...is the only Republican candidate who both stands a chance of winning the White House and will reliably implement the anti-abortion, antigay marriage, pro-gun agenda of Christian conservatives.

That's funny because my brother told me the other day he thinks Romney is the least crazy of the Republican frontrunners and the one least likely to go through with all the shit he's lying to the fundies about and saying he's going to do.

But the thing is, all those televangelist-style nutso fundies havea real problem with all of Giuli's crossdressing and stuff, as we've seen over the past few days. They've cultivated their flocks on telling them how much Christianity is basically all about God rejecting "homos," so it puts them in an uncomfortable position if their Republican pol friends are asking them to endorse Giuli because he's the one who's leading in the polls.

But I have no opinion as to which one of them would be most likely to push the most conservative policies on the issues that are important to the fundies.

I'm not sure where "pro-gun" comes into it nowadays. The Democrats bailed out on the gun issue a long time ago. Is there any major candidate for either party now who's actually ANTI-gun? At least in the sense that term used to mean?

While Mormons believe in all sorts of things that Evangelicals view as heresy, they are pretty darned close on social values.

One thing that has not been much commented on is the Mormon view of history. Say what you want about the Bible, it stands up pretty well as an historical document. By comparison the book of Mormon is full of tails of the Lost Tribes of Israel migrating to the new world, founding a society, traveling back and forth to the Holy Land, and being visited by Christ. Extensive archeological research (ironically a significant portion funded by the Mormons) has not yielded any supporting evidence.

harry: "I'm not sure where "
'pro-gun' comes into it nowadays."

Three letters -- N.R.A.

It makes a lot more sense to go with him for a few reasons. First and probably foremost in the minds of certain Republicans, his conversions, whether genuine or political, might make sense if they were trying to market them to others. As far as we can tell, Romney was pro-choice, and now he claims to be against abortion. The same, I believe, can be said of his positions on gays. If that's the case, then he represents someone the Republicans will need to reach, at least in theory: a person who can change his mind to their point of view. Someone like Giuliani, on the other hand, seems to waffle, even if his positions do turn out to be more genuine. Plus, Romney doesn't appear to have as many embarrassing and damaging personal and professional connections.

I'm pretty sure that Jesus infers you do not need a gun to be Christian. In fact, it might be antithetical. Also, he seemed to be accepting of all god's creatures, whatever their inclination and faults.

But anything that Jesus said never stopped a good evangelical creating his own sect. Right? Obviously they do know better.

The evangelical leadership might get behind Romney, but that is because they have a lot in common with him class-wise. I still doubt too many of the rank-and-file evangelicals will follow.

I've thought for quite some time that people are underestimating Romney. I think he's probably going to be the next president, and I say this as someone who is heavily involved in the Democratic Party.

He was savvy enough to get elected governor of Massachusetts. As much as I hate to say this, he looks like what people want their president to look like. As reluctant as people are to give credit to such a shallow attribute, it matters a lot. He's from a very prominent Michigan political family, and could win there in the general election. He hasn't been part of the government during the Bush years and can't be tagged with the mess we're in. And, Democrats have not shown the necessary ability to damage Republicans for making the kind of simplistic or ignorant comments that Romney often makes.

Look at the Electoral College map and tell me where Hillary can swing to Democratic the 18 electoral votes she needs. If Romney could pick up Michigan, he'd win for sure.

Meh. The christian right wing has gotta back someone among the GOP candidates; it's not as if they have a viable candidate to offer as an alternative, much less one who wouldn't end up splitting the conservative vote and hand the Presidency to the Dems...

..pro-gun agenda of Christian conservatives..

Well, that's a comforting juxtaposition of ideas...The 'Holy Hand Grenade', coming to a women's clinic near you...

Brian on October 16, 2007: It makes a lot more sense to go with him [Romney] for a few reasons...

It would make more sense for them to go with Huckabee...but, since he's shown flashes of sanity, he's lost the business and perpetual war wings of the GOP...Actually, you're right, Brian...Romney is a person who can change his views to suit what the GOP or corporate America or the christian right wing wants...whatever is neccessary to get elected.

And that should scare the hell out you.

Taylor's endorsement, however, is just the latest sign that some evangelical leaders are starting to see him as their best bet, theological differences or not. If more of them follow Taylor's lead, it could improve Romney's fortunes considerably.

I think you're right Kevin. This is basically Mitt Romney's "JFK moment" where he has the opportunity to address the evangelical community and get them to support him despite their other differences. JFK was able to do this in the 60's and Romney should be able to do it today. Certainly Romney has excellent oratory skills and is charasmatic just like JFK was. Winning converts over should be pretty simple.

d on October 16, 2007 at 1:35 AM:

He's from a very prominent Michigan political family..

A few decades ago, maybe...Now, not so much.

..and could win there in the general election.

Yeeah...He'll have to win the nomination first, and at this point, he's still behind Giuliani in Michigan.

Democrats have not shown the necessary ability to damage Republicans for making the kind of simplistic or ignorant comments that Romney often makes.

Why bother, when the GOP candidates have been savaging each other?

If Bob Jones can make that endorsement they are declaring they are not a Christian school.

Mormanism is not Christianity. It's not even remotely doctrinally acceptable.

Wrong again, Al.

JFK successfully demonstrated his political independence from his Roman Catholic Church, whereas Willard "Mitt" Romney (who displays all the charisma of a life-sized cardboard cut-out) downplays his own Mormon faith while simultaneously pandering to the sanctimonious and self-righteous. I fail to see any similarity whatsoever.

I dunno. First of all, BJU is fundamentalist, not evangelical. The former is far more marginal than the latter, politically speaking. As endorsements go, this is pretty weak broth. It may get Romney a little traction in some of the more yokel-dense corners of the state, but that's about it. Still, I think True Believers are more likely to write off this Taylor guy than they are to accept Romney's Mormonism as a sister-faith.

patince: "Mormanism is not Christianity. It's not even remotely doctrinally acceptable."

And just who the fuck are you, that you should consider yourself inherently worthy of the Lord's grace to spew such bigotry and bullshit?

I've been saying for a while that they'd end up defaulting to Romney for the GOP nomination. Unfortunately for our dear christianist friends, I think Hillary is unbeatable, both for the Dem nomination and in the general election.

The Republicans are a top-down party, but at this point they are a seemingly topless one. The GOP money that usually runs things and enforces discipline believes we're looking at an inevitable Clintonian restoration, so they won't throw their money away on hopeless token candidates. Romney may well get nominated, he'll be just the King for a Day; he'll be accepting the nomination of a despised, toxic political party, so, barring a miracle, his political career will end in his defeat by the hated Hitlery.

It's really disgusting to see the blood rise up in the penile implant that you have thrust out at us and posed.

I bet you can't wait until you hit 100%. And then what will happen to that penile implant?

You are cock blogging, and you will not stop me from mentioning that!

I wonder if any of these fundie guys ever ask themselves the old 'WWJD?' question. Somehow I doubt that Jesus considered a defense of gun rights integral to his ministry. And neither he nor Paul nor any of the other NT writers showed the least bit of interest in telling pagans what they could or couldn't do.

The Ku Klux Klan started as an anti-Catholic organization, so Bob Jones is in real good company!

I wonder if any of these fundie guys ever ask themselves the old 'WWJD?' question. Somehow I doubt that Jesus considered a defense of gun rights integral to his ministry. And neither he nor Paul nor any of the other NT writers showed the least bit of interest in telling pagans what they could or couldn't do.

Amen, brother.

OT -- I still can't believe Kevin's using poor, innocent Inkblot and Domino in the ad to the right to shamelessly whore for his employer.

d is right. Consider the Arab population of Michigan. Hillary's pro-Israeli militance might turn them off. Probably not enough to vote Republican but enough to sit out an election and throw it Republican. Plus the whole NAFTA thing probably not too popular. In New England with a large Catholic pro-life vote, native son Romney just might give a candidate with high negatives like Hillary a run for her money. In the soutwest, Hillary's pro amnesty stance on top of already high negatives could be trouble. What about the elderly? Wouldn't that demographic be less likely to consider voting for a woman? The fundies and evangelicals might be wary of Romney but they have a lot in common. Pro life, family values. Combine all this with the Democratic voters who are disappointed with Hillary. Spells trouble.

Better pick a winner. Edwards.

But I have no opinion as to which one of them would be most likely to push the most conservative policies on the issues that are important to the fundies.

I guess from the frontrunners you have your choice among a few shills who really aren't that committed to the social conservative movement-- but that's the conventional wisdom, isn't it?

It's a really close call to guess which one of them would be more socially conservative than another.

d. wrote:

He's from a very prominent Michigan political family, and could win there in the general election.

I'm not from Michigan, and somebody else wrote something like this above, but I think you may be overestimating the effect the reputation and abilities that come with something like that may have on the average voter. Maybe in some states and with some families it would have more effect then others; but then, in any event, a well-loved scion would do a lot better than a disrespected scion-- but I guess that's like a truism.

He hasn't been part of the government during the Bush years and can't be tagged with the mess we're in.

Yeah, but neither have any of the other frontrunners. I agree that it would hurt him but still I don't think it does matter too much that he wasn't in there. Supporting Bush-like policies and making Bush-like statements on policy will do part of that duty for him.

When it isn't an outright mistake, it is generally self-limiting to think of "the religous Right" (or, for that matter, the religious Left) in primarily religious terms.

They're POLITICAL. It's more useful to think of 'em that way.

If you think of 'em in religious terms, you wind up with all sorts of conflicts. F'r instance, it is simply a fact that Catholics, to BE Catholics, must believe that those outside the faith are not capable of salvation: "Ex ecclesia..." (The post-Vatican II finesses this by blandly claiming that righteous non-Catholics are ACTUALLY Catholics, but don't know it.) Likewise, it is perfectly legit -- and in fact, required by most Christian doctrine -- to recognize that Mormons aren't "Christians" in the sense that most Christian denominations understand the meaning: the Text doesn't end with the evangelists, epistles, acts and revelations. It gets sorta revised and extended in a sequel, which as a matter of doctrine, virtually ALL Christian denominations must reject.

So people of faith running for office, asking other people of faith for their votes, is about POLITICS, not the articles of their respective faith.

It's perfectly legit for pro-life folks to conclude that abortion is murder cuz it's a child, not a choice, because that is what their faiths (many of 'em) teach. But advocating that Roe be overturned and each state outlaw abortion is a political position, not a religious one.

Likewise, it is legit for American Episcopalians to demand that their church perform 'sacred unions' and 'commitment ceremonies' and also to insist that 'civil unions are a civil right' -- but this last is a political position, not a religious one. And folks who object to same-sex marriages are making a POLITICAL statement, cuz it is not and must never be up to the US government to tell Catholics or Baptists or Muslims what their faiths can and cannot teach.

If fundamentalists and evangelicals (two different but overlapping groups) wind up backing Romney, that isn't a religious endorsement, and shouldn't be debated in religious terms.

Fundies and evangelicals had an equal if not greater distrust, fear and loathing for Catholicism in 1960. But they overcame that and voted for Kennedy in most of the south. The religious factor against Romney is probably overstated.

Romney is the Republican establishment candidate. The evangelical leaders like Taylor are part of the Republican establishment. Q.E.D.

I hate the gun lobby, and I hate the lobby for the Christian cult (a reference to my own stance on all religion, not anything vis-a-vis Mormonism, etc.), but I don't think I've heard anything about the "pro-gun agenda of Christian conservatives." There may be overlaps in the groups, but I don't think "Christian conservatives" have a "pro-gun agenda."

Is there actual video of Romney talking cheerfully about hosing off his poopy dog after a 10 hour ride strapped to the top of his station wagon?

That would be such a great general election TV ad. The story is below the radar for most people.

"If he has no clue what's good for a dog, do you really think he will know what's right for America"

Robert R. Taylor, dean of the university's college of arts and sciences

So Bob Jones has a college of arts and sciences. Who knew? I imagine it might be fun (though with a lot of memorization required) to take a course on Flood Geology, Biology (pre- and post-Noachian), and Controlling for Miraculous Interventions in Physics Experiments.

As I've said before, Romney will be the nominee. He's the closest thing to an electable, compromise conservative candidate that most of the party will at least find tolerable. Kind of like Warren Harding.

This is basically Mitt Romney's "JFK moment" where he has the opportunity to

Here's where I enjoy following the shills. We know first what memes are being handed down for dissemination. Expect to hear more about Romney's JFKness.

Some friends and I were tossing what-if's around the other day, and I said I thought Romney would be a stronger candidate this year if he had not changed his postions but had changed parties and run as a Democrat.

"Academic" and "Bob Jones University" is an oxymoron.

I think this shows just how weak Dobson's third-party threat might be, and how most evangelical leaders will compromise principle for power.

If someone from Bob Jones U is endorsing the Mormon Romney, so much for the Baptist Huckbaee.

just a heads up. Mormons worship John Smith, a failed treasure hunter from western New York, who said devine being showed him some buried golden tablets on his farm written in modified egyptian and talking about the original jewish inhabitants of America. He was given a magical glass with which to read and transcribe the tablets, that no one ever saw, save for two other co-conspirators. Revelations deriving from these golden tablets that only smith could read with god given magic glasses that he also tragically lost, include legitimzing the sexual enslavement of multiple underaged girls for life by Mormon men, the need to wear special underwear to Church, that the good white isrealites of the old new world were killed off by savages, and all kinds of other wacky ass shit that makes intelligent design seem rather sophisticated.

Mormons and Christo-fundies are mixed nuts, in the same tin for political purposes only, with the goals of oppressing gays, women, and non-white people, and sustaining perpetual war against Muslims. Every abomination will be justified in the name of their righteous faith. Get used to it.

woops. my freudian slip is showing. I worship john smith. Mormons worship Joseph Smith. The good lord must have confounded me in order to protect the sanctity of the convicted huckster, I mean, Prophet.

Chrissy wrote:

Fundies and evangelicals had an equal if not greater distrust, fear and loathing for Catholicism in 1960. But they overcame that and voted for Kennedy in most of the south. The religious factor against Romney is probably overstated.

I'm too young to have been around then, but I'm not sure this statement isn't confusing things. Kennedy was certainly the Civil Rights candidate relative to the Republican, wasn't he? And anti-miscegenation was probably the analogous fundie hot-topic issue back in the day (whether everyone in the fundie community overtly connected it to Chrisianity or not). I'm sure there were a lot of subtle efforts to communicate that miscegenation was the devil's business that not everybody necessarily appreciated as such a hidden message (such as "Rock n roll is the devil's music"- for those who don't know, rock came from African Americans back in those days, and was mimiced by whites, like white kids have done with rap today).

When you are saying fundies and evangelicals, Chrissy, if what you mean is black fundies and evangelicals. that is another basket of apples entirely (and your statement that they turned out to vote for Kennedy doesn't either make him a fundie, or say much about what fundies would do today).

I should have wrote one more sentence at the end of my first paragraph above:

But whether or not the white fundies overtly connected anti-miscegenation to Christianity, that point of view still basically overlapped with white fundies in the south.

Also, I'm sure I might have heard before that Kennedy and the guy he ran against were both kind of swearing they wouldn't support Civil Rights to win over white voters, and that Kennedy only more definitively came out in favor of it after he was elected, but I'm not at all sure of that, and I'm not sure that it would have made much of a difference (because most people probably still would have appreciated that change was coming and that Kennedy was the one who was more likely to participate in it, no?).

Hmmm.

Somehow, evangelicals massing for Romney doesn't seem half as nauseous as one Krauthammer gushing for Clinton.

I could never vote for [Clinton], but I and others of my ideological ilk [JINSA/AIPAC/Zionism on steroids] could live with her -- precisely because she is so liberated from principle. Her liberalism, like her husband's -- flexible, disciplined, calculated, triangulated -- always leaves open the possibility that she would do the right thing [attack Iran, attack Syria] for the blessedly wrong (i.e., self-interested, ambition-serving, politically expedient) reason.

Kennedy was certainly the Civil Rights candidate relative to the Republican, wasn't he?

Generally, no. The Republicans had that reputation, and icons like Jackie Robinson were often Republicans, and occasionally vocal ones. The Southern wing of the old Roosevelt coalition was anathema to blacks. The urban black vote was Democratic, because most of the machines in the cities, and the unions, were Democratic.

> "...underestimating Romney. I think he's probably going to be the next president..."

Sadly, I think 'd' nails it down pretty well.

patince: "Mormanism is not Christianity. It's not even remotely doctrinally acceptable."

By any rational analysis, 99% of modern 'christianity' is not Crhistianity.

"Turn the other cheek" has somehow been turned into "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition"

Say what you want about the Bible, it stands up pretty well as an historical document.

Er, not really. Not at all, actually. Much of the Bible is just fanciful myth. There is, for example, no real historical evidence for the story of Moses, the flight of the Israelite tribes out of Egypt, and the forty years wandering in Sinai.

No endorsement from Oral Roberts for Romney?

So members of the fundie leadership are facing off against one other publicly. Should be interesting to watch. Think the most likely outcome is that some will follow a third-party candidate and some will line up behind Romney and/or Giuliani--true splintering.

I agree with the folks who think Romney has long been underestimated. He may well get the GOP nomination. I do not agree, however, that he will be the next president...but I think our job will be easier if we're running against Giuliani.

No endorsement from Oral Roberts for Romney?

Lindsay Roberts has texted her stable of underage boys for their opinions. She'll get back to you shortly.

Not so, Stefan. For one thing, there are references to a people phoneticized as the "Habiru" in ancient Egyptian texts.

For another, there is geological, not just archeological and sociological evidence of a Great Flood in very ancient times: for a few thousand years at the end of the last glaciation, the Caspian Sea was much smaller and more shallow than it is now -- far below sea level, in fact. At a definite point somewhere around 5,000 BCE, the Mediterranean (a couple hundred feet higher) broke through the tiny little land bridge at the Sea of Marmara and for a month or two the world's biggest waterfall tore Asia a new one, filling up the Caspian (and, in fact, there is physical evidence to this day: it's a LAYERED lake, the bottom is anaerobic) and scattering people who had much in common all over the place. That's why Gilgamesh and other epics, including the story of Noah, talk about a Great Floor -- cuz it happened.

Likewise, the 40 years wandering in the desert makes a a great deal of sense, along with the Ten Commandments: it is telling, like much in the Bible, that there is nothing in the Text to directly connect the descendants of Joseph and his brothers who started out in Egypt as well-connected advisers to the pharoah, and the Israelites who were led out of bondage hundreds of years later. So what Moses did (it's an Egyptian name, btw, and Jethro, the fellow who taught him monotheism, was a Midianite, a people for whom there is archeological evidence) was lead a motley crowd of ex-slaves into the desert -- and KEEP them there until the generation that had known slavery had died out. This heterogeneous group needed a unifying identity, a sense of who "we" are, which is what the Ten Commandments provided: "we" are the people who believe THESE.

Not unlike the Declaration and the Constitution, when ya think about it. The Israelites were not originally a GENETIC entity, but a kind of political one.

BTW, Buford -- Jack Miles (who won a Pulitzer for God's biography; a great book) has an interesting take on 'turn the other cheek.' When you think about the physical (rather than the metaphorical) act, always good with theology, it has a very different meaning that is NOT what folks like you piously imagine. Most people are right handed, and would naturally smite another person's left cheek, no? If somebody smacks the left side of your face with his right hand, and you TURN YOUR FACE TOWARD HIM, presenting the right side of your face this time: that is an aggressive act. It's not defensive. It's a challenge -- 'try that again'.

LOL -- but like I said, it helps to remember that the "religious Right" has a political, not a religious dynamic.

Er, a Great Flood. Although "the Great Floor" sounds like a great progressive economic proposal, doncha think?

"No endorsement from Oral Roberts for Romney?"

--ahem. he's not young enough.

The Bible stands up well as an historical document? Yowz. Well, it's historical, in that it was clearly composed starting over two thousand years ago (including OT), and has enormous historical importance as a culturally, spiritually and politically guiding document for peoples throughout history, but as Stefan notes, its not exactly a uniformly reliable documentation of historical events. As for Jesus' sayings the Gospel of Thomas might be more accurate than anything that made it into the NT. And Leviticus? Revelations? Yep, that's some fine reality TV there...

Christians in America or more comparable to the Pharisees ( in the NT sense) than they are inheritors of Jesus' teaching and example of Love.

And that's the G_d's honest truth.

Romney is the Republican establishment candidate.

He may be eventually, but he isn't yet. If he were, he wouldn't be forced to self-finance the way he has.

But I suspect Romney isn't ever going to be the beneficiary of firehoses of GOP money the way Dubya was. I think the smart GOP money knows this election cycle is a loser. They know it's time to let the Dems clean up the mess so they can come back in '12 or '16 and try to rape the country again.

Not so, Stefan. For one thing, there are references to a people phoneticized as the "Habiru" in ancient Egyptian texts.

No, quite so. There is no reference whatsoever in contemporary Egyptian texts or archeological history to a Moses or a flight of Semitic slaves. None whatsoever.

Likewise, the 40 years wandering in the desert makes a a great deal of sense, along with the Ten Commandments:

However much it may make "sense", there is simply no historical and/or archeological evidence for it. Modern archeology does not support the story.

Here, for example, Zahi Hawass, Egypt's chief archeologist:

In Sinai desert, no trace of Moses
International Herald Tribune
By Michael Slackman Published: April 3, 2007

"Really, it's a myth," Hawass said of the story of the Exodus...."Sometimes as archaeologists we have to say that never happened because there is no historical evidence."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/03/news/moses.php

The Bible is not lacking in narrative reflection on the lived events of the authors and their ancestors within the reach of oral tradition. It would be strange if it were truly devoid of anything connected to verifiable historical records, such as the flood of the Caspian, actual rulers, actual tribes, actual places. But it's clearly a stretch to say that it stands up well as an historical document, if what is meant by that is that we should take the Bible as a document dedicated to the maximally accurate mapping of human history and experience. It's primarily concerned with social order, morality, law, and the interaction of privileged humans with a (usually) monotheistic diety. History in the common modern sense is not it's purpose. Concern with history is mostly a consequence of lineage fetish in the service of establishing and maintaining social identities.

Now those who proclaim Jesus and the Lord most loudly on balance seem committed to profligate, murderous, hypocritical lives, blind to being servants of death and despair in their comfortable self-righteousness.

Trypt writes: "it's historical, in that it was clearly composed starting over two thousand years ago (including OT)..." which is a pretty fair sign that folks who know little about religion as it intersects with history would be wise to STFU.

The Book of Job, for example, is a story that is probably as much as 1,000 years older than the rest of the Tanakh, and was edited (the Voice from the Whirlwind added) during the Babylonian Exile, IIRC.

The song of Miriam, where she dances on the shore after the Pharaoh's army is destroyed, is generally regarded by scholars as perhaps the oldest bit of human speech ever recorded and preserved intact to this day, following the "shorter and simpler is older" rule: it has remained unchanged by every scholarly and scientific measure since it was first uttered, spontaneously, about 4,000 years ago.

It's well established by actual archeological evidence that the Torah had been in written form for some hundreds of years before the Exile in Babylon, which began with Nebuchadnezzar's deporting the religious elite from the Promised Land at an historically definite date, 609 BCE. (Jerusalem was destroyed in 587.) The Text was edited at Babylon over much of a century (all those exiled priests had to do SOMETHING): Jeremiah predicted the Exile would last 70 years -- which, if you start with Nebuchadnezzar's dragging off the Judean priests in 609, is true TO THE YEAR, cuz Cyrus authorized the Temple be rebuilt in 538.

So it is wise to know when you don't know what you're talking about, there, Trypt.

The Bible (including the Old Testament, especially) melds myth and legend and history and parables and poetry and law and rules of thumb, but what is presented as actual history in it, is generally remarkably accurate, as the examples above indicate.

Likewise, it is perfectly legit -- and in fact, required by most Christian doctrine -- to recognize that Mormons aren't "Christians" in the sense that most Christian denominations understand the meaning: the Text doesn't end with the evangelists, epistles, acts and revelations.

AFAIK, while the distinctions in the canon are an important point of disagreement, the more fundamental reason why many "mainstream" Christian groups reject the LDS and a number of other groups as "Christian", but instead refer to them as, among other things, "pseudo-Christian Cults" is that LDS doctrines conflict witht the Nicene Creed, which many Christian groups see as setting the boundary between which other groups are seen as Christian, even if misguided, and non-Christian.

For another, there is geological, not just archeological and sociological evidence of a Great Flood in very ancient times: for a few thousand years at the end of the last glaciation, the Caspian Sea was much smaller and more shallow than it is now -- far below sea level, in fact. At a definite point somewhere around 5,000 BCE, the Mediterranean (a couple hundred feet higher) broke through the tiny little land bridge at the Sea of Marmara and for a month or two the world's biggest waterfall tore Asia a new one, filling up the Caspian (and, in fact, there is physical evidence to this day: it's a LAYERED lake, the bottom is anaerobic) and scattering people who had much in common all over the place. That's why Gilgamesh and other epics, including the story of Noah, talk about a Great Floor -- cuz it happened.

You seem to be confusedly referring to the Ryan-Pitman Theory, which theorizes that the Flood myth originates with a major breakthrough from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea around 5,600 BC which would have lasted, as estimated by the proponents of the theory, about 10 months. There is considerable dispute over whether such an event actually occurred (as there is evidence of continued contact between the Black Sea and the Med for over 10,000 years, which conflicts with the theory). I think it has also been suggested that there may have been a catastrophic refilling of the Persian Gulf after the last Ice Age that may also have contributed to the Flood myth. And a Mediterranean tsunami at ~1500 BC. Probably a number of other regional events.

In either case, a local flood caused by the breaking of a "sill" and refilling of a basin, or by a tsunami, or by any of a number of other processes that aren't extended periods of constant, global rainfail, isn't a lot like a global flood caused by extended rain, so any such theory at most shows a possible distant inspiration for the Flood myth, not a validation of the Flood-as-history. Its hardly a subject of serious dispute that there have been quite a few major regional floods in history.

There is yet a lot of disagreement on the historical accuracy and internal inconsistencies of the Bible as history, but the theology of Mormonism is certainly an an expression of faith because there is no empirical evidence for its claims. Over the years, I've worked for and with Mormons. They've all been as decent as any other people. At least Mitt, for all his pandering, isn't as authoritarian and batshit crazy as Giuliani.

Hey Americanist. Your points elaborate on mine but do not contradict them, if you read what I wrote. So your rudeness is just frivolous grandstanding. I was being general where you were being specific. Your specific examples are welcome, but no unfamiliar to me, and certainly not equal to the divine revelatory flair with which you appear to regard yourself.

Putting your pretentious attitude aside, I think where we disagree substantively is where you say, "what is presented as actual history in it, is generally remarkably accurate." And more specifically, we might contend over what is meant by "actual history." There are innumerable elements in the Bible presented as actual history, including many of the most crucial ones, that are not provable by any scientific means, for better or for worse. The Creation, Cain and Abel, Job, Noah, the birth, life, and death, of Moses, Jesus, etc, virtually every attributable utterance to every being in the Bible, very little of what is said is verifiable in the contemporary understanding of that term. That doesn't diminish the value of it in any non-historical sense, and you are unremarkably correct in pointing out, as I did, that when it comes to the known political and archaeological histories of the described regions and times, the Biblical record closely parallel others. It's nifty this is the case, and frankly it would be weird if it weren't. But as I said, this is incidental. The primary purpose of the Bible is not to suggest that there was once a place called Malibu or Jersey City, but to inspire the highest hope in humanity, to morally, spiritually and politically organize (usually particular) peoples, and the poetry, song, stories, and words these missions are based on need not be constrained by historicity.

To me it is absurd and distracting to try and establish the historical fact of say, G_d handing Moses stone commandments on Mt. Sanai. It distracts from the heart of the matter, which is encoding a simple, profound, and poetical universally applicable human genotype for ethics. It becomes farce when the focus becomes, a la Jospeh Smith, digging up magical tablets written in a non-existent language that G_d gave you special glasses to read. The point is lost in chicanery.

Like it was obviously lost on you, Captain America. On occasion, your self-importance is only surpassed by your fatuousness.

LOL --

1) Dice is right to correct me: the Black, not the Caspian Sea. (I've never heard of any evidence that the Persian Gulf got flooded -- the Mediterranean, yeah, but that was millions of years back. The explosive increase in the size and depth of the Black Seat wasn't exactly a 'local' event, either.)

2) Trypt, evidently I read your post more closely than you wrote it.

It is perfectly legit for folks to say "To me it is absurd and distracting to try and establish the historical fact..." of this or that in the Bible.

But it's NOT the same as trying to make the Text into a failed piece of modern historiography. It's not. Your post was off-base, cuz embedded in it, hell you said so, is that anybody thinks is the half-baked notion that "we should take the Bible as a document dedicated to the maximally accurate mapping of human history and experience."

The way you wrote it, in fact there are something like 2 BILLION people who take the Bible as "maximally accurate mapping" of humanity. They just don't confuse it with one of those huge compendiums and dates and events like "The Epitome of History", or a big wall chart on an elementary school wall.

There are a handful of people who are Biblical literalists, but they are VERY few, and even fewer of 'em vote so they're not particularly relevant to a discussion of religion and politics, now are they?

You dissed the Bible AS HISTORY, and then promptly acknowledged when challenged (cuz, of course, you know all this stuff so thoroughly) that, er, the actual history in the Bible is pretty good.

And then you told us so quaintly "To me it is absurd and distracting..." that bazillions of people of faith ain't as stooopid as you think they are.

THAT's absurd. And more to the point, it distracts from the central point I made upthread, that the way the religous Right (or Left, for that matter) acts in politics is a matter of POLITICS, not doctrine.

The way you wrote it, in fact there are something like 2 BILLION people who take the Bible as "maximally accurate mapping" of humanity.

There are roughly 2 billion at least nominal Christians in the world, but whatever the official doctrines of the groups they are associated with may be, they have quite a wide range of views on the status of the Bible.

You dissed the Bible AS HISTORY, and then promptly acknowledged when challenged (cuz, of course, you know all this stuff so thoroughly) that, er, the actual history in the Bible is pretty good.

The few bits of detailed history in the Bible are pretty bad, actually; those events that are given substantial external context (e.g., the birth of Jesus) are given conflicting external context (and, often, and again the Nativity is a good example) inconsistent descriptions within the text.

Now, these inconsistencies have been well-known, and elaborate rationalizations have been created around them to attempt to buttress the claim that the Bible is historically accurate despite them, but the fact that an elaborate rationalization can be constructed under which a document does not necessarily conflict with what is certainly known to be true does not make the document even remotely historically reliable.

THAT's absurd. And more to the point, it distracts from the central point I made upthread, that the way the religous Right (or Left, for that matter) acts in politics is a matter of POLITICS, not doctrine.

You pose there a false dichotomy, you suggest because the action concerns politics, it is not a matter of doctrine. That the subject matter is political does not make the motivation something other than the content of faith (personally, I think that there are both political opportunists and sincere believers among the religious Right as to motivation, but that in any case your argument confuses the area in which beliefs are executed with the fundamental nature of the belief.)

"Over the years, I've worked for and with Mormons. They've all been as decent as any other people."

I have to agree with the previous poster, but their tendency unquestioningly follow their leaders is a bit disconcerting, as is the tendency for their church to be a sort of parallel government/social system/business where it is dominant. Mormons are expected to be fully involved with their church, and not to interact a lot with gentiles (non-Mormons) except to make money or convert them.

There is a fun little movie "Latter Day Saints" about of all things, a Mormon missionary who discovers he is gay, that I can recommend. It’s a classic “boy meets boy, boy loses boy, boy finds boy” film.

Oh, Lord: as always, it is pointless to try a discussion with Dice, cuz he doesn't seem to understand the function of WORDS.

F'r a quick instance, and than to be done: the phrase '"maximally accurate mapping" of humanity' is a combination of the "maximally accurate mapping" used by another poster, with the broader and simpler answer to "mapping of what"? being humanity.

The OTHER guy's point was to dis the Bible as history, but the way he phrased his answer to mapping what? was "human history and experience."

Dice doesn't like to read plain language (he IS a baby lawyer, after all), but there really are a couple billion people who do regard the Bible as the most accurate description (viz, 'maximal map') of 'human experience', e.g., Reagan's description of the Bible as "the source for everything we ought to know; it's in there, every kind of human experience.'

LOL -- the false dichotomy is Dice's benighted notion that cuz this is so, it cannot also be true that these folks don't agree on precisely what it means. Not used to that, Dice? Hell, you're a LAWYER: it's your stock in trade.

And as for Dice's odd idea that it cannot be so (too many negatives) "because the action concerns politics, it is not a matter of doctrine...", that is simply too ignorant to engage.

Suffice to remind folks why I use "theAmericanist" as a screen name -- denoting the only US heresy ever denounced by a Pope, the un-Catholic and even un-Christian Notion that civics has a moral value in itself.

To me, this "endorsement" is just another example of how the "Christian" Right will undermine any core beliefs in the name of political expediency.

The Book of Mormon is an obvious joke (by which I mean "fake") to anyone who reads it. It's language is a poor imitation of the King James version of the Bible.

I'm gonna pick on Cal Gal, cuz I think she's exactly WRONG -- Christians don't believe that Jews are correct to deny the divinity of Christ, but I don't regard it as betrayal of 'core Christian beliefs'when they vote for a Jewish candidate.

Do you?

Progressives have to get over this knee-jerk bigotry against people of faith.

The song of Miriam, where she dances on the shore after the Pharaoh's army is destroyed, is generally regarded by scholars as perhaps the oldest bit of human speech ever recorded and preserved intact to this day,

No, it's not "generally regarded" as such. For one thing, there is no evidence it was actually "recorded."

following the "shorter and simpler is older" rule: it has remained unchanged by every scholarly and scientific measure since it was first uttered, spontaneously, about 4,000 years ago.

Um, speaking of shutting the fuck up if you don't know what you're talking about...the Exodus story, if it existed at all, is generally considered to be only about 3,200-3,300 years old, not 4,000. Exodus is generally pegged around the time of the 19th Dynasty, roughly circa 1300-1200 BC.

Hey Amway. You seem to be willfully misreading me in a number of ways, but whatever. I'd agree that most people in the Judeo-Christian tradition are not trying to equate the Bible with a panopticonic radio carbon dating record.

My original response was to fafner1, who as Stefan pointed out, said, "Say what you want about the Bible, it stands up pretty well as an historical document." I think that's a stretch. Moreover, I think it would be a kind of a materialistic idolatry to be, say, more concerned about proving Moses existed and finding some putatively original G_d-given stone tablets than meditating on the essential teachings. Maybe not so unrelated to the fundie Congressman Colbert interviewed who wanted a Commandments monument in the Capitol but couldn't name more than a couple of them.

On the tautological central point you so cherish Amway, that the way the Religious right acts in politics is political, I'd go a step farther and say that for the most part their doctrine, rhetoric, and social structure are also political. Principle has long left the building, and Jesus remains primarily as a talisman of power.

We need an American Dostoevsky to write our version of the Grand Inquisitor (from Brother's K). Jesus appears to the American Evangelical leadership, is recognized, and promptly rendered to Burma for torturing prior to living out His life getting water boarded in Gitmo.

To summarize: the Bible is not a great historiographical compilation of texts. Naturally there is some overlap with other sources but for the most part this is flimsy, and to fixate on assertions' literal accuracy is to miss the teachings of the protagonists. For example, do we need a notarized transcript of the words, "Let the dead bury the dead"? (and no fundies, this is not a call to desecrate the corpses of infidels, abortionists, and gays)

No offense, fafner1, I just think you overstated the case. Thanks for the movie tip. The Mormon thing does creep me out a fair bit, including for the reasons you describe. But mostly because of the psychic energy required to maintain the fantastical as real. A commenter above generously said that the story of Joseph Smith must be read as metaphorical, because it is so patently ridiculous. Unfortunately, and I'd be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, I think there is a high premium among all of the LDS groups on holding the Smith stories as literal. The psychic violence it takes to cleave to such ridiculousness is more stark in a tradition dating back 170 years than narratives dating back 2000-3000 years. It's easier to reflect on what is meant by a story from way back when of G-d speaking to some guy from a burning bush or a bunch of imperialists whacking a guy who was G-d's embodiment of love on earth, than G-d burying magic golden tablets on the farm of a failed treasure hunter in 19th century New York and giving him magic glasses so only he could read the weird ass and genetically disproven stories inscribed on the tablets no sane person ever saw.

LOL -- in the Department of Missing the Point, why don't y'all re-read my post replying to Cal Gal?

re-reading your post to Cal-Gal, your confused thinking becomes more apparent to me. Cal Gal says:

"the "Christian" Right will undermine any core beliefs in the name of political expediency."

You respond by imagining an example that involves "Christians," not the "Christian Right." This is an example of the fallacy of informal logic called "the straw man." You further commit the fallacy of "hasty generalization," and contest her conclusion which was transparently stated as opinion by substituting it for your opinion, pretending that this change in opinion was a change in fact. You go on to conclude that progressives are knee-jerk bigots against people of faith.

I for one am profoundly respectful of people's individual faiths. I am just profoundly suspicious of the Religious Right in America, and think the foundational stories of the LDS are literally unbeliebable. In general, I think that white American evangelical Christians are unknowingly denizens of satan, and as Cal Gal indicates, are eager to subvert the tenets of their faith for power, and I would add, bloodlust.

Trypticon: As compared to the "psychic violence" necessary to maintain the belief that God revealed thousands of lines of doctrine to an illiterate merchant whose followers exactly recorded everything he uttered?

Seriously, if you're going to treat Mormonism with such obvious disdain, at least be man enough to extend the same to Islam.

For that matter, are you aware of the editorial origins of the New Testament?

Linus, Trypt is simply too much of a bigot to be 'aware' of much more than his own prejudice.

(patiently) Cal Gal objected to the possibility of a Romney endorsement "how the 'Christian' Right will undermine any core beliefs in the name of political expediency". If I misunderstood her, she can correct me -- but the plain meaning of the words is that folks like Bob Jones University people who regard Mormonism and Catholicism as essentially un-Christian 'cults' on doctrinal grounds absolutely can NOT vote for Mormons and Catholics without being guilty of undermining their core beliefs in the name of political expediency.

Why single out Mormons? Or Christian evangelicals? Cuz they DISAGREE? Hell, that's why there are so many denominations just within Christianity.

I merely noted that Christians, to be Christians, have to fundamentally disagree with Jews, for example, regarding the divinity of Christ. That is a far more essential contradiction than the authority of the Pope, the role of Mary or the Book of Mormon.

So Cal Gal's reasoning, such as it is, is that for ANY Christian to vote for any candidate for office who happens to be Jewish, is to undermine their core beliefs. As Linus observes, it goes double for Islam, which (coming after Christ) explicitly denounces both Jews and Christians for perverting the true pure sources of the One, True Faith.

I say that's bullshit, bigotry and definitively un-American: it's a kind of religious test for public office. If you BELIEVE your faith, Cal Gal sez, then you can't vote for anyone of some OTHER faith cuz that would 'undermine your core beliefs'.

Not so, say I.

Cal Gal, if I got you wrong, it's not cuz I mis-read what you wrote. I understood you to say that for the Christian Right to endorse Romney even though he's a Mormon is to undermine their core beliefs. What else could those 'core beliefs' be, except that he's a Mormon, and they ain't?

If you meant more purely political stuff, like Multiple Choice Mitt's record, that's different, and I misunderstood you.

But I stand by my point in this thread: the religious Right, like the religious Left, is far better understood as a POLITICAL dynamic, not a religious one.

And yeah, I also stand by what oughta be bloody obvious: guys like Tryp are WAAY too quick to tell themselves that they are "profoundly respectful of people's individual faiths", even as in the same breath he takes pains to tell us that finds Mormonism 'literally unbelieveable'. (Way to hold onto that mutual respect meme, Tryp.)

Religious zealots of all kinds who wish to force their particular dogma on others through politics or packing the Supreme Court are essentially un-American.

Oh, Lord: as always, it is pointless to try a discussion with Dice, cuz he doesn't seem to understand the function of WORDS.

I understand both the general function of words (to communicate ideas) and the specific function of the words you use (to dazzle with empty rhetoric as part of your self-important posturing.)

F'r a quick instance, and than to be done: the phrase '"maximally accurate mapping" of humanity' is a combination of the "maximally accurate mapping" used by another poster, with the broader and simpler answer to "mapping of what"? being humanity.

I am well aware of the source of the phrase you used (which is entirely different than its function, so its rather odd that you'd complain that I didn't understand one and then as your example point to the other.) My disagreement was with your description: not every Christian believes that the Bible is a "maximally accurate mapping" of anything; your suggestion than that there are 2 billion people who believe it is a maximally accurate mapping to humanity (not that that combination of bits from different places makes much sense to start with) simply because their are approximately 2 billion Christians on the planet is ludicrous.

Dice doesn't like to read plain language (he IS a baby lawyer, after all), but there really are a couple billion people who do regard the Bible as the most accurate description (viz, 'maximal map') of 'human experience'

No, there really aren't. There are a couple of billion Christians. Even assuming, arguendo (but clearly counterfactually), that every single Christian's belief is simply a mirror of the doctrine of their Church, a substantial fraction, perhaps an absolute majority, of Christians believe that, insofar as any source or combination of sources provides such a mapping, it is provided only by a combination of Scripture and Tradition, and not either of those alone. The idea that the text of the Bible viewed independently provides such a mapping is an idea that is certainly popular within Protestantism, but Protestantism is a minority of Christianity, and doesn't represent 2 billion people.

the false dichotomy is Dice's benighted notion that cuz this is so, it cannot also be true that these folks don't agree on precisely what it means.

Er, no, its not. Most obviously so because I never propose the notion you suggest is "the false dichotomy" here. In fact, the thing that you suggest as the premise of this "false dichotomy" that you suggest I am presenting is, in fact, not only not something I suggested but something I expressly rejected that you suggested, viz., that there are two billion people who view the Bible in the way you have characterized.

And as for Dice's odd idea that it cannot be so (too many negatives) "because the action concerns politics, it is not a matter of doctrine...", that is simply too ignorant to engage.

Again, I never suggested that "it cannot be so" (that is, that your claims about the Bible must be inaccurate) because of that. Are you quoting fragments of sentences out of context to set up strawmen because you are incapable of reading or because you are incredibly dishonest?

I'm gonna pick on Cal Gal, cuz I think she's exactly WRONG -- Christians don't believe that Jews are correct to deny the divinity of Christ, but I don't regard it as betrayal of 'core Christian beliefs'when they vote for a Jewish candidate.

That's not what Cal Gal said.

Cal Gal said it was a betrayal of the beliefs that this particular group of Christians (who espouse the importance of compatible religious faith in politics) profess for them to offer political support to someone with incompatible religious faith.

She did not say it was generally a betrayal of the beliefs of a group for them to offer political support to someone with a different religious faith.

in the Department of Missing the Point, why don't y'all re-read my post replying to Cal Gal?

It is quite accurate to describe that post as being "in the Department of Missing the Point".

This kind of self-awareness and honesty from you is refreshing.

Man, is this guy dense -- god help your clients: Cal Gal, if you want to cop to this guy's defense that you only meant THOSE people of faith couldn't vote for somebody just because he AGREED with them on issues, well: that's what's known as a "guilty" plea.

And yeah, if that's really what you meant, Cal Gal, it also applies to voting for Jews, Muslims, Catholics, etc., not just Mormons.

For the ephemeral record: I don't want progressives identified in ANY way with that sorta bullshit.

Hey Linus. Fair point, and I was thinking about that, and tried to allude to my thinking on that. To me, the further away in time the fantastical origins of a faith are, the more latitude there is within individual believers to not be fanatically literal minded. Obviously there are fundamentalists in, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say all, faith traditions, that are counterexamples to my hope.

I'd go on to say that I think there is often a connection between literalism/fundamentalism and a tendency towards violence. I generally think violence is a bad thing, so to the extent that literalism/fundamentalism feeds that, I'm opposed to them.

There are the American fundamentalist Christians who relish the idea of people unlike themselves being punished in hell for all eternity, and who think the only good Arab is a dead Arab (in Jesus' name), and who would like to see the destruction of America and Israel in an end-times war against Islam that will be their ticket to paradise (caricatures I know, but indicating real currents in Christian Right thinking). Likewise, there are fundamentalist Muslims committed to the destruction of America, etc.

Look, there are fantastical origin myths around most faiths: Buddha sprung from the side of his mother, Jesus' mom was a virgin, Muhammad received the Koran in personal revelations from the Angel Gabriel, there are (at least) 10 avatars of Vishnu, etc. Again, I'd say the more distant in time these stories are located, the more easy it is to retain the core spiritual teachings of the tradition, and not get overly caught up in the literalism of it all. Christ taught love, radical social reform, spiritual rebirth. Muhammad emphasized the unity of G-d and the equality and brotherhood/sisterhood of humanity. If you have a huge personal investment in the particulars of Jesus or Muhammad's ascent into heaven, and that your faith is the only true one, the message of universal love and brotherhood is more likely to get lost.

To the Mormons' credit, to date they have not been a world historical force for violence, though in the US they do seem to ally politically with the Christian Right in favor of war, the death penalty, fiscal and social policies that benefit the rich and hurt the poor, exclude immigrants, gay people, and favor white people and men over everyone else.

Specifically to Linus' reasonable point, I think the G-d buried golden tablets and G-d given glasses in 19th century New York isn't inherently more unbelievable in the literal sense then other foundational narratives, including Islam. I think it's just more jolting to the non-believer in that the story is close enough in time and culture to think, man if someone in my neighborhood was telling me they had divine specs or whatever I'd be worried about their meds. But, the same would go for a gang cruising around running the priests out of churches saying one of their member was the son of G-d. It's one thing to say the spirit of G-d sustains me, another to say he gives me supernatural objects.

Anyway, reasonable point Linus.

Americanism, you really are just an offensive putz. It's too bad, since you seem to have reasonable opinions on occasion. But man, you are so committed to being right it's gross, and you can't seem to distinguish between your own projections and the perspectives of people you try to engage with. You did pull a straw man on Cal Gal. You projected onto her an opinion she specifically did not express, and than extrapolate from you misinterpretation a conjured view which you then denounce as unAmerican.

As Luther said, it's religious zealots who want to force their opinions on others who are unAmerican. The Christian Right, not all Christians, are examples of such zealots. Traditionally, many Christian churches in America have been the biggest defenders of religious tolerance and the separation of church and state. The earliest European settlers were persecuted, and infused into the development of American sensibility a horror of persecution.

Anyway, Americanist, you have no idea who I am, so to say I'm so bigoted is just talking out of your ass, which I'm picking up is a habit of yours. I don't know who you are, other than the self-righteous pseudo-intellectual with weak reasoning skills and willfully disingenuous habits of argumentation you regularly prove yourself to be in this forum. You might be a decent person overall. Who knows. I wouldn't presume to know. But to accuse me of being an extreme bigot, on racial or religious issues, tells me everything I need to know about how seriously to take you in this context. For starters, I have lived as a minority all over the world, have lived in Franciscan, Shingon, and Vedantan monasteries, and have an advanced degree in Religious Studies, among several, from a top American university.

You are overly fascinated with your imagination, son. I won't waste time on you in the future, as you tilt towards troll status near as I can tell.

Heh. Yeah, its so hard to see why it would be a betrayal of your values to offer political support for a candidate of a dissimilar faith when one of your stated central values is that shared religious faith is important in the public sphere, while it would not be when you don't publicly embrace that value, or even moreso, when you embrace as a central value that religious faith, except insofar as it results in policy stances that conflict with other political values, is not relevant in the political arena.

I can see you just don't get that whether or not an act violates a set of stated principals depends on what the stated principals are, and whether or not they are consistent with the act.

I think you meant "principles", dude.

And, LOL -- oooo, Tryp wants to IMPRESS us, now. So you've actually HEARD of this whole founder's generation thing, have you? Wow.

But face it, folks: your posts in this thread define what religious bigotry IS:

A guy endorses a candidate for office cuz he agrees with that candidate's positions. So folks spin out nearly 100 comments on how hypocritical the endorser is, cuz the endorsee is of another faith. QED.

When I noted that your 'reasoning' would apply equally well to Christians who vote for candidates who happen to be Jewish, you didn't much like being held accountable for what you'd said.

The BEST you can do is Dice's sputtering that it isn't a GENERAL anti-religious prejudice, it's just a SPECIFIC one.

Tell us, Dice: did they cover what 'guilty plea means in law school? Perhaps you SHOULD google Larry Craig, whom I mentioned above.

Read the words you write, the positions you argue. What makes somebody part of "the religious Right", if not how they vote on issues like abortion and same sex unions? How does it violate the 'core beliefs' of ANY faith, to vote for someone of ANOTHER faith -- when they happen to believe in the same POLITICAL goals?

Oh, but Dice sez (since Cal Gal couldn't possibly speak for herself, Dice being so knowledgeable and all) that the trouble with THESE people of faith is that they want to impose their faith on the rest of us... cuz of their political views on abortion, same sex unions, etc.

This is AMERICA, folks. People get to vote for what they want. That you don't agree with their political goals doesn't make them religious hypocrites, although depending on how you think or talk about that disagreement, it could easily make you a religious bigot.

As in fact, it seems to in the way this thread has gone. Dice's last post proves it, by definition, fercryingoutloud.

Cuz when someone of one faith endorses someone of another for office because they want the same POLITICAL things, that is proof that they are NOT about imposing a religious test for office. They're not endorsing a Mormon, they're endorsing a conservative -- am I going too fast?

So when you -- like Cal Gal, Dice, or Tryp -- attacks them AS IF IT IS THE RELIGION that matters, when the whole source of the 'criticism' is political: that is religious bigotry, by definition.

Ya don't like being identified as what you are, Tryp? Change.

Leaving aside for a moment the validity of the various comments posted here--people can easily judge that for themselves--what do you hope to accomplish by constantly talking to people like this, theAmericanist?

You've spent a lot of time lately telling us how not to turn off the average voter by engaging in condescension, undue hostility, pomposity, elitism, dismissiveness and so forth. Can you really be blind to the irony of this statement? Is that much irony even possible?

If you were only occasionally mixing it up due to an honest disagreement or even a personality clash--all right then; many of us do that. If you were having a little fun smacking particular trolls who we all know aren't arguing in good faith anyway--all right then to that, too, but we are ostensibly on the same political side. Is the progressive victory you say you seek as important to you as your apparent compulsion to thoroughly alienate everyone with whom you come in contact? And if so, again leaving out the content of various arguments put forth here in order to focus on delivery for a moment, how exactly do you think your method of discourse promotes the progressive unity you claim to be seeking?

See if you can answer the question straight up, without repeating your previous...offerings...or wandering into a tangent. No moving goalposts, no strawmen, no basically repeating others' comments and claiming you're correcting them, no misquotes or dishonestly edited quotes, and we'll take it as given that I'm stoopid, precious, short-sighted, naive and generally unworthy. Just answer the question, please: What exactly do you hope to accomplish with this posting style of yours?

And do you think you're achieving it?

It's practice. I do political argument for a living, and of course this style isn't effective in real life. But here? I keep my claws sharp, test arguments and attitudes for resilience, and once in a blue moon, I learn something that I don't think I would have by being more polite.

It's not effective here, either, theAmericanist--not for us, and, whether or not you get it, not for you, either.

The BEST you can do is Dice's sputtering that it isn't a GENERAL anti-religious prejudice, it's just a SPECIFIC one.

Er, no, I haven't said anything about any kind of "anti-religious prejudice" in this thread.

I've simply said that if a political group says that sharing a common faith is an important standard in the political arena, then it is reasonable to say that they are betraying that value if they act inconsistently with that stated value. Not everyone who is religious proclaims that standard. Not everyone who proclaims that standard violates it. But pointing out those who both proclaim and violate it is not "anti-religious bigotry", general or specific.

Read the words you write, the positions you argue.

Um, how about if you read the words I write, for a change, instead of these extended arguments you keep posting based on your fantasies?

What makes somebody part of "the religious Right", if not how they vote on issues like abortion and same sex unions?

Clearly, it must be something other than voting behavior, since we have secret ballots in this country and yet people can be identified with the "religious Right". Anyhow, what does this have to do with anything I've actually written in this thread?

How does it violate the 'core beliefs' of ANY faith, to vote for someone of ANOTHER faith

If one of the claimed core beliefs of a political, religious, or other group is that shared faith is an important criteria to be applied in voting, political support, and other political decision-making, then it clearly violates the (stated, even if not actual) core beliefs of that group to give support to a candidate who does not share the faith in question.

Oh, but Dice sez (since Cal Gal couldn't possibly speak for herself, Dice being so knowledgeable and all) that the trouble with THESE people of faith is that they want to impose their faith on the rest of us...

I suggest you read this thread again. I've never, in this thread, said that there is any problem with any people of faith (other than what might be implicit in my dispute with you over your claims about the historical reliability of the Bible), and I've certainly not said that it is a problem with the Christian Right that they "want to impose their faith on the rest of us".

Even where (i.e., outside of this thread) I have criticized the Christian Right, I have not criticized them for "wanting to impose their faith on the rest of us".

This is AMERICA, folks. People get to vote for what they want.

This is America, people get to criticize other people's basis for choosing what they want in the political arena, too.

That you don't agree with their political goals doesn't make them religious hypocrites

No, it doesn't. OTOH, if they act inconsistently with their stated political priorities that would make them hypocrites.

Cuz when someone of one faith endorses someone of another for office because they want the same POLITICAL things, that is proof that they are NOT about imposing a religious test for office.

(1) No, it doesn't prove that. Its possible to impose a religious test that includes people of faiths other than one's own (for instance, a Catholic could support a Protestant under a religious test that required being a Christian);
(2) Even if it did, you seem to be attacking a strawman here.

So when you -- like Cal Gal, Dice, or Tryp -- attacks them AS IF IT IS THE RELIGION that matters

(1) I haven't attacked anyone for supporting Romney, and
(2) The basis on which I suggested that Cal Gal was criticizing them for supporting Romney was inconsistency with their own stated political criteria.

when the whole source of the 'criticism' is political: that is religious bigotry, by definition.

Er, no, even if your characterization was accurate, that wouldn't be "religious bigotry". It would be a false accusation of religious bigotry, whose origin could be in religious bigotry, political prejudice, or any number of other sources.

Of course, the bigger problem is that your characterization is entirely disconnected from the actual criticism made.

Wow. The Americanist does political argument for a living? That doesn't do anything for the reputation of the field. Just another Tucker Carlson who thinks by saying it louder he'll be any less stooopid. At least he suggests his style-- ie divisive muddle headed pompocity-- doesn't work in real life. Interesting that he has parts of his life he apparantly doesn't consider real. How's that workin fer ya?

Sharp tongue? Sure. Sharp wit or claws? Not so much. More like a mildly beligerant friendless drunk who's picking a fight with everyone at the party and won't leave-- too annoying to sustain much sympathy for.

LOL -- okay, just to pull more wings off:

Dice sez: "if a political group says that sharing a common faith is an important standard in the political arena, then it is reasonable to say that they are betraying that value if they act inconsistently..."

And just which "political group" is it that says this? It seems you must mean folks like the Bob Jones crowd. And what have they EVER said about "sharing a common faith" that excludes Mormons from "the political arena"?

Hell, you're all bitching cuz they're evidently ready to ENDORSE one.

And folks wonder that I observe that Dice is stoooopid.

Yo, Tryp: I noted you're a religious bigot because of what you've said here, since what you've said amounts to religious bigotry. (That's a bigot IS, ya know -- and it's not particularly surprising that a bigot wouldn't be aware of it, that's how prejudice WORKS.)

It's legit for you to say, 'gee, that's not what I meant', or even (if you had the chops for it), 'that's not what I said really MEANT'.

Evidently you don't, so you're down to comparing me to a belligerent drunk. Remember that next time you complain about civility.

As a rule, I don't get particularly ad hominem beyond what folks say (e.g., say something dumb, and I will observe you're stooopid), and I try more or less to stick to the point of the thread.

So you're a pretty fair example, Tryp -- the way you've responded shows the IDENTIFICATION of it. Most folks don't vote cuz they compare check lists of issues on which they agree or disagree with candidates, as if they might say "well, Romney is with me on abortion, same sex marriage, and Iraq, but I kinda like Clinton's health care plan and I think I can live with her on Iraq, but..." Those kinds of conversations do happen, but a TON of actual political science shows that many, probably most people generally vote for the person they have come to feel is "like me", or, if the voter feels part of a group or movement, "like us".

What you've told us, Tryp, is that you're SO well educated, and you've studied LOTS of religion, and -- ya know what? You find it "absurd and distracting" the way very large numbers of people actually BELIEVE both in their respective faith, AND in democracy -- and yet, somehow, they disagree with YOU.

And oh, yeah -- you find Mormonism "literally unbelieveable", although, of course, you first congratulated yourself on how much you respect ALL religious faith.

(snort) And I'M the obnoxious one? Lord, you guys oughta get out more.

One thing I didn't say to Shortstop, though, applies particularly to this: blog threads are a kind of self-selected focus group. They're NOT a poll, cuz it isn't anything like a weighted cross section representing anything. But a focus group is selected to be homogenous, cuz you want to find out what moves people when they feel surrounded (and approved by)people like themselves.

It fascinates me what folks simply refuse to think about in threads like this. Tryp and Shortstop, with the 'get a load of this guy, what a jerk', are appealing to folks who read this, whom you expect must be LIKE YOU. I learn a lot from the triggers you guys pull.

It's sorta like Beauchamp, the TNR guy -- some of us caught on very early that the guy was a bullshitter, and I was intrigued that Kevin tried to inoculate his crap by predicting that he'd turn out to get some details wrong (like which country he was in, and whether he was an asshole BEFORE combat), which ... wouldn't matter.

That's a HUGE blind spot, and reveals more about a strain in progressivism than it ever could about the American military OR the war in Iraq.

Likewise -- I am genuinely amazed that you guys don't see that insisting it is somehow hypocrisy for folks who agree with Romney (at least, his current positions) on values issues, to endorse him.

And WHY do you think it is hypocritical? Because YOU don't like his religion -- or theirs.

The fact that you perceive not even a whiff (much less the reeking stench) of religious bigotry in this isn't just a blind spot: you're political asnomiacs.

Trypticon's position reminds me of a (possibly apocryphal) story about Flannery O'Connor, the great Southern writer. At a dinner party, the subject of religion came up for some reason, and at one point of the nice Anglican ladies said about the Crucifixion and Resurrection, "It's all such a beautiful metaphor." O'Connor responded, "Well, if that's all there is, the hell with it!"

What's the point of a religion if one shouldn't sincerely believe its tenets? Who needs to deal with all the mysticism to get to the "core spiritual beliefs?" It's plenty easy to be a perfectly decent, honest, ethical agnostic.

Not coincidentally, Reform Judaism and the "enlightened" Protestant churches--you know, the ones who want to stick with Tradition but treat their miraculous origins like a crazy uncle--are the ones that are dying out. People who want to believe in the supernatural will choose creeds that tickle their faith bones, and people who don't can be perfectly happy as agnostics.

Tryp and Shortstop, with the 'get a load of this guy, what a jerk', are appealing to folks who read this, whom you expect must be LIKE YOU.

My comments, of course, would be better characterized as "Just how nuts are you, theAmericanist?"

And the answer came back promptly: "Even crazier than you suspected. I'll pretend this is an act I can strip on and off and that I know another way to behave...and actually employ that knowledge. But you guys in here, you're lab rats...yeah, lab rats! That's my story."

Not much of a story, I'm afraid. But after all, what else did you have?

When it comes to observing your conduct, just about everyone else does think "like me"--here and everywhere else in your "real life." It's pretty damned obvious that you behave like this almost all the time, whomever you're with and in just about any setting. You've pulled back now and then with people who were actually signing your paycheck, but not quite often enough.

You are a jerk, and not for the purposes of using this "focus group" as target practice as you hone your "arguments" promoting a progressive political philosophy based in large part on collectivism and recognition of the worth and dignity of others. (Well, people have pointed out that your irony meter is permanently broken.) You're a jerk to everyone because you simply don't know how to be any other way.

If you think everyone else in the room is stoopid and inadequate--something you quite obviously tell yourself not just here but everywhere you go--you might want to search for the common denominator in every single one of your long list of failed interactions.

Uh huh. It's you, bud.

Good to know that shortstop stays away from ad hominem attacks.

Linus is right -- there are lots of folks, many of 'em highly motivated voters, who aren't as (ahem) sophisticated as Tryp. And because of that lack of (ahem) sophistication, they don't see an actual problem with Bob Jones folks endorsing a Mormon.

And it is THAT blind spot which interests me in this.

See, I figure there are a list of places where Tryp, probably Cal Gal, and others part company with me. (Leaving shortstop's therapeutic crap aside.)

1) The religious Right is a political, not a religious phenomenon. Making it out to be primarily religious in character opens progressives up to blithely accepting religious bigotry that (I hope) you guys would recognize in a heartbeat in another context, e.g., Cal Gal's unmistakeable implication that Christians voting for Jewish candidates 'betray core beliefs'. Why did you pull away from that? It's because it shows you more plainly the religious bigotry that for some reason is hidden from you in the way she DID say it.

2) The religious Right chooses to vote for candidates based on political, not doctrinal agreement. That's why the BJ guy is endorsing Romney -- cuz they agree (at least, at the moment; Romney being who he is) on abortion, same sex unions, etc. Why not talk about THAT?

3) So the way to TALK about the religious Right in politics is political, not religious. The premise of the whole thread is that it is, as Cal Gal put it, that the Bob Jones guys somehow betray their 'core beliefs' if they vote for a Mormon. Dice (demonstrating his superbly honed reasoning and matchless political insight) 'explained' that this is cuz the Bob Jones guys insist that people in public life ‘share’ religious faith to get political support.

4) That is a POLITICAL, not a religious insight. Dice (since it is I, not he, who is obnoxious and ignorant and opinionated) further explained with impressive piety, that of course there is an (ahem) false dichotomy between religion and politics (none of that separation of Church and State for THIS guy), that many people’s votes are motivated by their religious values. No kidding – it’s as true of the religious Left as it is of the religious Right, but nobody in this thread would hesitate for a nanosecond to condemn someone who said, as Cal Gal did of Bob Jones and a Mormon, that Sojourners would betray core beliefs if they endorsed a candidate who happened to be Jewish.

5) The thing is, values voters are susceptible to wedge issues. That’s why millions of pro-life voters who are sympathetic to progressive positions on the economy or Iraq, find it difficult if not impossible to vote for candidates with whom they agree on most issues, when those candidates are pro-choice. It’s a matter of IDENTIFICATION – in fact, precisely the way Tryp and Shortstop do the ‘gee, look at this guy, who won’t just leave cuz he’s unwanted’ to me. Many pro-life voters (and virtually all anti-civil union ones) WILL vote for candidates who disagree on those but agree on other issues IF THEY FEEL THEIR FAITH IS RESPECTED.

But y’all don’t respect faith if you disagree with it POLITICALLY. If Wallis endorsed a progressive who happened to be Jewish, you'd NEVER say what Cal Gal said of Taylor endorsing a Mormon: why is that? You won't examine it, but, hey, Shortstop doesn't like me and that's good enough.

6) Tryp is oblivious to his obvious bias – and yet, it’s typical. I suspect Linus understands how Tryp exemplifies multicultural sophistication (in Catholic doctrine, it’s called Modernism, which is what they hide the Americanist heresy behind) when he brags about how he couldn’t possibly be a bigot, since he knows about and has lived with all kinds of people – yet he finds Mormonism “literally unbelieveable”.

7) That’s the feedback loop, which you guys default to: Mormons believe stuff that no one with your depth of insight and knowledge (ask Tryp) could possibly believe, and the Bob Jones guys, motivated in their politics by religious values, most be betraying those values to vote for somebody with whom they agree, who believes such unbelievable things: it’s the corrupt endorsing the incredible.

Don’t you even HEAR yourselves? So, finally:

8) You want it to be about an IDENTIFICATION that excludes folks who aren’t asonomiac, who can smell the stink: only folks with Tryp’s sophistication who subtly yet utterly degrade real faith are welcome. Folks GET that, yanno, as Linus observes.

Trouble is, by endorsing a Mormon, the BJ guys have outflanked you in an AMERICAN direction – they agree with the guy on issues, wedge issues to be sure, so (driving the wedge in yourselves) you’re left trying lamely to hide anti-religious bias behind scoffing at pro-lifers who are against same sex marriage AS IF THOSE ARE INFERIOR RELIGIOUS POSITIONS, like Mormonism, ‘literally unbelieveable’.

It’s not the logic of it, politics is psychological. The identity politics reflex you can see here – d’ya really think I’m the ONLY guy who would read this and smell bigotry? is feeble to the point of fragility.

God help us if you guys continue to prevail in progressive culture, cuz professionals appealing to values voters will eat you alive.