Andrew Sullivan on the legitimacy of using the c-word to characterize Mitt Romney's church.
Where's The Line Between A Religion And A Cult? Ctd http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/wheres-the-line-between-a-religion-and-a-cult-ctd.html
Where's The Line Between A Religion And A Cult? http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/whats-the-line-between-a-cult-and-a-religion.html
Another amusing Andrew Sullivan dig at the LDS church:
"[S]omething that has continually struck me as I have read more and discovered more about Mormonism: it really is a religion of business for businessmen. Unlike mainstream Christianity, Mormonism sees no conflict between God and Mammon. . . Making pots of money is part of God's plan. Joseph Smith, a grifter businessman himself, proclaimed. . . that there was spiritual glory in capitalism itself - a heresy clearly at odds with almost everything Jesus himself said and taught.
The business starts with mandatory 10 percent tithing if you want access to Temples. All that money - estimated at an annual $8 billion - goes directly to Salt Lake City to a group of powerful businessmen who are the people who run the Church. There is no transparency. Mormons are sometimes charged to go make money for the church in various enterprises (my favorite is a Hawaiian theme-park that pays no taxes because it is related to church activities and yet brings in $60 million a year). . ."
"Capitalism As A Religion" http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/capitalism-as-a-religion.html
Although business is certainly compatible with Mormonism, it is inaccurate to characterize Mormonism as a religion of business. More accurately, Mormonism could be characterized as a practical this-worldly religion relative to the more mystical other-worldly religions.
Romney's Mormonism is certainly low to nowhere on my list of things to despise him for, pathological greed, lying, fecklessness all looking to me more worrisome by far. As a cheerful nonjudgmental atheist for more than a quarter century I will admit I find Mormonism pretty weird for most of the reasons I find comparable UFO cults like Scientology and Raelianism weird, but, hell, so long as they aren't trying to use government to police inequity or bigotry -- like Mormons did do when it came to California's Prop H8TE, but hey -- I'm totally all let a bazillion flowers bloom when it comes to people's private bliss paths.
> Romney's Mormonism is certainly low to nowhere on my list of things > to despise him for, , ,
"Despise" is assuredly too strong a word. "Consider the association to be a darned good reason he shouldn't be President" is certainly a reasonable reaction, and high up on the list of warning flags.
It isn't comparable to the concern back in 1960 over JFK being a Catholic -- for one thing, Kennedy explicitly repudiated the authority of the Pope over his decision-making while in office.
The LDS church does **not** give its members that freedom of conscience. They may claim to, but if your "conscience" doesn't lead you to adopt the dictates of the church authorities, then it isn't God or the Holy Spirit guiding your conscience, it's the Devil. [*]
This is a church, remember, that had (and still has) blatant racism embedded in its doctrines about the history of humanity on Earth. And which explicitly denied full privileges of membership to blacks until 1978 -- **1978**! -- when "Official Declaration 2" was revealed by God to the LDS First Presidency, coincidentally forestalling an ugly political backlash against the church. The same thing will undoubtedly happen **someday** (but probably not any time soon) with regard to LGBTQ (or at least GB :-/ ) folks.
[*] Not that Romney's spiritual superiors would **dare** to call him to account while he was in office. They know that would be a PR disaster. In fact, the biggest reason Mitt Romney's second cousin Park Romney ( http://www.amazon.com/Apostasy-High-Priest--Sociology-American/dp/074146294X ) repudiated the LDS church was that he found out that its ethical sanctions are **far** from being applied consistently. (A "valuable" member like Mitt Romney [Mitt:LDS::Tom Cruise:Scientology] is certain to "get away" with far more than an ordinary rank-and-file member [and particularly, sad to say, if the rank-and-file member is a **woman**. Abused by your husband? Then go forth, woman, and be a better wife, or suffer the deserved wrath of your lord and master. :-/ ]).
> . . .when it came to California's Prop H8TE. . .
Isn't it interesting, by the way, that the 9th Circuit court of appeals denied the request for an en banc re-hearing of the decision of the original three-judge panel?
All the commentary I saw since the beginning of the year expected that the court **would** grant the en banc request, if for no other reasons than the importance of the case and the lack of prior legal precedent. And everybody expected that, while the ultimate decision was not likely to change, the en banc re-hearing would add at least another year to the process, expecially if all the parties had to file new briefs.
But no -- the Prop 8 case will be submitted to the Supreme Court **this** year. And, of course, there's no guarantee that the Supreme Court will take it, though that too is considered a foregone conclusion. And if so, we'll know the ultimate outcome in about a year. And probably the outcome of the DOMA appeal as well. It's hard to imagine that the two cases would be decided in opposite directions, but who knows? (Where is that fortune-telling octopus when you need her. [Yes, it's a her in the book.]).
Andrew Sullivan on the legitimacy of using the c-word to characterize
ReplyDeleteMitt Romney's church.
Where's The Line Between A Religion And A Cult? Ctd
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/wheres-the-line-between-a-religion-and-a-cult-ctd.html
Where's The Line Between A Religion And A Cult?
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/whats-the-line-between-a-cult-and-a-religion.html
Another amusing Andrew Sullivan dig at the LDS church:
ReplyDelete"[S]omething that has continually struck me as I have read
more and discovered more about Mormonism: it really is a religion
of business for businessmen. Unlike mainstream Christianity,
Mormonism sees no conflict between God and Mammon. . . Making pots of
money is part of God's plan. Joseph Smith, a grifter businessman himself,
proclaimed. . . that there was spiritual glory in capitalism itself -
a heresy clearly at odds with almost everything Jesus himself said and taught.
The business starts with mandatory 10 percent tithing if you want access
to Temples. All that money - estimated at an annual $8 billion - goes
directly to Salt Lake City to a group of powerful businessmen who are
the people who run the Church. There is no transparency. Mormons are
sometimes charged to go make money for the church in various enterprises
(my favorite is a Hawaiian theme-park that pays no taxes because it is
related to church activities and yet brings in $60 million a year). . ."
"Capitalism As A Religion"
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/capitalism-as-a-religion.html
Although business is certainly compatible with Mormonism, it is inaccurate to characterize Mormonism as a religion of business. More accurately, Mormonism could be characterized as a practical this-worldly religion relative to the more mystical other-worldly religions.
ReplyDeleteRomney's Mormonism is certainly low to nowhere on my list of things to despise him for, pathological greed, lying, fecklessness all looking to me more worrisome by far. As a cheerful nonjudgmental atheist for more than a quarter century I will admit I find Mormonism pretty weird for most of the reasons I find comparable UFO cults like Scientology and Raelianism weird, but, hell, so long as they aren't trying to use government to police inequity or bigotry -- like Mormons did do when it came to California's Prop H8TE, but hey -- I'm totally all let a bazillion flowers bloom when it comes to people's private bliss paths.
ReplyDelete> Romney's Mormonism is certainly low to nowhere on my list of things
ReplyDelete> to despise him for, , ,
"Despise" is assuredly too strong a word. "Consider the association to
be a darned good reason he shouldn't be President" is certainly
a reasonable reaction, and high up on the list of warning flags.
It isn't comparable to the concern back in 1960 over JFK being a Catholic --
for one thing, Kennedy explicitly repudiated the authority of the Pope
over his decision-making while in office.
The LDS church does **not** give its members that freedom of
conscience. They may claim to, but if your "conscience" doesn't
lead you to adopt the dictates of the church authorities,
then it isn't God or the Holy Spirit guiding your conscience,
it's the Devil. [*]
This is a church, remember, that had (and still has) blatant
racism embedded in its doctrines about the history of humanity
on Earth. And which explicitly denied full privileges of membership
to blacks until 1978 -- **1978**! -- when "Official Declaration 2" was revealed
by God to the LDS First Presidency, coincidentally forestalling
an ugly political backlash against the church. The same thing will
undoubtedly happen **someday** (but probably not any time soon)
with regard to LGBTQ (or at least GB :-/ ) folks.
[*] Not that Romney's spiritual superiors would **dare** to
call him to account while he was in office. They know that
would be a PR disaster. In fact, the biggest reason Mitt Romney's
second cousin Park Romney
( http://www.amazon.com/Apostasy-High-Priest--Sociology-American/dp/074146294X )
repudiated the LDS church was that he found out that its
ethical sanctions are **far** from being applied consistently.
(A "valuable" member like Mitt Romney [Mitt:LDS::Tom Cruise:Scientology]
is certain to "get away" with far more than an ordinary
rank-and-file member [and particularly, sad to say, if the
rank-and-file member is a **woman**. Abused by your husband?
Then go forth, woman, and be a better wife, or suffer the deserved
wrath of your lord and master. :-/ ]).
> . . .when it came to California's Prop H8TE. . .
ReplyDeleteIsn't it interesting, by the way, that the 9th Circuit court of
appeals denied the request for an en banc re-hearing of the
decision of the original three-judge panel?
All the commentary I saw since the beginning of the year expected
that the court **would** grant the en banc request, if for
no other reasons than the importance of the case and the lack
of prior legal precedent. And everybody expected that, while
the ultimate decision was not likely to change, the en banc
re-hearing would add at least another year to the process,
expecially if all the parties had to file new briefs.
But no -- the Prop 8 case will be submitted to the Supreme Court
**this** year. And, of course, there's no guarantee that
the Supreme Court will take it, though that too is considered
a foregone conclusion. And if so, we'll know the ultimate
outcome in about a year. And probably the outcome of the
DOMA appeal as well. It's hard to imagine that the two
cases would be decided in opposite directions, but who
knows? (Where is that fortune-telling octopus when you
need her. [Yes, it's a her in the book.]).