

There's one key difference, though. While there may be no de jure religious test in this country for office, Romney during primary season would be running for a position within his party, that of presidential candidate. While the government may not discriminate de jure, a private political party may discriminate de facto.

In my heart of hearts, I'd love to see a general election between Mormon Romney and Jewish Feingold, just to hear the sound of so many heads exploding.

brett -

Huh? Look, I've given up on the "Dems are hostile to religion" conversation. I'm not getting involved in that one any more. Uncle.

But that's not what my comment was about here. I was simply supporting lib's observation that there is, in fact, a religious litmus test in this country. It is simply inconceivable that a person could stand up and say "I'd like to run for dogcatcher, oh, and I don't believe in God" and win.

That's just how it is, and pretending it's not, is dishonest.

There's one key difference, though. While there may be no de jure religious test in this country for office, Romney during primary season would be running for a position within his party, that of presidential candidate. While the government may not discriminate de jure, a private political party may discriminate de facto.

And so can the general electorate. And, given that religion is tied up with ideology, do we even want to say that its bad that the electorate considers the religion of candidates when it goes to the polls? Certainly, we don't want the government to discriminate on religion, or to establish a de jure test for office. Neither, though, do I think we really want the public to ignore candidates religion entirely.

Now, ideally, we want them to be open minded, and realize that religious labels are a poor indicator of ideology, and at best are an indicator of what questions you want to look deeper into about a candidate. But to ignore it entirely? I think not.

A Republican Mormon vs Hillary? Good grief!

Joseph Smith the founder and leader of Mormons, before a sensible mob shot him to death in Ohio, came a cult of magicians and white whichcraft healers in Vermont.

They believe the lost tribe arrived on these shores in 600 BC, whereupon some sensible Indians killed them all.

Who would want a New England believer in witchraft elected president?

Mormonism is a cult, not a religion. And a clannish cult intent on controlling as much of the business structure of the country as it can. We don't need public office holders of this sort.
Posted by: anonymous on April 27, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Is "anonymous" actually Karen taking a break from the regular Jewish banking cabal paranoia?
Posted by: shortstop

Regardless of who it is, s/he's spot on.

It is, hands down, the weirdest "religion" in America, maybe the world. All they lack is zombies and plenary indulgences.

Have you ever attended a Mormon service? Ever visted Temple Square in SLC and taken the tour (bet you didn't know that Jesus, after rising from the dead, appeared to the aborginals here in the Americas - it's right there in the Bib, er, never mind)? Been baptised for the dead recently? Got your month's supply of food stored away? And just what the hell is it that they're really store (beside food and weapons) in the tunnel facilities in the Wasatch? The state of Utah (unless you are a high ranking Elder) doesn't even know.

the weirdest "religion" in America

The Scientologists beg to differ.

Some more shit on Mormom jackasses, they are child molesters and perverts:

"Beginning in the 1830s, at least thirty-three women married Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. These were passionate relationships which also had some longevity, except in cases such as that of two young sisters, one of whom was discovered by Joseph's first wife, Emma, in a locked bedroom with the prophet. Emma remained a steadfast opponent of polygamy throughout her life.
The majority of Smith's wives were younger than he, and one-third were between fourteen and twenty years of age. Another third were already married, and some of the husbands served as witnesses at their own wife's polyandrous wedding. In addition, some of the wives hinted that they bore Smith children--most notably Sylvia Sessions's daughter Josephine--although the children carried their stepfather's surname.

For all of Smith's wives, the experience of being secretly married was socially isolating, emotionally draining, and sexually frustrating. Despite the spiritual and temporal benefits, which they acknowledged, they found their faith tested to the limit of its endurance. After Smith's death in 1844, their lives became even more "lonely and desolate." One even joined a convent. The majority were appropriated by Smith's successors, based on the Old Testament law of the Levirate, and had children by them, though they considered these guardianships unsatisfying. Others stayed in the Midwest and remarried, while one moved to California. But all considered their lives unhappy, except for the joy they found in their children and grandchildren. "

Who was that guy they shot in WACO? I can see why mods like to shoot these perverts, most mormons need to put on the sex offenders list.

the weirdest "religion" in America

The Scientologists beg to differ. Posted by: apostropher

That is a tough call. I say we put them in a cage match. Whoever wins can take over the other, but they have to pay taxes.

Nothing funnier than watching (presumably) religious folk explaining why other religions are weirder than theirs. I say "presumably" because I never see atheists do this. Wait, maybe I do. But not often.

Uh oh, Matt--now you've done it! I'm not sure you know just how big the can you just opened is!

The Scientologists beg to differ.

As do the Moonies.

I assume that brett is referring to my post accusing Ms. Sullivan of hypocrisy.

Ms. Sullivan deserves the charge, and I stand by it. Implicit in the exhortion to Democrats to 'get religion' is a kind of religious test that the Dems should pass unless you go through all sorts of convoluted illogic in order to make her not come out as a hypocrite.

The "mapping religion" maps led me to an interesting conclusion--the modern Republican party isn't the party of Christians nearly so much as it's the party of Southern Baptists.

Look at the maps. The Republican self-identified "Christian" vote is strongest not in the areas with the highest concentration of observant Christians, but in areas that have the highest concentration of Southern Baptists. Overwhelmingly, looking at these maps, it doesn't appear to be Christians writ large who support the President's, but people whose denomination is either Southern Baptist (or a Baptist-influenced fundamentalist outgrowth) who refer to themselves as "Christian" without specifying a denomination.

Interestingly, the President has done the same thing in blurring the line between "Christian" and "Baptist" for political reasons. While technically a Methodist, he almost never publicly refers to himself as one. He usually calls himself a "Christian." And Methodists themselves have pointed out that President Bush is a Southern Baptist in his political interpretations of Christianity.

What's happening today is exactly what the founders feared. One of the many religious sects in America has defined itself as the true "Christian" sect, and is using it to sieze political power.

I think it's incumbent upon us to begin more accurately describing this as the "Southern Baptist and Baptist Evangelical" vote and not the "Christian" vote. Because it does not appear to be the "Christian" vote except in the eyes of those who would have you believe there is only one Christian denomination in the US, and it is theirs.

I'm with Lib and Craigie on this one. There was a bit of contradiction in Amy's comments.

And yes, there is a religous litmus test in the country. And since religion does show a person' basic belief system in some way, I'm not sure that one can just dismiss thinking about it at all.

But I think craigie's and others' basic issue with Amy is that she seems to push Democrats to accepting some of the basic BS assumptions of the religous right in talking about religon. Which is just dumb politics. I'd prefer just thinking about how you make the liberal case for policies using the language of Christianity (or whatever group your appealing to) Luckily the New Testament is replete with stories about caring and kindness and all that bleeding heart, liberal stuff.

What I'd prefer

Okay, maybe as an agnostic (raised Catholic) I just don't get the vital nuances between religions. But it seems to me incredible any serious part of the GOP base would have a problem with someone for being a Mormon. My (admittedly superficial) impression of Mormonism is, they believe sex irredeemably dirty (something to be hidden), and great wealth the best signifier of human worth. Good god -- Mormons ARE the Republican party.

Samuel -

Thank you. Plus, I seem to recall that the Sermon on the Mount was all about progressive taxation and encouraging public transportation.

I might be a bit muddled on that one though...

The Scientologists beg to differ.

As do the Moonies. Posted by: KCinDC

Except for their shitty newspaper that not even the Republicans cite anymore, the Moonies are small potatoes in the U.S. with only 50,000 members, though apparently most are also members of congress and, one assumes, their families (I love the crown - looks like something he got during a visit to the Burger King in Itaewon).

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/06/21/moon/index.html

Let there be a bright light on the short (and weird) history of the LDS, and a thorough examination of their beliefs. Mitt, it doesn't look good. Moonies are not far off, and they don't get their own state and 2 Senators.

The Scientologists beg to differ.

As do the Moonies.

As do the Catholics, the Protestants, the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus, the Wiccans, etc....

Face it -- they're all weird.

Mormons are Republican but most Republicans are not Mormons. Right or wrong, Romney has no chance of getting the nomination; the fundies won't let him.

But it seems to me incredible any serious part of the GOP base would have a problem with someone for being a Mormon.

It's the part about Mormons not being Christians they have a problem with.

they don't get their own state and 2 Senators.

Two Senators with seven technically-forbidden-but-winked-at wives each, you mean! Which is no weirder than our friends' Fitz' and McA's and Charlie's views of sex, as far as I can tell.

JeffII,

For the record, Christ's visit to another people and baptism for the dead are both referenced, however indirectly, in the Bible. And it's a years supply, preferably two, of food, not a month. You have a problem being prepared? I could lose my job tomorrow and not have to worry as much about putting a meal on the table. And clearly you have no more idea what's in the Wasatch then you do what a cult is. More importantly how would any of this make something not a religion? Because you said so?

~Mark

Welcome to representative government. A place where citizens can vote for any reason they like and tell you to stuff it.

Mormonism is scary. I just read a book entitled "Under the Banner of Heaven that left me feeling like I dodged a bullet when I met the Major and dumped the guy I was engaged to at the time (he was a Mormon).

I would love to get into this, having graduated from an LDS college (only me and the scholarship athletes were non-mormon) but I have to get off to a tutoring session if I want to collect my pittance.

Back later!

Face it -- they're all weird.

Not if you're one of them. Then you argue strenuously for the surpassing weirdness of the other guy. Hilarious.

Two Senators with seven technically-forbidden-but-winked-at wives each, you mean!

If I had seven wives, winking at them would be about all I could muster up...

That the bulk of Mormon Fundamentalists believe defrauding the government honorable gives me pause at the prospect of electing one of them. THey refer to government fraud and welfare fraud specifically as "Bleeding the Beast."

Good god -- Mormons ARE the Republican party.
Posted by: demtom

Does that mean that what we were seeing on Shrub's back during the "debates" in 2004 wasn't really a receiver but just some Mormon funny underwear?

http://molelog.molehill.org/blomt/archives/2003/05/mormon_garments.html

Amy,

Do you think liberals would vote for a Mormon candidate? I'm skeptical. Not necessarily b/c we liberal christians would be put off over a difference in faith, but b/c liberals find mormon belief to just be too weird, and question the judgment of anyone who possesses it. I don't know how many liberals feel this way, but I wouldn't be suprised if there were a significant amount who do. Could it be the conservative voters feel the same way? It may not be fair, but certainly it's possible that people are prejudiced against other religions because it's easier for them to recognize the wackiness of (some) religious beliefs when they're looking at someone else's religion.

I don't know for sure that L. Ron Hubbard channeled Joseph Smith, but it sure looks that way. Both organizations promote equally outlandish beliefs.

For those who'd like to know more about the teachings of the LDS, Jon Krakauer ("Into Thin Air') gives a wealth of detail in "Under the Banner of Heaven."

Reommended.

If I had seven wives, winking at them would be about all I could muster up...

What?! Have I overestimated you?

Comment 2 by Burzootie: You didn't find a contradiction. Saying that Dems need to begin acnowledging religion more is not the same as calling for a religion test.

Comment 3 by Ruck is just asinine.

Comment 4 by lib demonstrates some really bad reading by failing to note the difference between de facto and de jure.

For the record, my buddhist religion isn't weird. In fact, the priest told us that if he ever says anything that is contrary to common sense, we should interrupt him immediately and demand a retraction.

What?! Have I overestimated you?

Sure. That stuff at the cheerleader circus that I told you about, I was much younger then...

Mr. Roetzel

My Latin is indeed weak, but the statement

There is no religious test in this country, and we shouldn't tolerate the de facto application of one..

suggests more than what you think it does. In light of what Amy has written in the past, it is quite galling actually.

More quotes from 1993:

"In part, this is a simple matter of self-identification: Voters who are churchgoers prefer a president who is, too."

"According to a 2000 survey by the nonpartisan research group Public Agenda, of those who want religion to become more influential in public life, three-quarters don't care which religion it is, only that it's sincere. "

...

"In order to attract the support of the faithful, Democrats need a candidate and staffers who understand their mindset and can speak their language."

...

"Although many elected Democrats are religious, their staffs generally are not. I know of several liberal Catholic senators who have, at one time or another, replaced experienced senior advisors with junior members of their staff who were personally religious, because those aides were able to understand the tension the senators faced on certain social issues like abortion."

"Moreover, an authentically religious Democrat would have the moral standing to criticize the "bait and switch" aspect of other Bush policy pledges, on issues from AIDS prevention to hydrogen-powered cars."

Whatever the merits of Amy's argument, it's clear she has been quite unbothered by the de facto application of one set of religious tests.

JeffII,

For the record, Christ's visit to another people and baptism for the dead are both referenced, however indirectly, in the Bible.

Don't start slingin' down this kind of crap if you're not going to cite book, chapter, and verse. And don't be citing some Book of Mormon nonsense.

And clearly you have no more idea what's in the Wasatch then (sic) you do what a cult is.

Like I said, it's a given that part of stores are weapons and food, and the ever important geneological records.

More importantly how would any of this make something not a religion? Because you said so?Posted by: Mark

Duh.

Do you think liberals would vote for a Mormon candidate? I'm skeptical.

I'm not, what with Harry Reid being a Mormon and all.

Apologies. I of course meant 2003.

Burzootie really nails it.

Thanks.

"...authentically religious Democrat..."

How do we become authentically religious?

I wana be authentically religious. How do I do that? Is there a registry somewhere?

Old Jack Kennedy seemed authentic, but he still screwed movie stars, but that sounds OK by me, better then them Mormons screwing teenagers.

Catholic priests are authentic, and they screw altar boys.

I'll go with Mr. Roetzel and Brett C. here. No one wants the Dems to have a religious test or demand that all Dems be religious.

It would, however, be nice to point out to the non-conservative religious that the Democratic Party platform is a lot more in line with the whole "love your brother as yourself" stuff than the other guys'.

[i]"Are you Mormon or LDS?"-Brian Billick, Baltimore Ravens coach, to a co-ed when he was a non-Mormon attending Brigham Young to play football and had no idea what LDS was.

"I don't care how you Brigham, just Brigham Young."-John Unitas, trying to prove he could do the "Dandy" Don Meredith routine on a CBS NFL broadcast in the mid-70s.[/i]

"Harry Reid being a Mormon and all."

Great, even the Democrats are screwing the teenagers.

Real good piece in Slate this week about Mitt's ham-handed attempts to josh about polygamy.

On the stump: "I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman ... and one woman ... and one woman."

Ba da bumm -- chhh!

I used to converse with a self-described "Mormon cultural dissident" all the time in the 90s on a "free speech" national BBS. These guys are about the strangest flavor of mainstream America there is. Scientology really doesn't count, because you're usually some kind of weird elitist to be attracted to it to begin with.

All this being said -- I like the fact that Mitt's in the race. All the better to assure some fundie-approved cultural firebreather gets nominated who can't hide behind "compassionate conservatism."

The more we let the GOP base romp all over the primaries and have their merry little way -- the better it will be for us.

Bob

When Did Being Rational Become a GOP Requirement?

"I have heard Republicans who have read the Book of Mormon express astonishment that any rational person could believe that." -Bob Novak

Perhaps those same Republicans should explain how "any rational person" could read the Bible and "believe that" is to be taken completely literally as the absolute word of God.

If being "rational" about such matters were a requirement for the Republican party nomination, this would exclude a large majority of Republicans and probably the current President as well.

How could any "rational person" look at all of the evidence and conclude that humans were created as they are today and not subject to evolution or that humans have been around for less than 10,000 years? It appears the most Republicans believe this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/religion_041306.pdf

Sure. That stuff at the cheerleader circus that I told you about, I was much younger then...

This is a sad, sad day. Disillusionment, thy name is craigie!

The Christian Right sure didn't mind supporting a Moron. How much difference could one "m" make?

Is Romney a serious, practising Mormon or just someone of Mormon background, like one-time liberal favorite Mo Udall?

Global Citizen brings up a very good point that the history of Mormonism is rife with violent resistance against the US government.

And not just those polygamous splinter groups (the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints) out there in the hinterland with their trailers linked by human gerbil tubes (one for each wife and set of kids) -- but the whole history of the mainline LDS.

They truly do believe that secular government is a feeble compromise and preach preparedness for the coming theocracy.

There are few religions that I'd out-and-out reject a presidential candidate over.

But the LDS is definitely one of them.

Bob

The Christian Right sure didn't mind supporting a Moron. How much difference could one "m" make?

Bwa!

CJ Colucci:

Romney is a serious, practicing Mormon elder like Orrin Hatch.

Bob

Demtom--it may not seem to make much sense on the surface, especially if you're not a believer yourself, but in practical difference terms the differences between religions and between Christian denominations are substantial. To pick just one area where people of differently religions mingle and not infrequently wind up talking about their differences--in science fiction fandom, Catholics, Mormons, and Conservative or Reform religious Jews have little difficulty talking to each other about issues of values and morals, even when we disagree, while discussions on the same subjects between any of the above and either Protestants or atheists quickly get very testy. The basic reason for this is that in the great divide over works vs. faith, Catholics, Mormans, and Jews tend to come down on the side of "works matter--a lot", while many Protestant denominations come down strongly on the "justification by faith alone" side, and atheists, at least the flavor of atheist that thinks it worthwhile to get into these discussions, tend to think that religious believers, especially Christians, ought to believe "justification by faith alone", and think we're cheating if we don't.

And so no matter how much of a raving righty Romney really is, the Republican raving right will never trust him. And they're right not to, because no matter how hard-right he is, Romney still thinks that competence, and actual performance in critical situations, really matters, and sometimes he just can't help showing it.

Case in point: a few months back an old wooden dam in Taunton started to buckle. Romney rushed in state aid, and put pressure on the private company that owned the dam, to get the dam replaced before it broke, saving Taunton from a disastrous flood. The standard winger whining about who should be responsible for paying for this still happened--but after the immediate crisis was over. Which is why Romney, far too conservative to get re-elected in MA, will never be a Republican national candidate for anything--not even if we had a national office of Dogcatcher.

From the Novak article "I have heard Republicans who have read the Book of Mormon say with astonishment that anyone could believe that". Presumably this includes Evangelical Republicans who believe the Earth was created in seven days(24 hours each, count them), and Catholic Republicans who believe(it is required dogma--ex cathera 1950 by Pius XII)in the bodily assumption of Mary.

What Lib said, and it's a shame that the party of Jefferson has made superstition mandatory for higher public office.

How could any "rational person" look at all of the evidence and conclude that humans were created as they are today and not subject to evolution or that humans have been around for less than 10,000 years? It appears the most Republicans believe this.

Everyone should take a look at the poll. While CBS concludes that most Americans are religious, if you look at the numbers questions by question most show the exact opposite to be true.

Lis Carey:

Really thoughtful post. I've had these kinds of debates, and I agree with you that that's how it breaks down, and works vs faith is a big component of it.

Although usually atheists reject any kind of justification; I haven't seen an atheist make a big deal over what a believer should believe in the context of their own faiths. But that would be interesting, certainly ...

And I agree with you about Romney. He'll also *never* live down being a Yankee in the primaries that will ultimately decide.

Bob

Mormons are fucking hypocrites.

We say we have religious freedom in this country, but until Mormons are free to practice VOLUNTARY polygamy, we don't have religious freedom. For Mormons to take this point of doctrine, reject it out of political expediency for the sake of complying with law, makes them hypocrites, and all the other "religious freedom" people are hypocrites too.

Improved images of the religious density maps,

http://robotwisdom.com/issues/religmaps.html

OBF

For Mormons to take this point of doctrine, reject it out of political expediency for the sake of complying with law, makes them hypocrites

I also seem to recall a similar change of heart in the Mormon church when it came to African-Americans being allowed to be elders. Also, I find the tendency of certain Mormons to deny that their church ever had such a change of heart to be a bit disconcerting.

Ugh:

Good point. Really made a rather loud dissonace with their furious efforts to evangelize in developing countries ...

They're being blown away by charismatics -- who are at this moment the fastest growing church demonination category in the entire world.

Bob

Other things being equal, who'd have the hardest time winning office:

1) a professed atheist,
2) a Scientologist, or
3) a Muslim?

As the present chief-highest, most self-beloved executive of the United States has introduced God as his main source and decision maker, and has set out to break down the separation of church and state, how could someone's religion NOT come into the equation.

CLDS believes itself to be the one true resurrected church of Jesus Christ. Mormon's believe in God's revelation to them even down to advice in mundane matters. Their church president is a prophet as in a present day Moses. Somehow they have an exact view of how heaven is structured and who gets to go where. And they somehow very carelessly lost their gold paged book of Mormon. Isrealite tribes came over, in what?, 600BC (bad luck Lief). And more, and more, and more. Cult or not, it was created mostly by one guy who seems more human than saintly.

I've had enough of religious types telling me and everyone else that we should live life by their book.

All presidential candidates should swear before running to uphold the constitution and the separation of church and state.

I also seem to recall a similar change of heart in the Mormon church when it came to African-Americans being allowed to be elders. Also, I find the tendency of certain Mormons to deny that their church ever had such a change of heart to be a bit disconcerting. Posted by: Ugh

Bingo!

Back in the 80s the question arose when they were deciding whether to elevate a black elder to bishop level. The MSM got a hold of this, and the history of dicrimination in the JCCLDS, and boy did that "law" change really fast.

Over the weekend,the elder at the time had a vision or was "visited" by Brigham Young or 'ol Joe Smith in the night (note to those unfamiliar with Mormonism: Christ and the Bible rarely enter into anything to do with this "Christian" religion), and was told that a negro, er, an African-American Bishop was cool.

Global Citizen brings up a very good point that the history of Mormonism is rife with violent resistance against the US government.

And not just those polygamous splinter groups (the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints) out there in the hinterland with their trailers linked by human gerbil tubes (one for each wife and set of kids) -- but the whole history of the mainline LDS.

Er, the mainline LDS itself started as a "polygamous splinter group out there in the hinterlands" that was repressed by the US government largely, initially, because doing so was a means of diverting some of the energy from the Republicans and the rising opposition to slavery.

Its stopped being one in order to stop being repressed.

They truly do believe that secular government is a feeble compromise and preach preparedness for the coming theocracy.

There are few religions that I'd out-and-out reject a presidential candidate over.

But the LDS is definitely one of them.

Eh, most of the actual LDS members I've gotten to know didn't believe anything like that; like any other religion, I'd look to the evidence as to the individuals beliefs.

Peter:

Where? San Francisco city council? I think it'd be a tossup :)

*National* office -- as in Congress or the Presidency?

Hmmm ... given the three choices, I think a Scientologist would have the best chance.

Odds are that the Scientologist would be fabulously wealthy and connected in a significant way to some megalithic entertainment infrastructure.

Bob

I'll tell you why Romney should not get the nomination: because his name is Mitt. What the hell kind of name is "Mitt"?

I herewith propose a Constitutional amendment to bar anyone named Mitt from holding the Presidency. And I'll throw the name "Jeb" in there for good measure.

Mormons are fucking hypocrites.

So they have the other person take a hypocrisy test before they fuck her?

The Christian Right sure didn't mind supporting a Moron. How much difference could one "m" make?

Fabulous!

We say we have religious freedom in this country, but until Mormons are free to practice VOLUNTARY polygamy, we don't have religious freedom. For Mormons to take this point of doctrine, reject it out of political expediency for the sake of complying with law, makes them hypocrites, and all the other "religious freedom" people are hypocrites too.

While, historically, the LDS Church certainly seems to have been swayed by the threat of violent repression to abandon the doctrine of polygamy, almost any one raised in the Church in the past century hasn't rejected the doctrine for that reason, they've never held it, and they may well have come to believe it was a mistake for the Church to ever have held it.

Odds are that the Scientologist would be fabulously wealthy and connected in a significant way to some megalithic entertainment infrastructure.

Scientologists are no more likely to be that that any other religion. Though the Church of Scientology does a good job of making sure that its elite members are highly visible, and most of its other members invisible.

Whatever else you say about them, the missionaries recruiting people for the LDS Church don't tend to hide that they are LDS behind supposedly scientific "personality tests".

theorajones,

You are spot on about the Republican party being the Southern Baptist party.

I highly recommend "The American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips.

I'm not religion-bashing. I'm just stating facts.

"Other things being equal, who'd have the hardest time winning office:

1) a professed atheist,
2) a Scientologist, or
3) a Muslim?"

Now there is a real challenge to the "there will be no litmus test" charge in the Constitution. I think an atheist would have an easier time getting elected over a scientologist.

But in all seriousness, the poor Muslim who ran for elected office would be put through the ringer for his stance on "what aspects" of his religion would he adhere, too. For example, Shari'a law, etc. All of which would amount to a religious litmus test of which, given our nation's current social status and mindset, fail.

Lis Carey: thanks for the thoughtful response.

Whatever else you say about them, the missionaries recruiting people for the LDS Church don't tend to hide that they are LDS behind supposedly scientific "personality tests".

Don't forget the Santa's lap scam. At Christmas time, the scientologists set up a little north pole scene, complete with fake snow, right there on Hollywood Boulevard. Then they entice the kiddies to sit on Santa's lap. Presumably Santa asks them if they want a personality test for Christmas.

Fucking creepy.

cmdicely:

> "And not just those polygamous splinter groups (the Fundamentalist
> Church of Latter-Day Saints) out there in the hinterland with their
> trailers linked by human gerbil tubes (one for each wife and set of
> kids) -- but the whole history of the mainline LDS."

> Er, the mainline LDS itself started as a "polygamous splinter group
> out there in the hinterlands"

Obviously.

> that was repressed by the US government largely, initially,
> because doing so was a means of diverting some of the energy
> from the Republicans and the rising opposition to slavery.

That was essentially my point, Chris. Except I'd have to say
that widespread national revulsion over the practice of polygamy
was probably a much bigger factor than any kind of tactical
political consideration -- not that it didn't figure in at
all, of course. Only that it would have happened regardless.

> Its stopped being one in order to stop being repressed.

Exactly what I mean when I say that the history of the
LDS is steeped in violent resistance to the outside world.
Utah was almost at war with the federal government over polygamy.

> "They truly do believe that secular government is a feeble
> compromise and preach preparedness for the coming theocracy."

> "There are few religions that I'd out-and-out
> reject a presidential candidate over."

> "But the LDS is definitely one of them."

> Eh, most of the actual LDS members I've gotten to know
> didn't believe anything like that;

Are you sure they're LDS members in good standing? Or are they
cultural refugees? I've met a few ex-Mormons, and all of them
seem to have horror stories about growing up in the church.

> like any other religion, I'd look to the
> evidence as to the individuals beliefs.

I'm concerned to the extent that they're hooked
up with the Utah church hierarchy. Harry Reid, Mo
Udall, Mitt Romney as governor of Mass, even Orrin
Hatch don't bug me too much being practicing Mormons.

But they're not presidents, either.

As far as I'm aware, although there are several
fundamentalist splinter groups, there's no such thing
as liberal branches of the LDS. That's part of what
gives me pause: The centralized hierarchical control.

Bob

The basic reason for this is that in the great divide over works vs. faith, Catholics, Mormans, and Jews tend to come down on the side of "works matter--a lot", while many Protestant denominations come down strongly on the "justification by faith alone" side, and atheists, at least the flavor of atheist that thinks it worthwhile to get into these discussions, tend to think that religious believers, especially Christians, ought to believe "justification by faith alone", and think we're cheating if we don't.

Really? How fascinating. This particular atheist right here, I can tell you, would come down on the side of works.

In fact, to me, that's one of the things that makes the whole idea of religion == morality so nonsensical. Clearly, people can and do do good, moral things, without necessarily believing the "right" stuff.

And just as clearly (modern GOP, I'm looking at you) it's possible to talk all kinds of "morality" while behaving in as immoral a way as possible.

Craigie -- ditto

Theresa Nielsen Hayden's memoir of growing up Mormon,

http://nielsenhayden.com/GodandI.html

(There's also something about the Mormon Holy PJ's of Jesus that adult Mormon's are supposed to wear under their clothes, but I can't find it.)

cmdicely:

Well, the choice *was* between an atheist, a Muslim and a Scientologist (sheesh, is *that* not the first line to an obvious joke? Who can make it up, c'mon: An athist, a Muslim and a Scientologist walk into a bar ...)

I'd say a Mormon would win out over any of them for national office, of course. Being, at least nominally, "Christian."

This is only anecdotal, of course, but I've met my share of atheists, Muslims, Mormons (at least ex-Mormons), Buddhists, Hindus, etc. ...

But not a single Scientologist. Ever. Okay ... one ex-Scientologist who was going through a religious phase and tried just about everything that came along, including EST, Silva Mind Control and Rosicrucianism ...

Bob

I'd say a Mormon would win out over any of them for national office, of course. Being, at least nominally, "Christian."

Eh, I wouldn't consider Mormons to be Christians. More Smithians, really.

(There's also something about the Mormon Holy PJ's of Jesus that adult Mormon's are supposed to wear under their clothes, but I can't find it.)
Posted by: cld

See my post at 3:25, includes visual aid!

Now there is a real challenge to the "there will be no litmus test" charge in the Constitution. I think an atheist would have an easier time getting elected over a scientologist.

I say the atheist would have a harder time, but that's because I have persecution-complex envy of the Christian right.

I want to mention that my handle has no relation to Church of Latter Day Saints.

At Christmas time, the scientologists set up a little north pole scene, complete with fake snow, right there on Hollywood Boulevard. Then they entice the kiddies to sit on Santa's lap. Presumably Santa asks them if they want a personality test for Christmas.

Is this for real? Or are you joking?

Yeah, I think the Mormon wins because it says "Church" right there somewhere. Plus, they have way more money...

I guess atheists could win if we changed the name to the Church of Just Not Buying It.

I am glad to see so many atheists here. We should form a religion.

Is this for real? Or are you joking?

I kid you not. Remind me, and in 6 months I'll go out and take a picture of it. In fact, they've probably already got one somewhere - I'm sure they think it's fabulous.

lib, I'm not sure you really get the One True Atheism. You'll have to form your own splinter sect, and meet in some basement somewhere.

Or maybe some catacombs...

I'm with Catch22 at 4:03.

When I first read the Book of Mormon, I found it to be rather obviously written in the style of the King James version of the Bible, but with much less poetry. Compared to the King James Bible, the Book of Mormon is stilted and really DOES read like it was written by a teenager.

And the whole thing about it being written on plates of gold, and the magic eyeglasses that let Joseph Smith read it. I mean, come on.

But can anyone really find Mormon myths to be any mroe ridiculous, on their face, than those in the Bible itself? Noah's Ark? The miracle of loaves and fishes? Parting the Red Sea? Rising from the dead after three days?

My favorite laugher has always been "ascending bodily into Heaven." Just where IS heaven, pray tell. Must be upward from here, cuz Jesus "ascended" after all. Or did he just ascend until he got so small you couldn't see him anymore, and then hung a left and straight on to Heaven.

We should first have something to splinter from.

I think Lis' point was not that atheists rate works as less important than belief, but that a lot of atheists think that that's how a "real" Christian should define her or his faith. As a sort of "gotcha," in other words.

As far as I'm aware, although there are several fundamentalist splinter groups, there's no such thing as liberal branches of the LDS.

There are lots of LDS splinter groups (lots of them fairly old anti-polygamy splinter groups), and some of them are at least comparatively liberal (certainly the very young and small "Reform Mormon" group is, but the he more significant Reorganized LDS/Community of Christ groups seem to be as well).

Great, now I have other atheists ordering me around. I didn't sign up for this!

At Christmas time, the scientologists set up a little north pole scene, complete with fake snow, right there on Hollywood Boulevard. Then they entice the kiddies to sit on Santa's lap. Presumably Santa asks them if they want a personality test for Christmas.

Why no one has set up a "Sit on Satan's Lap" display, with cute little devils in place of elves, I'll never know....

Great, now I have other atheists ordering me around. I didn't sign up for this!

Quiet, you. Remember the vow of obedience you took when you signed on as an atheist.

Obedience!? I thought they were addressing me: "Oh, badass!"

I think Lis' point was not that atheists rate works as less important than belief, but that a lot of atheists think that that's how a "real" Christian should define her or his faith.

No, I get that. But I still find it surprising, since that wouldn't be my metric for how faith should work. If faith doesn't change your behaviour, what's the point of it?

We should first have something to splinter from.

How about you be the People's Front of Judea, and I'll be the Judean People's Front?

Why no one has set up a "Sit on Satan's Lap" display, with cute little devils in place of elves, I'll never know....

You obviously aren't spending time in the right parts of Manhattan.

charlie don't surf wrote: For the record, my buddhist religion isn't weird. In fact, the priest told us that if he ever says anything that is contrary to common sense, we should interrupt him immediately and demand a retraction.

The Buddha himself taught this, some 2500 years ago, as recorded in the Kalama Sutra:

The Kalamas who were inhabitants of Kesaputta sitting on one side said to the Blessed One: "There are some monks and Brahmins, venerable sir, who visit Kesaputta. They expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Some other monks and Brahmins too, venerable sir, come to Kesaputta. They also expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Venerable sir, there is doubt; there is uncertainty in us concerning them. Which of these reverend monks and Brahmins spoke the truth and which falsehood?"

The Buddha replied:

"It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful.

Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.'

Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.

[...]

Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."

JeffII,

That's really, just so, oh what is the word? bravuraunderwearismo, with the cod piece and all.

Now we know why Orrin de Hatch always looks so over warmed.

You obviously aren't spending time in the right parts of Manhattan.

I know. I'm beginning to think he's a faker from Montauk.

That's really, just so, oh what is the word? bravuraunderwearismo, with the cod piece and all.

Who was that Mormon baseball player who covered up from chin to toes? I should really know this.

How about you be the People's Front of Judea, and I'll be the Judean People's Front?

Fine with me (but next time I will fight). We will face north to unpray. You guys can take any other direction.

Craigie and Bob--I'm not trying to make a generalized statement about all atheists, and I also don't mean that the ones I'm talking about believe in justification by faith themselves. I'm talking about a particular flavor of vocal atheist encountered in sf fandom; the same variety may not be so prevalent in other contexts, and my suspicion is that they are, like other annoying people, a vocal minority unrepresentative of others that they theoretically agree with.

But this particular flavor of atheist tends to buy into the fundamentalist Christians' definition of "religion" and to believe that monotheists, including Catholics, Mormons, and Jews, who say they don't believe in Biblical literalism, and talk about the importance of actions as opposed to just subscribing to a particular set of doctrines, are somehow "cheating", trying to have it both ways, be religious AND be intellectually respectable. They use phrases like "cafeteria Christian" and play "gotcha" games with Biblical quotes that are only problematic for people who believe in a fundamentalist version of Biblical literalism. They seem to be convinced that, if we really believe in evolution, and the usefulness of socially progressive government policies, we must be hypocrites who remain religiously active for social reasons--we can't really be believing Catholics, Mormons, Jews. They apparently can't absorb the idea that evolution is taught in Catholic parochial schools, and Brigham Young University is a major center for paleontology research. They don't believe in justification by faith alone (and they usually can't identify it by that name); they just think that we must if we're religious, and if we don't, we're lying when we claim to be religious.

It's annoying and frustrating.

But it's no great surprise to me that they might not represent the beliefs of most atheists. And yet it's easy, too, given the abysmal reporting on religion by our so-called news media, that lots of non-believers might be confused, especially if they don't themselves know a lot of believers well enough to talk to them about these issues outside of the let's-argue-because-it's-fun atmosphere of settings like sf conventions.

Who was that Mormon baseball player who covered up from chin to toes?

Oilcan Boyd?

No wait, he was in the Wizard of Oz. No wait, that was Ozzie Smith.

Damn, this trivia stuff is hard!

lib: unpray is a word I will have to steal and use immediately.

Maybe I'm too hard on the undies. They have a 19th century folksy charm, like griddle cakes and whale oil.

Somewhere down in the comments on that page, "Orthodox Jewish men also wear a special undergarment".

Can we get a photo of that?

me: Why no one has set up a "Sit on Satan's Lap" display, with cute little devils in place of elves, I'll never know....

craigie: You obviously aren't spending time in the right parts of Manhattan.

You know, I think you and I both know that I am...

Though now I know what I'm going to do for Burning Man....

Massive explosion registered on seismometers in offshore naval test range,

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060427-9999-1n27boom.html

A bunker buster test?

Several months before the April 4 incident, the team had begun studying other nonquake disturbances that were registering on San Diego County seismometers, including 76 that apparently originated in that same general area of the ocean in 2003.

Ha! Burning Santa!

Santa, Santa, burning bright.

But this particular flavor of atheist tends to buy into the fundamentalist Christians' definition of "religion" and to believe that monotheists, including Catholics, Mormons, and Jews, who say they don't believe in Biblical literalism, and talk about the importance of actions as opposed to just subscribing to a particular set of doctrines, are somehow "cheating", trying to have it both ways, be religious AND be intellectually respectable. They use phrases like "cafeteria Christian" and play "gotcha" g