« One Year Later | Main | Robert Samuelson is a Heartless Monster »

Romney's Terrible Speech

07 Dec 2007 08:46 am

The editors of National Review proclaim that "we suspect that most people who watched the speech were impressed, sympathetic, and sometimes moved." I had an instinct to respond in time, saying that I suspect the speech will fall flat, backfire, etc., etc., etc. But why go meta? In a first-order sense, I thought the speech was dumb, and made Romney look like a deeply dishonest, somewhat foolish person.

Romney rejected the counsel of those who "would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines." But he couldn't actually stick to that line. He felt he desperately needed to reassure Christians worried about his relationship with Christ:

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

It's hard to see this as anything other than an effort to trick people; the Mormon emphasis on Gethsemane rather than the crucification is not a trivial theological difference, nor is the fact that Mormons believe in "another," more important, Testament of Jesus Christ in addition to the Christian Bible. I don't personally have a stake in that quarrel but I paid enough attention in Bible class at Grace Church School to know that this isn't some nothing to be papered over.

Now if Romney had wanted to say that the nature of his beliefs about Jesus are irrelevant to the campaign, fine. Similarly, if he'd actually wanted to avoid discussing Mormon theology, fine. But he didn't stick to it. Instead, what he wanted to do was discuss just enough about Mormon theology to make it seem as similar as possible to orthodox Christianity while underscoring the idea that the nature of his belief in Christ is relevant to the campaign just insofar as his beliefs overlap with those of the Evangelical Protestants whose votes he's courting.

All of this meshes with Romney's disgusting efforts to unite all people of faith under the banner of excluding atheists entirely from his account of virtue. And this, in turn, combines with his ludicrous "say something nice about everyone" paragraph:

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims.

For a passage in a speech dedicated to underscore the centrality and importance of religion, this seems like a pretty superficial understanding of what's going on. What's more "unchanged through the ages" isn't a notably accurate description of the "ancient traditions of the Jews," but I guess he couldn't think of anything else to admire about Judaism. At least it's not as dumb as commending Muslims for their "commitment to frequent prayer," which is just silly.

I've previously taken the view that Mitt Romney would be the least pernicious Republican were he to take the White House, but his entire campaign has been an insult to the collective intelligence of the American people (remember the Reagan Zone of Economic Freedom?) and with this speech he's just taking the trend one step further.

Share This

Comments (207)

"...his entire campaign has been an insult to the collective intelligence of the American people."

And since when has underestimating/insulting the intelligence of the American people ever posed a problem for politicians? Remember how cutting taxes increases government revenues? How trying to bring the boys home from overseas is to undermine our military? Yadda, yadda. Romney unfortunately understands that pandering to the electorate works all too often. That, and his "presidential good looks," would certainly get him the nomination if it weren't for this pesky Mormon business. You can tell he's sincere about his religion -- because otherwise he would have dumped it by now and become an evangelical.

and look at some of the reactions to Mitt's speech. at least to some, this was one of the greatest political speeches ever given.

All plausible Republican candidates are equally pernicious.

What's more "unchanged through the ages" isn't a notably accurate description of the "ancient traditions of the Jews," but I guess he couldn't think of anything else to admire about Judaism.

The Trilateral Commission made him remove the passage where he praised Judaism for its responsible management of the global economy and the American media.

Anyway...

Maybe I have low expectations of Romney (though I don't dislike him), but this speech seemed to do get the job done. Including atheists in his run-down of who gets to participate in American life, and getting into a detailed discussion of Mormon theology, are both good ways to lose support of the religious conservatives this speech was meant to reassure.

So I agree that it wasn't a particularly coherent or inspiring take on the role of religion in public life, but I also don't think that really matters.

I know I'm already conceding the point to Romney by analyzing the speech on purely tactical terms, but it's hard for me to view anything Romney does any other way. If he ends up being the GOP's nominee I have a feeling he'll suddenly have kinder words for people who don't go to church (or synagogue, or mosque, or whatever). So I have a hard time motivating myself to parse the specifics of his supposed "views" on religion in public life.

Not to mention 'the pastoral simplicity of the Schwenkenfelders'...

"the self-defeating celibacy of the Shakers . . ."

Including atheists in his run-down of who gets to participate in American life, and getting into a detailed discussion of Mormon theology, are both good ways to lose support of the religious conservatives this speech was meant to reassure.

the line that stood out to me was :

    “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”

so, atheists are, at best, second-class citizens in Romney's world. they get to leech off the freedom granted to everyone by the faithful.

fuck that guy.

Matt,
Mitt struck a false note when he used that cheap rhetorical device "some people say" that some cable hosts use.

You know - "some people say Arabs hate freedom, but I disagree"

Romney (maybe under the influence of that phoney Hewitt) also did this when he implied a false campaign to get him to back away from Mormonism.

This is absurd - He would be nothing without his Mormon base and no one, but no one, is telling him to back away from it.

Incidenatally - He quoted John Adams, an anti Papist. LOL.

"Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

As a Pastafarian, I'm happy to accept his tolerance.

". . . the Eclectic Wiccans' wonderful disdain for doctrine and dogmatism"

I don't want to minimize the awfulness of Romney's comments about nonbelievers, but I think it's also worth noting what an absurdly reductive view of religion he's pushing here. "Religion" here clearly equals Abrahamic monotheism, and Hindus or Buddhists need not apply.

That's hardly an uncommon view in the US--a lot of pro-school prayer people will claim that appeals to a (monotheistic) God "aren't religious"--but that doesn't make it right.

A speech cannot be great if it contains false notes or demagogic pleadings.

Romney's "some people say" trick was a false note. He showed himself to be a poseur and a bit unsure of himself.

JFK's speech was of a higher literary quality = Plus Kennedy engaged in Q &A with hostile preachers .

Romney should have just kept quiet - But it's amazing that the mental midgets on cable shows - like the sweaty tweety et al pretend that this was a great speech.

They have been trying to pretend this speech was great, but few of them really believe that - They will not watch re-runs of this speech years from now like people do with Kennedy's masterpiece/

Mitt struck a false note when he used that cheap rhetorical device "some people say" that some cable hosts use.

Where did the 'cable hosts' get it? A certain 'Quaker' whose mom 'was a saint'; a classic Nixon construction.

And George W has certainly carried on in that wonderful "some people say" tradition. It's one of his favorite tropes.

About 90 percent of the rhetoric coming from the right seems to consist of setting up straw men and knocking them down.

Amazing that Nixon never had to explain his Quakerism

Unless, you think his Christmas bombing was a form of explaination.

". . . the Eclectic Wiccans' wonderful disdain for doctrine and dogmatism"

Not to mention the snake-handlers' fearlessness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_handling

Why is the emphasis on what occurred in Gethsemane over the actual crucifixion a big "theological" difference?

Theologically, as I understand it, both mainstream Christians and Mormons believe that Jesus "atoned" for our sins -- took the sins of the world upon himself, suffered for them, died, and was resurrected -- all of which somehow made it possible for people to avoid that fate if they repent.

In other words, no big theological difference with regard to Jesus's atonement, as I understand it.

The Mormon focus on Jesus's experience in Gethsemane vs. the mainstream Christian focus on the cross/crucifixion is little more than...well...a difference in focus. They both believe there was an Atonement; they both believe that Gethsemane and the Crucifixion were part of that Atonement.

Where's the big theological difference?

There are definitely LOTS of other differences between mainstream Christianity and Mormonism that constitute big theological differences -- but I don't see how this is one of them.

And it's worth pointing out that OF COURSE your time in Grace Church School would've emphasized the supposed gravity of these "differences" -- whenever one group wants to marginalize and subordinate another group, emphasizing the enormity of the differences between the two groups is key.

It is quite apparent that most who have left comments (and the author of this article) were not his intended audience. I believe it will be considered a great speech, given his audience. My guess is that any atheists, agnostics, etc. that may have gone unmentioned in the speech were not really fence-sitters on supporting Mitt in the first place.

Enjoy this little chat of irrelevancy, reminiscent of ivory tower pontifications. Talking heads.

The insult to atheists, and even to Hindus and Buddhists, is certainly intentional.

Remember, he was introduced before the speech by a man who has declared that atheists cannot be citizens of this country. And the evangelicals to whom he trying to pander do not have a kind view of non-Christian religions.

The primitiveness, illogic, and intolerance of public discourse on religion in our country never ceases to amaze me.

I understand not liking Mitt as a candidate for his pandering, his opportunism, his slickness, his actual stance on the issues, etc. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for him -- especially if you're not planning to vote for the GOP anyway.

But people on the Left really need to cut out the Mormon-marginalizing, and the outright Mormon-bashing.

I don't know the numbers for 2004, but in 2000 only about 60% of Mormons voted for Bush. Think about that for a sec.

In other words, roughly 40% of Mormons nationwide are open to voting for Dems.

I'm one of them. I'm on the Left because I believe in tolerance, egalitarianism, diversity, equality, etc.

But if those values and ideals don't include or actually apply to me, because people on the Left think that Mormons are a bunch of stupid crazy cultists -- well, let's just say it doesn't help the Leftists' cause at all.

The phrase "practice what you preach" doesn't apply only to those who are religious.

The primitiveness, illogic, and intolerance of public discourse on religion in our country never ceases to amaze me.

What do you expect from people nutty enough to believe in ancient myths? Or nuttier still, people who believe in recently concocted myths (ie, Mormons)?

At least it's not as dumb as commending Muslims for their "commitment to frequent prayer," which is just silly.

Why is this silly?

"the intrepid intrusiveness of Jehovah's Witnesses"

I don't give a rip about theological differences. In my mind those questions have unknowable answers.

But I do care about claims to historical fact, namely the Joseph Smith tale and the history of mesoamerica. I don't trust those who believe that silliness, nor do I want creationists to have the authority to allocate nickel one of science or education budgets.

Mitt's faithiness is so complete he ought to found his own Church of Faith instead of running for President.

Enjoy this little chat of irrelevancy, reminiscent of ivory tower pontifications. Talking heads.

Always amusing when someone takes the time to comment about how irrelevant a comment thread is.

oo, I like "faithiness"! First time I've seen that term, I think. Did you invent it, or was it coined elsewhere?

Gregor, I agree, and I certainly understand what he's trying to convey to his intended audience. But if any good comes out of this speech, I hope that it helps expose the "Of faith" schtick as the cheap, contentless bigotry that it is.

There are plenty of people on the would-be "religous left" that indulge in this sort of ecumenical chauvanism, albeit in cuddlier tones. Every time someone like Jim Wallis tell us that religous people can form the "moral center" of the Democratic party, there's no way around who gets placed on moral periphery in exchange.

Tom I think I invented it, but as faithiness is to truthiness as faith is to truth, I guess I owe it all to Stephen Colbert... ;0)

"Religion" here clearly equals Abrahamic monotheism,

Pretty funny since Mormonism is not even monotheistic but tritheistic.

I do care about claims to historical fact, namely the Joseph Smith tale and the history of mesoamerica.

There are Mormons who do not go in for a sweeping literalist reading of the bible or the BofM. In other words, the historical claims of the BofM are not categorically, universally accepted by all Mormons as literally true. They give rise to some controversy even within the Church.

And the Joseph Smith "tale" -- I assume you're referring to his claims of visions -- makes claims to "historical fact" that are unknowable from a historical point of view. You can't claim to know for "historical fact" that Joseph Smith did NOT have visions, can you? All you can do is disbelieve it. That's fine, but don't try to say that your beef is based in "historical fact."

Matt B -

But I do care about claims to historical fact, namely the Joseph Smith tale and the history of mesoamerica. I don't trust those who believe that silliness

But you're okay with people who believe that the death and ressurrection of Jesus occurred as historical fact? Because those guys get elected president all of the time.

Not to defend LDS - whose theology I find as absurd as anything you'll find in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Santaria, Vodun, Wicca, Thorism, Pastafarianism, and most other religions, and somewhat slightly less absurd than the theology of Scientology, Raelism and the Worship of the God of the Invisible Hand - but why should adherents of LDS be excluded from office just because they believe something "different but equally weird" as the guy who holds the office now? Or the guy who held the office previously? Or any of the guys who have held the office for the last 200 years or so?

I am a converted mormon, I am not kooky... I am a mom of five and want a candidate that will make the US a better place for my children! Just because I am a certain faith does not mean I only will vote for a Mormon. I believe separation of church and state is a must. Isn't that why we came to exist as a nation? If you all want separation of church and state why does Romney's relgion even matter. Aren't the issues important here? Isn't that what running for an office implies? Whether he is Mormon, Jew or Evangelical, does it really matter? Vote for a candidate that best matches your views. Stop bashing people for their religion and invest you time in making a difference on the issues you believe in!

"For the first time in this campaign and it has been long already, I heard greatness this morning."
-- Chris Matthews - MSNBC

"It was a magnificent speech, splendidly delivered, it was moving… I don't know how he could have done it better. I mean I was very moved."
-- Pat Buchanan - MSNBC

"...he hit it out of the park."
-- Joe Scarborough - MSNBC
"Frankly, I thought what we saw today, folks, was a Republican candidate for president giving an inspiring speech. It was an inspiring speech about American values..."
-- Rush Limbaugh

"Mitt Romney, who sure looked presidential, explained effectively that he is a man of faith who is committed to America's values."
-- Kate O’Beirne - National Review’s The Corner

"Gov. Romney’s speech was a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must play in government and public policy. His delivery was passionate and his message was inspirational."
-- James C. Dobson, PH.D. - Focus on the Family Action founder and chairman

I've grown used to Matt referring to Romney as the least pernicious Republican and for a while I agreed. But the more I think about it the less I think this is so. I think most observers would agree that, whatever his positions over the years on social issues, Romney is a true big money Republican. Whatever their many other faults, people like McCain and Huckabee and even Ron Paul appear to have some principles on issues that would make them less worse than Romney, whose primary goal as President would be to make the wealthy wealthier and do whatever else is needed to retain the support of enough Republican voters to be re-elected. As much as it nauseates me to even think about a President McCain or President Huckabee, I could see those guys taking stands on _some_ issues that would be unpopular with their base and with which I would agree. Romney has made it clear that he will do whatever he needs to make the base happy. The more I think about it, the more I consider Romney in the top tier of pernicious Republican candidates (although in truth, Giuliani has the top tier all to himself).

NonyNony, why should faith matter at all? Do you think Romney's statements on faith being necessary for freedom or that the President should be a person of faith are silly or not?

Me, I think it's all so much shameless pandering on Romney's part for the evangelical vote.

Mormonism is not even monotheistic but tritheistic

Depends on what you mean by "monotheism." If you believe "God" is a proper name, like "Steve," referring to a singular entity, and "monotheism" requires the belief in or devotion to this singular entity, called "God," then it's probably fair to say that Mormons are not precisely monotheistic.

(Mainstream Christians would claim that the three identities of the trinity are manifestations or expressions of the same singular entity -- so "God" still refers to a singular entity, though "He" takes different forms or appears in different ways. This is their way around the monotheism problem.)

My view/interpretation of Mormonism entails a conception of "God" that is different from the proper-name ("Steve") conception. I think a fair presentation of Mormonism is to say that "God" is more like a title or an office than a proper name -- like "President" or "Council." The Mormon conception of "God" involves more than a singular entity: the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost -- these are separate entities, not merely separate identities of the same singular entity. But they are all part of ("one" as) the same "God" ("Council" or "Presidency"). Another way that Mormons talk about this is to refer to the "Godhead" (the Mormon version of the "trinity").

So...Mormons are "monotheistic" in that they believe in a singular "God" -- there is only one "God" (like there is only one "Presidency" or "Council"), to be followed, worshiped, etc. -- but they are not "monotheistic" if this requires believing "God" must be a singular entity (like "Steve").

Bottom line: mainstream Christians have the trinity-conception as their means of getting around the monotheism problem, and Mormons have their godhead-conception as their means of getting around the monotheism problem.

The fight, then, for mainstream Christians, is to try to convince everyone that the Mormons' way around is illegitimate (because some group of guys in the 19th c made it up), while somehow the trinitarian way around is legit (because some group of guys in the 5th c made it up).

Matthew, what planet are you from? Your story is takes the title of "terrible". Romney's speech was magnificient and may very likely be one of the greatest speechs on freedom of religion ever given.

Get with it or find a new job!

Matt, you simply don't know what you're talking about. There is a tremendous amount of variation in Christian teaching and theology beyond the caricature presented in conservative Catholic schools and Jack Chick tracts. In the Episcopal Church alone, I've met priests who taught that Hell didn't exist, who didn't believe in angels or the existence of the soul, who taught that the crucifixion wasn't a necessary sacrifice but a tragic accident. Yet every one of these people had a distinct and coherent moral and theological framework ultimately rooted in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and all of them would be really pissed if you claimed they weren't Christian.

Mormons worship Jesus Christ. That sounds pretty damn Christian to me, and it's not for me or you or anybody else to say they aren't. Your constant need to assert that "real" Christians should consider Mitt Romney's religion phony is bizarre bordering on the offensive. My most charitable interpretation of this is that it's mere political hackery - you're using your platform at The Atlantic to spread the meme that Romney is a heretic in order to make him less palatable to social conservatives. The notion that you, as an utter ignoramus regarding Christian belief and the diversity of Christian thought, would be so persistent in weighing in on the "authentic Christianness" of the LDS Church is pretty fucking offensive.

FWIW, after 36 years of experiencing Mormons and Mormonism in eight different states (West coast, New England, Texas, and Utah/Idaho), I feel confident in saying that Mitt's Mormonism will have very little overt or visible impact or influence on his presidency (were he to win it). Sure, it informs his worldview. But I feel confident in saying that it would not be as overt or as prominent as Bush's Evangelical Christianity has been (or Huckabee's would be).

Romney's just playing up the religion stuff to play to the party that Robertson/Rove/Bush built -- and because he knows (now) that his main competition for that party's vote is Huckabee (the true inheritor of the Robertson/Rove/Bush legacy).

This sort of pandering is reason enough to be concerned about Romney's candidacy -- but let's not forget that the Clintons have quite the record for pandering. Most politicians do. Some just do it better (less detectable) than others.

At heart, Romney's a business administrator. I think he has the actual skills to be more successful than the other GOP hopefuls. Unfortunately, he feels he has to play up the god-talk in order to get in the door.

And the fact is, he's right. If he didn't, Huckabee would run away with this thing.

Meanwhile, vote for Obama and let the GOP folks do what they feel they've gotta do.

Romney will win the primary and the presidency. He is the complete candidate. Nobody else comes even close. This speech (written by him)shows that he is nobody's fool when it comes to faith. He is every bit a faithful person as anyone in this great land. However, you may also note that this speech reveals his personal life philosophies: for him faith and reason go together. He can at once live in the inspiring world of doctrines and vision while at the same time be solidly grounded in the here-and-now. No other candidate has this type of breadth. Mr. Huckabee is lost in the world of lofty speeches and squishy emotion (which leads to bad governance and bad decisions such as paroling serial rapists because of the grace of Christ) while Mr. Giuliani is in a foreign land talking about faith and religion. With the remaining time before the primaries, I think people will be able to see the deficiencies of both Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Huckabee. I'm impressed by Mitt Romney. I believe he will win the day and actually be the best U.S. President in a century.

"For the first time in this campaign and it has been long already, I heard greatness this morning." - Chris Matthews

God I despise Chris Matthews.

I feel that Romney completely missed what he needed to do with his speech. Americans have concerns over how Mormonism will or will not effect his political views, but he barely addressed this in his speech. In Kennedy's version of this speech, he referred to his Catholicism repeatedly, and assured Americans that if the Pope was pressuring his decisions as president, then he would promptly resign. This assurance worked. Romney, on the other hand, barely refers to his religion by name, and his main goal seems to be to convince religious conservatives that his beliefs are the same as theirs.

And, quite frankly, I am suprised that there has not been more outrage over his discussion of religion in the public sphere. He says quite plainly that atheists have it wrong. He single handedly condemns 200 years of secularization in the United States.

He is every bit a faithful person as anyone in this great land.

Ladies and gents, I present to you the nadir of political discourse.

Here is a link to the full speech. I strongly recommend listening to it.

http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=718280

I have met Mitt, and he is one of the most sincere and humble people I have ever met. I don't think his polish takes away from that.

At the very least, he puts his money where his mouth is.

I will vote for Mitt, and Mitt only.

And, quite frankly, I am suprised that there has not been more outrage over his discussion of religion in the public sphere. He says quite plainly that atheists have it wrong. He single handedly condemns 200 years of secularization in the United States.

Dude, where the fuck have you been the last 30 years?

I have met Mitt, and he is one of the most sincere and humble people I have ever met. I don't think his polish takes away from that.

At the very least, he puts his money where his mouth is.

I will vote for Mitt, and Mitt only.

Jumpin' Jehosaphat. A Mittbot!

(Rombot?)

The speech was anything but terrible; the people that call Romney unintelligent are obviously exteremly unintelligent themselves.

He wants to win the nomination; he needs the evangelicals; the evangelicals hate mormons; he's a mormon; try to get the evangelicals to not hate mormons...

Its all logical...Whether you like or not is all of matter of opinion - but it makes retional sense.

As far as terrible, have you hear "W" give a speech lately? That's terrible.

WOW WOW WOW --- This article is the STUPIDEST hack-job I've ever read. BOOO HOOOO. Even Hitchens could see that this article is a traitor to its cause.

Where did the 'cable hosts' get it? A certain 'Quaker' whose mom 'was a saint'; a classic Nixon construction. - jonnybutter

I forget the quote and the historian who said it, but some historian (wit kinda intended) once said something to the effect of "Nixon's favorite source to cite is 'Some Would'".

Re: Nixon's Quakerism -- remember (as was discussed on a thread here (?) yesterday) ... the issue back in 1960 was not theological but that JFK would take orders from the Whore of Babylon known as the Pope ... actually, by talking about religious tests and what not, Kennedey completely reframed the issue on terms which were friendlier to him (note to Dems. -- this is how it is done), when the actual concern of people (which was based on prejudice) was not that Kennedy couldn't pass a religious test but that he had "dual loyalties".

A Quaker (who proved himself a bad enough Quaker that he went to war, and thus addressed the national security concern) wouldn't have had any issues in 1960 'cause the concern wasn't whether and how you believed in Jesus, but where your loyalties were. Nixon proved he was (theoretically) willing to die for his country by going to war, so people knew he was loyal to this country ... and to whom else would a Quaker be loyal. OTOH, JFK had to address prejudice that Catholics would be primarily loyal to another head of state, namely the Pope.

Nowadays, though, we have explicitly ventured into "religious test" territory in a way that was unthinkable in Kennedy's day (in part because of the greater politicization of pre-millenialists and the right wing turn of post-millenialists ... so we have more people who like religious tests actually engaged in the political sphere than we did in 1960). I doubt if a Quaker or a Unitarian could get elected today, even if many got elected in the past. Even Obama is gonna have a tough time if he's the Dem. nominee 'cause the spiritual descendents of the Pilgrims and Puritans are amazingly not Christian enough to pass our society's religious tests. OTOH, nowadays, unlike in 1960, it would behoove a Catholic to be a stereotypical Papist 'cause then he would be a "man of faith" (e.g. Kerry got into trouble for not sticking to the Catholic party line 100%) -- if 1960 were replayed today, what JFK would have to play down would be his heterodoxy, not any loyalty to the Pope meanwhile it would be Nixon who would be forced to answer for his faith.

Bill,

At ease, my friend. Does anything that has taken place the last 30 years negate what has happened for the past 200? And regardless of what has happened the past 30 years, does that make what he says less alarming and/or controversial?

Romney will win the primary and the presidency. He is the complete candidate. Nobody else comes even close. This speech (written by him)shows that he is nobody's fool when it comes to faith.

". . . the aw-shucks credulousness of the Political Die-Hards"

Mainstream Christians would claim that the three identities of the trinity are manifestations or expressions of the same singular entity -- so "God" still refers to a singular entity, though "He" takes different forms or appears in different ways. - Jason

So, how is this different than Hinduism then? Nu? By this standard the Hindus are also Monotheistic as they believe their gods to be "manifestations or expressions of a singular entity" ...

"If you all want separation of church and state why does Romney's relgion even matter."

Because Mr. Romney is insisting that it matter.

the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews,

Why did Mitt waste verbiage praising both the lutefisk of the Lutherans and the pickled herring of the Jews?

Brevity is the soul of wit (I know -- I'm a hypocrite to point that out). Romney should have praised "the rotted fish products of the Lutherans and the Jews".

Actually, given the existance of fish sauce, he could have been even more ecumenical praising "the rotten fish products of the Lutherans, Jews and Threvada Buddhists".

;)

*

Seriously, though -- I don't blame Romney for thinking Jewish traditions more ancient than they are. Many Jews, from secularists with only a passing aquaintance with "the old ways" to the "to Moses at Sinai" crowd, tend not to realize that Judaism (as distinct from the cultic practices of the ancient Hebrews) really only got off the ground just as the first exile became inevitable (Jeremaiah was the first Prophet to refer to "Jews") and the Mishna was compiled around the same time the NT was cannonized. So in some ways, Judaism really is only as old as Christianity, although it's roots are far deeper.

Romney will win the primary and the presidency. He is the complete candidate. Nobody else comes even close. This speech (written by him)shows that he is nobody's fool when it comes to faith. He is every bit a faithful person as anyone in this great land.

this, and the comments i linked-to above, have convinced me that Romney supporters are watching memorandum or Google Alerts or something, looking for discussions of the speech and dumping these lavish, hyperbolic comments about Romney wherever they find one. they all have the same tone, the same ridiculous claims and they all started yesterday. it's Astroturf-spam.

that, or a parody troll is having a blast doing the same thing.

"... the fantastic natural rhythm of Santeria, the firm belief in material progress of the cargo cults of Papua New Guinea, the simple awe of the sect in Tanna in the Solomon Islands who worship Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, as a living god, the... erm... the dedication of the Thuggees..." (contd. p. 94)

Matthew,
The public sphere and political discourse in the US have been riddled with religion from the beginning. The secularist aspirations of church-and-state separation, "no religious litmus test," etc, have always been aspirations -- ideals held by many, but never fully realized. You cannot plausibly claim that the US has been a secular nation for 200 years. It just isn't true.

I for one believe in the ideal of church-and-state separation, and think it's an aspiration worth having. But I'm not naive enough to claim that the US has always been secularist. The last 35 yrs have seen an uptick in religious rhetoric in the political sphere, but it's always been there in one form or another.

As evidence: the Founders' drive for religious freedom and diversity was reaction to the dominance of a single-church state. They weren't pushing for secularism (no church); they were pushing for religious freedom and diversity. Big difference. Public discourse about religion has been there ever since.

Yes Romney's intelligent and reasonable in a self-interested way. Which is why he's also a shameless panderer. Great speeches do not pander. Neither do great men.

Alerts or something, looking for discussions of the speech and dumping these lavish, hyperbolic comments about Romney wherever they find one. they all have the same tone, the same ridiculous claims and they all started yesterday. it's Astroturf-spam.

Oh, I don't think it's a natural outpouring of support, I figured that out just with this thread. Not astroturf in the traditional sense though, if someone was paying for this the crazy, Romney worship would be literate anyway.

"the staunch conservatism of the Aztecs, who never tested the theory that the sun might rise without daily human sacrifices"


(wish i'd thought of the cargo cults)

"I feel that Romney completely missed what he needed to do with his speech. Americans have concerns over how Mormonism will or will not effect his political views, but he barely addressed this in his speech."

He clearly stated in concise language that the church would have no bearance on his decisions as president. Were you sleeping during that part? This was actually the point of his whole speech, you just missed it. He clearly stated that it really didn't matter what religion you belong to, because that shouldn't determine how you vote. That's why he cited all the different religions in the US and praised them for what they are, because they make America a free nation. If it weren't for the principles and values of the founders that were derived from their religious convictions America wouldn't exist. That's why he says that religion is important to freedom, and freedom is important to religion. One cannot exist without the other. He also stated that it was the values and morals that are important in making your vote. If you have the same morals and values from your religion (or lack of religion)(because that is what applies in government decisions and public issues) then he is the candidate for you to choose.

how is this different than Hinduism then? Nu? By this standard the Hindus are also Monotheistic as they believe their gods to be "manifestations or expressions of a singular entity"

Maybe it isn't much different from Hinduism, on that level, or in that regard. I don't know enough about Hinduism to say much about the comparison. But you're referring to mainstream Christianity here. The difference for Mormonism is that is does NOT see "gods" as "manifestations or expressions of a singular entity"; it sees "God" as inclusive of multiple entities.

In other words, where for the trinitarian-Christian an analogy might be an Actor playing three different roles (Father, Son, Holy Ghost), for the Mormon an analogy might be three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) jointly-holding office.

So many people are trying to read so much more into this speech than was intended. It was intended to satisfy the christian conservatives (albeit his referrence to serving no one religion, or religion for that matter, but serving the people should also satisfy the atheists and anyone else).

I'm mormon, married to an agnostic, am a democrat, very educated, and I can look at this speech from an objective logical view and see there should be no offense. So many people want to turn things into negatives, cry victim remain in their own little world. We all could be more tolerant.

Great speeches do not pander. Neither do great men.

C'mon. You're not serious are you? I mean, this might be a nice ideal. But I doubt you can name a single "great man" (why not "great person"???) who didn't pander somewhere along the way -- or a "great speech" that didn't involve some pandering somewhere in its margins.

Pandering is typically, justifiably looked down upon, but in a democracy it's hard to avoid. Like I said earlier, some are just better at it than others, insomuch as they're less detectable in their panderings.

Think about it this way: whenever you hear a "leader" saying something that you really like and agree with, there's always the chance that there was some element of pandering (to you and people like you) involved in the saying of it. We just call it "pandering" when it appears disingenuous or calculated. There are LOTS of times that it doesn't appear to be so -- so we fail to detect it for what it is: somewhat disingenuous or calculated.

...the innocent unwavering pleasure of the Order of the Nine Angles as they sexually penetrate and orally consume anything...

...the commitment to sacrifice of the Maya...

...the establishment for the grounds of the Enlightenment and all technological advancement in Europe and America of the Secularists...

I am an undecided voter at the moment - and frankly I think there is a lot of talent in both parties - but to single out this religion and pin it all on Mitt Romney is really not very christian at all. It also misses the mark in evaluating the candidates true qualifications.Isn't the real question for voters whether or not Mitt Romney is qualified to be president and whether or not he would do a good job?

To those who raise the Mormon card as a disqualifier for public office, I challenge them to look at the fruits of the religion - most Mormons are upstanding people of character that work hard to serve their fellow human beings of all religions and circumstances as well as their God. They see christ as the savior of mankind

Are some of the Mormon beliefs different than other Christian religions? Sure- but many many are the same. An honest reading of the Bible, or any other religious text will find readings that strain the logical and intellectual mind. Angels, floods, healings, burning bushes, etc... Are these all logical? Remember all the wars and slayings of christians for their incredible and illogical beliefs?
Religion is based on a spiritual belief that inspires men and women to better themselves. While good people can be found in all walks of life, all religions and among those who don't believe in god, you will find their convictions to goodness and decency the same.

Enough of bashing a religion that stresses the desire to be good to others and to live life accordingly. To those who can't get enough of it - ask yourself if this is really the pertinent question at hand and also get some facts straight. I've heard a lot of inaccuracies about Mormons and mormonism this past week.

It's a shame to see those who claim that religious freedom and respect does not apply to the Mormon faith inject these into this candidacy.

...the commitment to social drinking of the Episcopals...

...the achievements of the Scientologists in the fields of cinema and television...

"Enough of bashing a religion that stresses the desire to be good to others and to live life accordingly. To those who can't get enough of it - ask yourself if this is really the pertinent question at hand and also get some facts straight. I've heard a lot of inaccuracies about Mormons and mormonism this past week.

It's a shame to see those who claim that religious freedom and respect does not apply to the Mormon faith inject these into this candidacy."

The Mittbots don't seem to realize that it's not the Dems that hold Romney's Mormonism against him. They won't vote for him because he's a slimy, bigoted idiot, not because he's a Mormon. It's the people in his own party -- who normally LIKE the bigotry and idiocy -- who he has a problem with.

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document, which would seem to decisively undercut the assertions made by Romney that faith is somehow a requirement for freedom. Romney's pandering to evangelicals on that score is clearly intended to signal to them that he's really on their side of the whole Church of Faith silliness. Unfortunately for Romney, there are plenty of evangelicals who take their faith more seriously than that and aren't enamored of having a Mormon President. Which is why the secularist approach to government makes a great deal of sense when you start taking such things into consideration.

Jason,

I was not claiming that the United States has been a secular nation for the past 200 years. I was claiming that the United States has, in general, moved in a secular direction. Obviously religion has played an active role in politics since the beginning, but that role has diminished in many respects, with some exceptions over the years, but even the founders feared the influence of fundamentalist religious groups.

all technological advancement in Europe and America of the Secularists...

Whoa. I know this string of parody-comments is meant humorously, but it's a bit over the top to suggest that "all technological advancement" has come from secularists, no? Quite a bit of technological advancement has come in pursuit of religious practice, after all. (Think better ways to build things -- altars, monuments, temples, etc.)

...the arcane holy magic of Zigibrond Greycloak, Dispeller of the Undead, 12th-level cleric and interchangeable personality of one Randy Buddles of Wichita, Kansas...

So many people are trying to read so much more into this speech than was intended. It was intended to satisfy the christian conservatives.

Shane, no one disagrees with this, but that's the very issue that's bugging people. All you need to do is read "Dr." Dobson's response to see what he intended to achieve. (See a comment above.) This was wink-and-nod politics to a crowd of people who wanted to hear that Romney would be a crusader against atheists and agnostics just like they are; if he convinced them, they'd overlook his theology's difference from theirs.

To wit, here are three paragraphs from Byron York:

"I was the most enthusiastic," Smith said, "because there were several things that resonated with me that only an evangelical would notice. For instance, he talked about the coldness and deadness of religion in Europe. That is something that is talked about in evangelical churches almost every Sunday – somebody will say, 'The mission trip to Wales is starting next week.' Mike Huckabee might say something like that, but that's not something you would say unless you had a really good speechwriter or you were very tuned in to evangelicalism."

In addition, Smith told me, "There is a lot of talk in evangelicalism that we have gotten away from the Founders' views of what religion was. A lot of evangelicals are having conversations where we pull these quotes from John Adams and others that you can't have a decent society unless you've got strong religion…It's something evangelicals talk about a lot."

The point here, I think, is not that no one else would have noticed those words, but that Romney knew they would have special resonance for evangelicals. Those are the kind of dog-whistle references that politicians will sometimes put in speeches – remember when George W. Bush referred to the "wonder working power" of the goodness of the American people? – that are meant to be especially noticed by a particular group.

Good job on the dog whistle politics, but that's still what it was, and for those of us who weren't the whistle's intended targets, it smacks of an offensive, government-backed effort to defeat the nonbelievers.

Weird that it only italicized one.

Whoa. I know this string of parody-comments is meant humorously, but it's a bit over the top to suggest that "all technological advancement" has come from secularists, no? Quite a bit of technological advancement has come in pursuit of religious practice, after all. (Think better ways to build things -- altars, monuments, temples, etc.)

Well, secular or religious, nobody figured out better ways to build things by praying to the Almighty.

David W,
Not sure what you mean by "the Constitution is a secular document." It doesn't espouse or endorse secularism over religion, or vice versa; it is silent on this divide. So far as I recall, it is only the 1st Amend that makes any comment on religion, and it provides for free exercise and moves against the state's "establishment" of religion. I'm not sure this can be taken as an espousal of secularism -- the better argument, I think, is that it is a protection of religious diversity (including, I think, the allowance for non-religion). The Constitution, so far as I can tell, is only "secular" in the negative sense -- that is, that it is "not religious." If that's all you mean, then fine. But "secular" these days tends to have a positive quality to it -- that is, meaning more than merely "not religious," as in affirmatively "against" or "exclusive of" religion. I don't see how one can claim the Constitution is "secular" in this sense.

Matthew,
I don't think you can successfully argue that the US has moved in a secular direction. The graph that would track the prominence or predominance of religion in American public discourse would have peaks and valleys, and (IMO) no clear trend downward (away from religion). And the Founders were a diverse bunch -- some of them were members of fundamentalist groups, while others feared the influence of those groups. Again, evidence of the part that religion has always played in our public discourse.

"... the self-congratulatory witticisms of Yglesias commentators" (which I personally find hilarious)

Well, secular or religious, nobody figured out better ways to build things by praying to the Almighty.

How do you know? I mean, can you really make that empirical claim? It isn't provable, one way or the other. Let's say I'm a secularist and I spend a lot of time thinking about a problem, until I finally figure out how to solve it technologically. Then let's say I'm religious and I spend a lot of time praying about a problem, until I finally figure out how to solve it technological. You will probably claim that the "praying" was really just "thinking," and that the "praying" didn't actually do any good. But you don't know that. There's no way to prove that heavenly inspiration (or whatever one might call it) played no part in the "figuring out" of things.

In fact, the believer might claim that even the secularist was inspired by God -- that God inspires or provides intelligence for the good of humanity, etc.

Again, it's not something that can be proven or disproven.

Thank you, Matt, for sticking your neck out on this one. I also thought this was one of the most craven, insulting, and mockable political speeches I've ever witnessed.

Thank you, Matt, for sticking your neck out on this one. I also thought this was one of the most craven, insulting, and mockable political speeches I've ever witnessed.

Romney's cafeteria-style nod to various other creeds was also excruciating:

I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims.

Superficial nonsense. That's the faux-embrace of the consummate bullshitter, or, may I say, the consummate Mormon doorknocker.

Jason, the Constitution is a secular document in that it does not permit matters of faith to enter into the functions of government. That's what the so-called "establishment clause" of the First Amendment is all about. Everyone is free to profess their faith (or lack of same), including those who run for office, and everyone is free to judge them accordingly by the tenents of their own faith (or lack of it). Mitt Romney is free to claim that a President should be a "person of faith", and I'm free to say that such is not the case base my own vote on that and other issues. However such de facto religious litmus tests such as Romney's should be seen for what they are, namely pandering to religious bigots. After all, John F. Kennedy back in 1960 did not say that only Roman Catholics should be President.

re jason:
"So...Mormons are "monotheistic" in that they believe in a singular "God" -- there is only one "God" (like there is only one "Presidency" or "Council"), to be followed, worshiped, etc. -- but they are not "monotheistic" if this requires believing "God" must be a singular entity (like "Steve")."

This is not true. I have been a mormon my whole life. Mormons believe that God the father, Jesus Christ and the Holy ghost are 3 seperate entities, three seperate gods.

I don't think I will vote for Romney simply because I feel like he is putting on a front and that he will do or say anything to be accepted so he can grab the gop.

Of course he is going to be influenced by the prophet on political matters if he is really a believing mormon. "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done" because he speaks for god.

"Well, secular or religious, nobody figured out better ways to build things by praying to the Almighty."

You just hit it on the point bill. That is exactly where secularism and religion draws the line. When secularists figure out something they attribute the brilliance to human intelligence. When someone of faith is "enlightened" or "inspired" to figure something out, they attribute the thought to the giver of the information, in this case God.

So basically your statement is only true if you are a secularist.

Crap, this is what happens when I haven't had my coffee.

You moonbats can bash Mitt all you want but the simple fact is that when you nominate Hillary you are guarenteeing that our next president will be Romney or Rudy. Just when I think I have seen the ultimate example of idiocy from the left you guys up your game. Go ahead and nominate the bitch. Make our fuckign day you leftists scumbags!

I mean, can you really make that empirical claim? It isn't provable, one way or the other. Let's say I'm a secularist and I spend a lot of time thinking about a problem, until I finally figure out how to solve it technologically. Then let's say I'm religious and I spend a lot of time praying about a problem, until I finally figure out how to solve it technological. You will probably claim that the "praying" was really just "thinking," and that the "praying" didn't actually do any good. But you don't know that. There's no way to prove that heavenly inspiration (or whatever one might call it) played no part in the "figuring out" of things.

In fact, the believer might claim that even the secularist was inspired by God -- that God inspires or provides intelligence for the good of humanity, etc.

Again, it's not something that can be proven or disproven.

Divine inspiration can't be disproven. But that doesn't mean there's no difference between reason and revelation.

Reason (whether empiricism or deduction) is reproducible, observable, and testable. If you test the strength of one marble column and then calculate how much weight 20 columns can hold, Other men can replicate your experiment and evaluate the soundness of your calculations.

If, by contrast, God has revealed to you that 20 columns will hold a 40 foot granite dome . . . there's nothing but the bald assertion to check or verify. We have to rely on your account of what God said. Of course, we could have faith, build the temple, and see what happens, but that's empiricism again.

"...the lunatic gibbering of those who have seen the faces of the Old Ones, and annihilated their hideous enlightenment by embracing the nepenthe of insanity..."

Ack, my response begins with "Divine inspiration can't be disproven." Everything above it should be italicized.

Nick, that's one of the best arguments against religion I've ever read. God withholds the information we need in his sacred texts, and then later "gives us ideas" whether or not we ask for them. But He loves us. And we should pray anyway, else we end up in a pit of flaming sulphurous despair that he tells us about in the same texts that don't give us any good scientific ideas in the first place.

The logical circles that people run in to justify believing in the unseen are truly phenomenal.

On a side note...

Make our fuckign day you leftists scumbags!

I assure you that in the event Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I will very much enjoy making your day, punk.

Wow, I've never seen so much fellating in one thread before. I know you Mittbots think Mitt's hot, but come on man, give his cock a rest, he's got worlds to populate or something.

"Not sure what you mean by "the Constitution is a secular document." It doesn't espouse or endorse secularism over religion, or vice versa; it is silent on this divide. "

Well, there's the no religious tests for office, etc., and as you note the establishment clause. And otherwise, nothing. Exactly. It's secular.

"But "secular" these days tends to have a positive quality to it -- that is, meaning more than merely "not religious," as in affirmatively "against" or "exclusive of" religion.

And while some of us secularists probably are a little to blame, my guess is that most of the responsibility falls on the anti-secularists, the folks who rail against secularism, secular humanism, secular progressives, etc., trying to present it as a rival (and evil) religion.

" I don't see how one can claim the Constitution is "secular" in this sense."

Hey, take it up with the folks who oppose our secular Constitution (if never in so many words, and often without knowing what they do), and insist that it's really a Christian Nation.

I assure you that in the event Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I will very much enjoy making your day, punk.

Just like alll you moonbats made it by getting Kerry elected right?

Save your breath trotsky. I've heard it all before. Do us normal Americans a favor and just take your ass whipping and shut the fuck up this time.

Great Editorial: Mormonism is secretive, coercive, and anti-Christian. The "Jesus" of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the gospels. Christians BEWARE!

Yglesias's Terrible Blog! Worthless analysis. You have shamed the good name of the Atlantic. It's clear that anyone, and I mean ANYONE can start a blog.

It's no wonder so many of the founders of our constitution were "Deists". Their intelligence level would be insulted by the shallow preaching of 18th century ministers. Imagine how they would have reacted to the fanaticism of today's bible belt bigots! Judge a man, if you must, on his character, not on whether he goes to the same Sunday School as you do.

Save your breath trotsky. I've heard it all before. Do us normal Americans a favor and just take your ass whipping and shut the fuck up this time.

Wow, I didn't know this website could actually hold up comments in the server from early 2005.

David W,
You say: the Constitution is a secular document in that it does not permit matters of faith to enter into the functions of government

Can you show me where the Const does this? I'm sure you can find a copy somewhere....

veto,
I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying. I stated clearly that Mormonism does believe that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate entities. They could be referred to as three separate "gods" -- but to stay consistent with "monotheism," Mormonism says they are all jointly one "God" -- thus, "God" is conceptualized as something like an office or title, rather than a proper name having reference only to a single entity.

southpaw,
I think you're trying to draw lines between "reason" and "inspiration" that are not so easily drawn. The believer can claim that reason is inspiration, or inspired. And empiricism requires an element of faith (i.e., it must suspend skepticism and reason at some point).

Dan S,
I think you misunderstood me a little. If you mean "secular" in the simple "not religious" sense, then sure, one could say the Const is "secular." But "secular" these days tends to mean affirmatively "not religious" -- as in against or in opposition to religion. I do not think you can say the Const is "secular" in this strong sense, the way many (most?) "secularists" want to say it is.

Jason, you can read the First Amendment's establishment clause as well as I can, I'm sure. I mentioned that fact to you in my previous reply, after all.

Romney was trying to fool people by saying he believes in Christ??? What do you mean mormons emphasize Gethsemane over the cross? Are kidding me?

Get over it. There's no deception. Most Christians believe Christ the last time Christ ever revealed himself to man was 2000 years ago near Jerusalem, just before his ascension. Mormons believe that was not the last time nor the last place. THAT'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE. Big deal, get over it, and stop trying to trademark the phrase "Christian."

Jason,

Please explain what you think the Establishment Clause means in terms of a restriction on the involvement of religion in government. What test do you propose we should apply to civil laws and public policies to identify the ones that violate the Establishment Clause?

I think you're trying to draw lines between "reason" and "inspiration" that are not so easily drawn. The believer can claim that reason is inspiration, or inspired. And empiricism requires an element of faith (i.e., it must suspend skepticism and reason at some point).

There's not much to respond to here. Believers can claim all sorts of things--doesn't make them true.

And I can't really recapitulate the arguments of the Enlightenment in a blog comment, except to say this: Reasoning seeks to eliminate faith (as much as possible) and embrace doubt: To admit as much as possible what we don't know in order to determine those few things we do actually know. If this capacity to probe the limits of doubt is God's gift, then it's a wonderful one. But it is a different gift from religious faith. There's a reason we go to people of science to build our houses, heal our illnesses, and solve our crimes . . . their methods are more reliable for those purposes than those of the religiously inspired.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Yes, I can read this. How do you interpret this to mean that the Const "does not permit matters of faith to enter into the functions of government." That's a pretty expansive inference you're drawing, isn't it?

The Estab Clause has been interpreted by the Court to mean, basically, that the govt cannot directly support or advance (i.e., "establish" or "endorse") religion. But that's not the same as forbidding "matters of faith" from "entering into the functions of govt."

I'm afraid you won't be able to find anything in the textual Const that "does not permit" what you claim it does not permit.

Mind you, I'm not advocating that matters of faith ought to enter into functions of govt -- I am merely pointing out that the Const does not forbid this from occurring. It only forbids the govt from doing too much to support religion.

Mixner,
The Estab Clause is not about restricting the involvement of religion in govt -- it is about restricting the involvement of govt in religion. It is primarily about restricting govt from establishing a single-church state, but it has evolved so as to be about restricting govt from overtly or directly supporting ("endorsing") religion in general.

There are not many guards against religion having an influence in govt, so far as I can tell. Freedoms of speech, belief, association, etc., allow religious actors to participate in govt functions and processes, same as anyone else.

Personally, I think the basic "advance or inhibit" test is best, when trying to determine whether govt action violates the Estab Clause (advancing religion) or Free Exercise (inhibiting religion). If the govt act advances or inhibits, then it violates -- unless it does so neutrally (i.e. does not specifically target religion), narrowly (i.e. it isn't too sweeping), and there is a compelling state interest at stake.

But of course, 1st Amend jurisprudence has evolved to allow much more govt support of religion than I would allow if I were in charge.

Bottom line: there still isn't much to guard against religious involvement in govt.

Jason,

Personally, I think the basic "advance or inhibit" test is best, when trying to determine whether govt action violates the Estab Clause (advancing religion) or Free Exercise (inhibiting religion).

But what do you mean by "advance or inhibit?" Let's say we're applying the test to a law that punishes people who engage in homosexual sex. Some religions are extremely hostile to homosexual sex, while others are indifferent to it. Does such a law "advance" the former religions? Depends on what exactly you mean by "advance." What do you mean?

southpaw,
Insomuch as the objective is "knowledge," reason involves faith as much as divine revelation does, because ultimately any claim to "knowing" something entails a certain faith that your truth-claim is correct. (Because nothing can be conclusively proven.) When you embrace one epistemological method over another, this is a kind of expression of faith -- trust in that method, and loyalty to that method. ("Faith" carries this dual meaning -- as a kind of trust and a kind of loyalty.) And holding out the conclusions that are reached via that method, as evidence of that method's superiority in achieving or obtaining "knowledge," is simply another act of faith -- a demonstration of trust and loyalty to the method, and to the conclusions themselves.

You should recall that Reason -- including the Enlightenment variety -- has long and often been encompassed within the religious context. It does not necessarily or inherently stand in opposition to religion. Indeed, there is a long, long history of Reason being used to "prove" religious belief/truth.

All I am saying is that you can't draw distinctions as clearly and strongly as you seem to want to do.

Jason, broadly speaking the authority of the state is bound by law. So a prohibition against there being no law establishing religion affects all functions of the state. That isn't the same thing as saying that elected office-holders or other state officials cannot be religious, far from it. What it says is that they cannot use the power of the state to further religious ends.

If an elected official says he or she puts their trust in God, that's their right as a free citizen. If they want the state to impose mandatory prayer in schools or elsewhere, that's an abuse of state power and a violation of the Establishment Clause. Of course the courts did not always hold this to be so, as prayer was mandated in many public schools in the U.S. prior to 1962.

There still is direct support of religion by the U.S. in the form of our currency also. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it to be mere "ceremonial deism", but lest there be any doubt about what's being advanced here, changing "In God We Trust" to "In Goddess We Trust" ought to make it clear that the power of the state is being abused to better establish a particular religious belief.

Jason,

Insomuch as the objective is "knowledge," reason involves faith as much as divine revelation does, because ultimately any claim to "knowing" something entails a certain faith that your truth-claim is correct. (Because nothing can be conclusively proven.)

More vacuous blather. Define your terms. What do you mean by "faith?" What do you mean by "knowledge?" What do you mean by "reason?" What do you mean by "proven?"

I deny that reason or knowledge require faith, as those words are generally understood.

Jason, when you set out on a road trip you don't refer to the Bible for directions on how to reach your destination, you open a road atlas. That's the difference between religious faith and science in a nutshell.

Mixner,
The "advance" test is not about forbidding the advancement of a particular value or moral that might be held or shared by a religion or by religious people. It is about forbidding the advancement of religion itself.

Favoring the death penalty is not religion -- though certainly some religions and religious people favor the death penalty; opposing abortion is not religion -- though certainly some religions and religious people oppose abortion; opposing homosexual conduct is not religion -- though certainly some religions and religious people oppose homosexual conduct. You get the idea, right?

Laws against homosexual conduct can be held unconstitutional on other grounds (equal protection, privacy, freedom of association, etc). Trying to push them under the Estab Clause is a stretch that doesn't need to be made (and probably can't be made).

Advancing religion might mean, for example, pumping govt dollars into religious institutions or organizations that will use that money to teach and preach religion. Advancing religion might mean using govt property to display religious messages or iconography in such a way as to promote religion.

Am I answering your question sufficiently?

I deny that reason or knowledge require faith, as those words are generally understood.

You say you "know" the sun will come up in the morning. This knowledge is based, essentially, on repetition -- it's happened over and over again. (And make no mistake, all the "scientific" explanations are reducible to repetition, too -- the best science can do is say "that's how it happens every time we try it.")

In effect, then, you trust that repetition will continue. You live accordingly -- a kind of loyalty and trust in this repetition. What else is this but a kind of faith -- in the repetitiveness -- in the notion that because it has repeatedly been this way, it will continue to be this way.

At bottom, there is no "reason" to think that past repetition guarantees future continued repetition. Skepticism demands a distrust of repetition as a foundation for making truth-claims. Yet, at some point we have to surrender the skepticism and rely on repetition -- having faith that it will continue as it has, and can thus be relied upon. Otherwise, we could never claim to "know" anything.

David W,
I don't pull the bible out for driving directions, because it doesn't purport to offer any. The map purports to do so -- but I still exercise faith in the map, that it is accurate and useful and reliable. Religious faith does not require impractical naivete (like trying to use the bible to find your way to Phoenix). "Religious faith" is simply a certain kind of faith -- faith in certain things. I'm not saying that knowledge requires religious faith, I'm saying it requires faith (trust in and loyalty to certain methods and claims that cannot be ultimately proven beyond the possibility of doubt).

The whole Mitt Romney political circus is a calculated attempt at mass deception which mirrors exactly the deception of the Mormon religion .

Romney claims to be a Christian , yet he believes that Jesus is the Devil's brother produced by a relationship between God the Father and one of his plural wives on a planet near a star called Kolob . Naturally Romney declines to speak about the details of his faith because he knows that many American people would be shocked and horrified at such views . All are agreed Jesus is at the heart of the Christian faith - who in their right mind would say Jesus is the Devil's brother originating near Kolob .

All are agreed Christianity is monotheistic , yet Joseph Smith the founder of Mormonism started his King Follet Discourse with " I will now preach unto you concerning the plurality of gods "
Naturally Romney does not want to elaborate on his faith , but he wants to pretend what he is not .

Is it not a wonder that Romney seeks to court Christian Pators and yet he was involved in secret Temple rituals where the Christian minister was described as being in the hire and pay of Satan .

Oh the deception of it all . A person may have religion or no religion but most people want transparancy and integrity . This is what Romney in his much trumpeted speech failed to give .

Jason, it's the methodological difference between the Bible and between the road atlas that's precisely the point. The religious faith that the Bible is based on derives from personal revelation and miracle. The road atlas on the other hand is based on objective data and cartographic representation. It's the difference between making a guess when in the woods as to what direction to go based on some impromptu feeling and a decision made after consulting a compass and topographic map.

Jason,

Am I answering your question sufficiently?

No, not remotely. What, for example, is the difference supposed to be between advancing a religion (or religions) and advancing the values and morals of a religion? If I write a law that systematically codifies all the moral prescriptions in Leviticus, am I "advancing" a religion, or only certain morals?

In effect, then, you trust that repetition will continue. You live accordingly -- a kind of loyalty and trust in this repetition. What else is this but a kind of faith

A rational conclusion from evidence, that's what. Again, what do you mean by "faith?" What do you mean by reason? And knowledge? Give us your definitions. You seem to be using these words in highly unconventional ways.

It does not matter that he is Mormon, he is a solid front runner. He is an intelligent individual who obviously would lead the country by his personal (not religious) convictions. The church must be like my faith (Jewish... if you must know) in the aspect that they don’t impose the churches view onto every member, otherwise Harry Reid would be more conservative. He is not going to take orders from Utah, he has an MBA and a Law degree, founded a multimillion dollar company, saved the Salt Lake City 2002 Games, and ran a state that had a decrease in violent Crime. Yet you are concerned about the Churches views. He is a smart man he has even stated in an interview with matt lower that he does not agree with all church policy, he is not going to elaborate because he is running for president of the United States, not president of Liberty University. It's bigoted righting like this that makes the American political system a joke, instead of asking real questions about taxes, Social Security, the Economy, Iraq, Stem Cell Research, and ect. I will give you that Mormons are strange, but they are good Christians and I know a thing or two about persecution. People like this author have to break down a happily married man with a bunch of kids faith, but I bet you would support Giuliani (who I will not even get started on his issues) just because he is roman Catholic, great job jackass.

I'd like to read some more tbone comments if he ever makes it out of prison. Just sayin'.

I'd like to read some more tbone comments if he ever makes it out of prison. Just sayin'.

Jason,

Insomuch as the objective is "knowledge," reason involves faith as much as divine revelation does

Here's a claim of knowledge based on science and reason: "The Earth is billions of years old."

And here's a claim of knowledge based on divine revelation: "The Earth is only about 6,000 years old."

You seriously believe that the first claim not only involves faith, but involves faith just as much as the second claim, do you? So how do you choose between them? Why is one faith better than, or a more reliable guide to the truth than, the other?

I had the same issue with the Mormon Church. I was a BYU student. The terminology is the same but the definitions are all different and this is an attempt to mislead potential converts and confuse individual LDS members. Atonement is not grace (though it sounds like it), Son of God doesn't mean 'always God' (to them it means something else), The Holy Spirit is not really a spirit but a man. But you really have to investigate to find out these things all have double-meanings. I have a real problem with that.

When they prosyletize you, they tell you how similar they are to other Christian denominations. You have to really dig into their theology, and for the average person, become a member, to get the straight dope on what they are actually taught to believe.

Any church that does that is one I don't need.

Full disclosure when someone prosyletizes.

I don't have a problem with not splitting hairs, which may be a defense of theirs, my problem is hypocrisy...don't use the hook, "we are just like you" when you know damn well you teach something completely different. The other churches know it and the Mormon church knows it. Look at their temple ceremony and the role the "Christian Preacher" plays (represents the devil). Knowing that and witnessing that Mormons and other denominations are so similar is flat-out lying.

Believe whatever you want, but when you spread that belief, don't lie to do it. That kinna is not the Golden Rule.

David W,

According to Jason that Atlas is divinely inspired and you can't prove it isn't...

Andrew,
1. The whole Kolob thing is a red herring that anti-Mormons love to toss, because it sounds weird. It's not really a doctrine per se of Mormonism -- it really qualifies, at best, as an early (arcane, really) teaching that has long since lost any traction it might have had. It is FAR from being a central tenet of the religion.

2. If you believe that we are all God's children, it's not so illogical to conclude that we are all brothers and sisters. The belief that Lucifer and Jesus are our brothers is merely an extension of this. I'm not sure why this is so scandalous and shocking to Evangelicals.

3. There is no official claim that God the Father has multiple wives in heaven. There is the doctrine that families are eternal, and the subsequent belief that plural marriages on earth would continue in heaven. (Jacob -- father of the twelve tribes -- had plural wives, remember.) The practice of plural marriage was enacted by the early Mormons, and under the eternal-family doctrine these families would still be together in the afterlife, in these plural marriage relationships. In other words, there is the belief that plural marriage exists in heaven -- but there is no belief or claim that everyone practices plural marriage in heaven, and there is no official claim that God the Father has multiple wives -- though certainly it is possible to believe this is true, in Mormonism.

4. See my explanation regarding "the plurality of gods" earlier in this thread. Mormons do believe that there are many gods in existence. But there is only one God of this earth, and only one God "with which we have to do" -- so, in worship and practice, Mormons are monotheistic (at least in the sense that they worship one God). Of course, if "monotheism" requires a believe in the existence of only one God (as a singular entity), then Mormons are not "monotheistic."

5. Mormons are not "deceptive" about this stuff. They are, by and large, simply gun shy about telling people about these beliefs. Ridicule, marginalization, and outright persecution -- even attempts at extermination -- have dogged Mormons from the start. Can you blame them for being a bit reticent or less than forthcoming about the depth and extent of their differences from mainstream Christianity? Anti-Mormons love to say "You're terrible for believing X." Then, when Mormons shy away from revealing that they believe X, the anti-Mormons say "You're terrible for not revealing that you believe X." All of this says more about anti-Mormons than about the Mormons themselves, if you ask me.

david in norcal, my wife can sympathize as a member of the only non-Mormon family in a small town in southern Utah back in the early 70s. She learned quite a lot about Mormon theology, as well as the prevailing local belief that if you were a girl who wasn't married by 18 you were an "old maid", unquote. So when the Mormon missionaries stop by for a visit to our home and try to tell her what their faith is about, I turn away in anticipation of the carnage that's about to occur... =:-o

If you believe that we are all God's children, it's not so illogical to conclude that we are all brothers and sisters. The belief that Lucifer and Jesus are our brothers is merely an extension of this. I'm not sure why this is so scandalous and shocking to Evangelicals.

If you don't understand why this statement is anti-Christian then you simply have no understanding of Christian theology.

blindjoedeath,
I claimed no such thing and you know it.

David W,
I'm not denying methodological differences. I'm saying following the "inspiration"/gut feeling and following the compass -- though different as methodologies, and based on different epistemologies -- both require a kind of faith. You trust and follow the "feeling" or you trust and follow the compass. Without knowing the outcome ahead of time, you can't *know* which is right ahead of time -- all you can do is trust and live accordingly, in either case. That sounds like faith to me.

Mixner,
Yes, each claim about the age of the earth -- ultimately -- requires faith. Neither can be conclusively proven or disproven. (Yes, I realize that science can claim to disprove the religious claim -- but this requires accepting scientific methodology first, which means you've already made your choice before you can get the "proof" needed to guide your choice.) To accept religious conclusions, you have to accept religious premises; same goes for scientific conclusions and scientific premises. Accepting the premises of either is where faith comes in. Using the conclusions to "prove" that the premises were true is problematic -- hopefully for obvious reasons.

You ask: So how do you choose between them? Why is one faith better than, or a more reliable guide to the truth than, the other?

Ah...this is precisely my point. Ultimately, choosing one methodology over the other is an exercise in faith (trust and loyalty). But hopefully you can see that choosing science because it's more scientific is, well, not very "reasonable." Keep this in mind: a mythology is a system of coherent and cohesive narratives purporting to explain one's experiences and observations of the world. At this level, there is no difference between science and religion: they are both mythologies. Buying into a mythology requires faith. The answer to your question is that there is no way to *know* which mythology is better or more reliable, because any measure of "better" or "reliable" is going to always already exist within the context of a mythology, and it's going to privilege the mythology of which it is a part. (That is, science will always look more reliable by the measures of reliability that stem from science.)

Mixner,
You say: What, for example, is the difference supposed to be between advancing a religion (or religions) and advancing the values and morals of a religion? If I write a law that systematically codifies all the moral prescriptions in Leviticus, am I "advancing" a religion, or only certain morals?

Writing one comprehensive law that enacts all the tenets or values of a particular religion would certainly be challenged on Estab Clause grounds. That's easy.

The question about laws that enact certain or single values that might be associated with a religion is trickier. It really all depends. A law enacting the death penalty certainly enacts values that are held by some religions and religious people -- but you'd be hard-pressed to convince anyone that this is the "advancement of religion." There are too many other non-religious rationales for the law. This is, I think, an easy example of "does not advance religion."

But a law that says we must all be baptized -- well, I think it's clear that this would violate the Estab Clause, because there's a paucity of non-religious rationales for such a law. An easy case of "advances religion."

Somewhere in the middle might be the law that mandates a moment of silence in public schools. On the one hand, this seems to be rooted in religious motivation -- in which case the argument is that it "advances religion" and violates the Estab Clause. But on the other hand, it is only a moment of silence, with no facial or overt connection to religion -- and no requirement for religious practice of any kind; you can simply sit silently for that moment, in all your secularity. In this case, the argument is that the law does not "advance religion" or violate the Estab Clause.

Making decisions and struggling with interpretation in this way...well, welcome to what practicing law is all about.

Jason,

You are rationalizing the misleading prosyletization that goes on among the LDS all the time. It is wrong. What gets me is that at BYU and among the missionaries the first thing is to make you feel like your run of the mill Christian belief is just like theirs.

Then, they systematically undermine your belief in the inerrancy of the bible.

But at the end, and this is my problem, after membership, perhaps well after, is where you find out that it's completely different than run of the mill Christianity.

Now if you don't want to advertise that to the world because of ridicule or whatever, fine, don't do it. But when you keep the differences hidden while prosyletizing when you know darn well that it's different, that's flat out dishonesty and it's deceptive.

When you prosyletize, the honest thing to do is say, "yes, we have different beliefs than most Christian churches in core areas, and would you like to hear what they are and why?". That would be honest. Not all this, "we have the bible too", "we have Jesus", "we believe in the atonement" etc. etc.

As a student at BYU it was hard for me as a non-Mormon to get any missionary to tell me straight up that it was completely different. I would have had a lot more respect if they had. To be fair to the missionaries, they are not chosen to be theological representatives, 6-12 weeks at the Missionary Training Center doesn't give you that. But the higher ups, they know the deal and they shouldn't organize things this way.

Now, I loved Utah and I had great friends at BYU, I hated that in Provo at that time I could only feel like a second-class citizen and knowing that I didn't feel I could stay there --although I wish I could have in many ways.

Jason - the tenor of your argument effectively acknowldges that Romney is not being open and up front .

The Apostle Paul in 2Corinthians 11v4 warns against following another Jesus - thank you for confirming what we are all saying - your Jesus , Romney's Jesus is another Jesus . I am sorry to say this , but your Devil's brother could not save an ant , we Christians including many ex Mormons will continue to trust in the Lord from Heaven .

When you and Romney sing the Mormon hymn " If I could hie to Kolob " what are you doing ?

The truth is you and Romney believe in an endless cycle of gods and goddesses eternally progressing
and that you can also progress to becoming a god .
Satan is a created Angel - the Lord Jesus is God , the Father is also God , and the Holy Spirit is God. The simple words of Isaiah understood by Jew and Christian alike completely destroys your pagan-polytheism " I am the Lord there is none else , there is no God beside me ."

Just as it is noted that Romney says nothing about mocking the Pastor as being in the hire and pay of Satan , your silence speaks volumes .

I now turn to the Mormon practice of baptizing dead Jewish holocaust victims - did Romney consent or protest at this vile practice ?

david in norcal,
I'm sorry your experience was one of "deception." I have concerns myself, sometimes, with the extent Mormons (and the Church itself) will sometimes go to "mainstream" themselves. Some of this is cultural among the members (the desire to fit in and not be ridiculed or persecuted), some of it is official (the Church's post-WWII push to overcome prejudices and be seen as "Christian"), and some of it is strategic (for proselytizing purposes).

This strategic aspect is not, in my opinion, "deceptive" -- that is, it is not meant to be guileful or manipulative or dishonest. I think the rationale is usually "milk before meat" -- building on common beliefs with people, so that they have a foundation built on the core beliefs (Jesus is the Christ, etc), before talking much about big theological differences, which are typically (and predictably) hard to understand and accept without the more basic, foundational beliefs and premises.

The reluctance to jump into the big differences, like I said, has lots of causes. Personally, I've never been too shy about it. But I'm (as I continually rediscover) somewhat unique in this regard. The main point here is that there is very little conscientious or intentional "deception" going on. The reluctance is usually due more to discomfort, fear of rejection or ridicule, a feeling of inability to answer difficult questions effectively or correctly, etc.

As for feeling like a second-class citizen...I'm sorry for that, too. Unfortunately, Mormons can be pretty insular and clannish -- again, for a host of historical/cultural reasons. But I think it's safe to say that anyone who is part of a minority group, in a community that has a prominent and distinct majority group, is going to feel somewhat marginalized. This is regrettable and undesirable -- but it certainly is not unique to Utah or Mormonism.

Jason,

Ah...this is precisely my point. Ultimately, choosing one methodology over the other is an exercise in faith (trust and loyalty).

So why do you favor the scientific claim over the religious one? If the scientific estimate of the Earth's age is no more likely to be correct than the religious one, why believe it? Or do you in fact believe that the Earth is just as likely to be 6,000 years old as billions of years old? Seriously?

And if both claims rest on faith, why should the scientific claim be privileged over the religious one in public schools? Why shouldn't children be taught that it's just as likely that the Earth is 6,000 years old than that it's billions of years old, and that choosing between them is a matter of faith? It's hard to believe you really believe the nonsense you're spewing here.

The answer to your question is that there is no way to *know* which mythology is better or more reliable,

There you go again. What do you mean by "know?" You keep using these words in ways that suggest your understanding of them is highly eccentric, to say the least. What definition of "know" are you using? Ditto for the words "faith" and "reason."

The fruits of making faith an issue in politics is that it never stops at just faith, but goes on to metastasize as a struggle between faiths. I think Mitt Romney would have been better off serving as a good example of his own Mormonism and defending himself against bigots by simply emulating JFK's example. Instead, he's just helping the GOP sink even lower by his example of faithiness.

david in norcal,

Minor correction:

The temple ceremony role played by a traditional Christian preacher no longer exists in the modern ceremony. The LDS Church changed it almost 20 years ago. I've been in there and I can assure you that no particular religion gets singled out for negative treatment.

Now as to whether Mormons are being up-front with things or not.

Little example.

You walk into a car dealership and the salesman talks up this car on display pointing out all the good qualities of the car.

Is there anything wrong or dishonest about that?

Maybe so. It's certainly not a whole picture of the car. But it's also hardly a surprise to anyone that he talks this way.

But then suppose you ask him about concerns with on-road stability that you've heard about and he refuses to acknowledge your concern, or even worse, denies it.

Well, now he's obviously being dishonest and illustrates where care salesmen get their popular image.

Now turn it around.

You walk into the dealership and the salesman immediately launches into a rant about all the things that suck about this car or all the reasons you want to be careful about this car or whatever.

Is he being "honest?"

I'd say no. He isn't being honest. Because this isn't a accurate picture of the vehicle either. In fact, by overemphasizing the negative, he's actually misleading.

Missionaries are, in some sense, salespeople. You have to approach it with that in mind. But it's not necessarily dishonest to approach an idea that is new or novel or strange to people from a position of common ground and shared values.

In making a sale, there is plenty of room for outright dishonesty and some missionaries fall prey to it. But there is nothing inherently wrong with beginning at a point of shared values and ideas.

Jason:

I have a lot of sympathy for the basic epistomological point you are making -- the David Hume anti-induction stuff and so on, and the assertion that even scientific materialism requires faith (after all, one has to have faith that the physical world exists; and maybe that seems like a no-brainer to us, but it sure doesn't to, say, a lot of Hindus, and "seems like a no-brainer" is not actually an argument).

And I would probably be willing to vote for a Mormon -- although obviously it would depend on the Mormon -- since, while I do think some of the beliefs seem kinda weird, they A: seem weird in a way that wouldn't necessarily affect public policy, and B: seem weird in a way that American religion has always been weird. (Specifically, there seems to be a real Gnostic strain in Mormonism -- the pre-existence of souls and the eternity of matter are both Gnostic doctrines -- and from the founders on, with all their ties to Masonic and Hermetic thinking, American religion has always been influenced by Gnosticism.)

That said, Mormon doctrine is not reconciliable with Christianity. I've already referred to pre-existence of souls and the eternity of matter, both of which (especially the latter, which also looks to be scientifically unjustifiable) are deal-breakers from the start, but let's just look at a couple others you mentioned.

If Mormons believe that there are many Gods, but only one which concerns us, then they are henotheistic, not monotheistic. And yes, there is an immense, an incalculable gap between the Christian conception of God -- the only self-existent being, the fundamental reality in which goodness, beauty, power, and truth unite and all are one, the One, the Form of the Good (if you want to get Greek, but Augustine did so that's hardly unorthodox), "I am that I am," etc etc etc -- and the Mormon conception of one god whom we happen to have to obey, but if we'd been born on another planet it could easily have been a different one. Does this make an ethical difference? Probably not. Does this make a metaphysical difference. Um, yeah, and metaphysics is a heck of a lot more foundational to thought than is ethics. ("I can see its practical application, but does it work in theory?" as the joke goes about the French diplomat.)

Also, re Jesus and Lucifer: in the Christian understanding, Jesus is the uncreated God. Lucifer is a creature. Jesus made Lucifer. They can't be brothers.

Basically, I'm happy to vote for a Mormon, though probably not Romney, but I'm not happy to be told that being a Mormon is the same as being a Christian, because you really cannot reconcile the beliefs of the two. (And honestly, if Mormons can say all the other churches are apostate, why can't we say the Mormon church is apostate?)

---

Religious disclaimer, since this seems like the kind of thread where that might be a useful thing to know: theologically conservative High Church Anglican.

Andrew,
The tenor of your argument displays your irrationality and bigotry.

Yes, my conception of the nature and identity of Jesus is different from yours. I'm fine with that. Thanks for saying that my "devil's brother couldn't save an ant." I laughed out loud at that one.

A hymn is not representative of official church doctrine -- and though that particular hymn does still exist in our hymn book, it's not one I've sung anytime recently. Nice try, though.

The truth is you and Romney believe in an endless cycle of gods and goddesses eternally progressing and that you can also progress to becoming a god. Ummm.... Yep. Guilty as charged.

Satan is a created Angel. Well, we believe angels are simply spirits who have already or not yet come to earth. They are not "creatures" different from you or me. Angels are our brothers and sisters, too. So yes, Satan is an angel -- fallen and condemned to never come to this earth to receive a body like us. This does not negate believing that he is our fallen brother.

The Lord Jesus is God , the Father is also God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Ummm.... Yep. We believe that, too. Only we believe they are separate entities, all jointly "God" -- rather than thinking they are separate incarnations of the same entity. Nothing in the bible supports the trinitarian conception of "God" -- all you have for that is the Nicene Creed, which is an extra-biblical committee decision.

The simple words of Isaiah understood by Jew and Christian alike completely destroys your pagan-polytheism "I am the Lord there is none else , there is no God beside me." For the God of this world to tell the people of this world that there is no other God beside Him -- no other God for them to worship, or concern themselves with -- hardly precludes the notion that there might be other gods of other worlds, somewhere out there.

There is no mockery of any particular "Pastor" being on Satan's payroll. There is the claim that many will purport to work for God, who are in fact deceivers and Satan's helpers in leading people astray. It's not hard to look around and see that this is true, is it? In fact, isn't this the same claim you're making about us? Why is it okay for you to claim that Mormons are charlatans and not "real" Christians -- but it's not okay for Mormons to claim that many so-called "Christians" are charlatans and deceivers? Sort of a double-standard you got going there, eh?

Finally...yes, Mormons believe in baptism for the dead. For everyone. Those who did not have the opportunity to receive and accept the gospel in this life will have it in the next life. They did start baptizing Holocaust victims -- there was no reason to exclude Jews from this effort at salvation, was there? -- but when survivors and family members protested, the Church stopped. There was never any intent to offend or to be distasteful. I'm not sure why it's a "vile practice" to believe in making one's faith available to all people equally. (There is no suggestion whatsoever that the baptism for the dead equals a conversion -- the Jews were not being posthumously converted to Mormonism. The belief is that people will have the opportunity to hear and accept -- or decline -- the gospel in the afterlife. Part of providing this opportunity is providing baptism by proxy.)

Any other questions?

P.S. Matt, I thought you nailed this one.

Ivanova,

Person A asserts that if you walk off the edge of a high cliff you will fall to your death. Person B asserts that you will instead float gently and safely to the ground. On your account, both assertions rest on faith. So how should we choose between them? How do we decide whether it's safe to walk off the edge of a cliff?

Matthew:
Let me use this adage I came across to sum up my position about your articles, especially this on Romney's speech:

“[Matt], better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

Thank you!

P.P.S. Jason, I'm sorry you're the only one playing defense here; it must be deeply frustrating. But saying "there are three gods" is not the same as saying "there is one god;" go ahead and say my faith is wrong, if you like, but you can't logically say it's really the same as yours. (Since the thread is moving so fast: if you've already replied to me, I'm not ignoring it, I simply haven't seen it, and I've got to take time-out to eat food.)

Yes - can Mitt Romney acknowledge what you acknowledge ? So that people armed with the information can make up their own minds .

Hey Jason, these are your words...
There's no way to prove that heavenly inspiration (or whatever one might call it) played no part in the "figuring out" of things.

Matthew, your writing is excruciatingly lacking in understanding of Christians, Jews and Atheists. Go do some homework. Journalism 101 take one topic research it and write intelligently about it.

Mixner, I think you're slightly misunderstanding me. I'm not saying any assertion about anything is based on faith (though perhaps Jason was, and I missed it). I'm saying that, at bottom, *ontological* assertions are based on faith. So: IF you accept the reality of the material universe (as I of course do), and IF you accept that our physical senses are, by and large, reliable guides to it (as I do), and IF you accept that inference works (as I again do), THEN you can say: Experimentation works.

And since experimentation works, if Person A says you fall and Person B says you float, you can test and find out which is true, and that will give you genuine knowledge, and I will rely on it as much as you will. But the question is, how do you know those basic assumptions -- that the material world exists, that the senses will give us valuable information about it, that inference works? *Those* statements, the premises, are what depends on faith; not the validity of experimentation, which is just a conclusion from those premises.

In short, of course science works; but we only know that it works because of premises which we have to accept before we can even begin to do science. And there's no problem with that, or anything, it doesn't make science somehow invalid; it's just that that's how all knowing works, we have to have premises which are taken as self-evident before we can reason from them. If you have no axioms, you can't reason.

Its funny the editor of this article should call Mitt's speech "terrible." I thought it was wonderful, and so did many conservatice Christian leaders as well as reviewers of his speech. Please give Mitt Romney a fair evaluation.

Ivanova,
1. Yes, lots of ties or similarities between Gnosticism and Mormonism.

2. I think there's a difference between claiming (a) "Mormons are Christians" and claiming (b) "Mormonism is reconcilable with Christianity." I would claim (a), but I would not claim (b). You seem to be focusing on denying (b), and I'm with you on that. "Christianity" for practical purposes has to be understood as "historical Christianity" -- and the doctrines of historical (or mainstream) Christianity are not reconcilable with the doctrines of Mormonism. But "Christian" is a term whose meaning is still debatable -- as evidenced by debates like the one here, which has been ongoing between mainstream Christians and Mormons for a very long time. "Christian" can mean one who accepts all the tenets and doctrines of historical Christianity -- but it doesn't have to. At least, that is in part the claim being made when Mormons assert that they are Christians.

3. Yes, "henotheism" is perhaps a somewhat better term. But it shouldn't be implied that the god of another world, and what it means to follow/worship that god, might somehow differ substantively from the God of this world, and what it means to follow/worship Him. "God" (as I see it) is not a referent to a particular singular entity, but referent to an office or status -- one of the defining characteristics of which is "oneness." So those entities who are "gods" are all part of one "God." There is still just one "God" in all of existence. I certainly realize how this differs from historical Christianity's conception of "God" -- but I'm not convinced that it fails to qualify as "monotheism," because this still depends on how "monotheism" is defined. If "monotheism" is by definition historical Christianity's version of "monotheism," then Mormonism is disqualified from the start. But then, the monotheism of the Torah would be disqualified, too -- and supposedly Abraham's the one who brought it to us, in a way that might be better described as (if you wish) henotheism.

4. You're not happy being told that Mormons are Christians, I assume, because you think "Christian" must by definition mean someone who accepts the tenets and doctrines of historical Christianity. But by that measure, none of the figures of the New Testament are "Christians." The Nicene Creed and much of the rest of historical Christianity's set of doctrines and teachings post-date the New Testament and can only be read back into the New Testament through a lot of clever eisegesis. Unless you're prepared to say that Paul was not a Christian, then you have to be open to the notion that being "Christian" might not be limited to "accepting all the doctrines and teachings of historical Christianity." Once you open that door, then we have to arrive at a new definition. Mormons simply put forward the idea that "Christian," at its most basic level, refers to someone who accepts the divinity of Jesus, that Jesus is the "Christ" (anointed one) who saves us from sin. Seems a perfectly rational definition to me (and to most Mormons -- and dare I say to most everyday Protestants and Catholics who are not so worried about guarding the boundaries of Christianity). By this definition, Mormons are "Christians."

But I'm perfectly willing to concede that under historical Christianity's definition, we are not. In which case we join good company (all those NT figures, you know).

Ivanova,

Mixner, I think you're slightly misunderstanding me. I'm not saying any assertion about anything is based on faith (though perhaps Jason was, and I missed it).

You questioned the value of logical induction as a source of knowledge and you said "scientific materialism" requires faith. Materialism is usually understood to be a philosophical position, not a scientific one, so I'm not sure what "scientific materialism" is even supposed to mean.

And there's no problem with that, or anything, it doesn't make science somehow invalid; it's just that that's how all knowing works, we have to have premises which are taken as self-evident before we can reason from them.

Well, are you saying that claims of knowledge from science and reason rest on axioms accepted by faith, or aren't you? You aren't, then we agree. But if you are, we're back to the walking-off-a-cliff and age-of-the-earth questions.

Either you believe there's some sort of fundamental epistemic equivalence between science/reason and religion or you don't. Jason seems to believe, or at least he says he believes, that they both rest on the foundation of faith. I'm not sure from your statements whether you agree or not.

blindjoedeath,
Saying that the influence of divine inspiration cannot be disproven is NOT the same as claiming that there was in fact the influence of divine inspiration.

Andrew,
Of course Mitt cannot simply and openly acknowledge all this -- any more than Huckabee can openly acknowledge that he believes all Jews and Muslims and other non-Evangelicals are going to hell, for failing to accept Jesus as their Savior. These are politicians we're talking about. You're continuing to be irrational and impractical. I'll tell you what: I'll start demanding that Mitt declare openly the details of Mormon belief when you start demanding that Huckabee do the same.

Ivanova,
I'm not saying my beliefs/faith are the same as yours. We have differing conceptions of this or that, obviously. The crux of what I'm saying, I guess, is that much of this debate depends on definitions -- depending on how things are defined, it is definitely possible to say Mormons are Christians and monotheists, etc. But because we differ in our conceptions of things, and in our definitions of things, we differ on whether these claims are true. You say you don't like being told that Mormons are Christians (because of your definition); well, consider that Mormons don't like being told they are not Christians (because of their definition).

Mixner,
You say: if both claims rest on faith, why should the scientific claim be privileged over the religious one in public schools? Why shouldn't children be taught that it's just as likely that the Earth is 6,000 years old than that it's billions of years old, and that choosing between them is a matter of faith? It's hard to believe you really believe the nonsense you're spewing here.

I believe every word of what I'm saying. The answer to your question is a practical, but value-laden one: I believe in the separation of church and state. I embrace this as a value, and I embrace that value as it is expressed in the Constitution. I oppose religion in the public schools on these grounds -- because it would violate the Estab Clause. Public schools are for secular (non-religious) mythologies, just as churches are for religious mythologies -- they are both institutions for learning. I do think it would be better if science were taught as "one of many competing theories," though -- that is, I think we do our children a disservice by indoctrinating them (with the weight of the state behind the indoctrination) into one particular mythology, because this makes true critical thinking difficult. In short, I think it would be better if science was more self-conscious and humble in its claims, and less paradigmatic in our lives.

But I also should add that I do not think science and religion are mutually exclusive. Mormonism in particular, I think, is quite open to sharing its mythology with science. Mormons, for example, are open to the possibility that Genesis is more figurative than literal -- that evolution could be a means or method of creation, etc.

Good grief. Sure, Mormons have weird beliefs, but they ALSO believe that it is only through Jesus Christ that they can get to Heaven (and they don't believe that only Mormons can get there, for the record), that families should love each other, that people should be honest, that knowledge (not only faith)is important, and that people should treat each other with kindess, compassion, and respect (this includes other Christians, atheists and non-christians--i.e. everybody). Let it go. Be the best you know how to be and let others do the same. The same beliefs can produce such different results in actions and decisions depending on who holds those beliefs that it doesn't seem a reasonable point to base decisions (like who to vote for) on. Who really knows what is in someone else's heart anyways--it's hard enough to know what is in our own. What worries me far more is whether Mitt Romney has a good grounding in foreign policy, how careful he is with the environment, whether he has the guts to fulfill his promises (if possible), whether he can understand and deal reasonably with the needs and wishes of those who differ from him, what he wants to do with the war on terrorism, whether he is financially/economically responsible, whether he has integrity. Maybe we should bend our efforts to finding out the answers to those questions, rather this unproductive back and forth on religion.

But the question is, how do you know those basic assumptions -- that the material world exists, that the senses will give us valuable information about it, that inference works? *Those* statements, the premises, are what depends on faith;

I just noticed this. So in fact you are asserting that all scientific claims of knowledge rest on faith. If we cannot trust our senses, or induction, how can we tell whether anyone lives or dies after walking off the edge of a cliff? Do you really think this is a matter of faith? Why have faith in one answer rather than another?

Jason,

I believe every word of what I'm saying. The answer to your question is a practical, but value-laden one: I believe in the separation of church and state. I embrace this as a value, and I embrace that value as it is expressed in the Constitution. I oppose religion in the public schools on these grounds -- because it would violate the Estab Clause. Public schools are for secular (non-religious) mythologies, just as churches are for religious mythologies -- they are both institutions for learning.

You've evading the question. If you believe, as you claim to, that science rests on faith just as religion rests on faith, why do you accept the principle of separation of church and state at all? Why should science be privileged over religion, why should scientific claims of truth be privileged over religious claims of truth, if they're both a matter of faith?

And why believe that the Earth is billions of years old rather than merely thousands? Why commit to the "faith" (as you would have it) of science rather than the faith of fundamentalist Christianity?

Again, I think you've talked yourself into this nonsensical position because you have no clear idea of what you even mean when you use the words "faith," "reason," "knowledge" and so on. That's why I keep asking you to define them.

If we cannot trust our senses, or induction, how can we tell whether anyone lives or dies after walking off the edge of a cliff? Do you really think this is a matter of faith?

Ever seen a stick that is half-in and half-out of water? It looks bent -- but when you feel it, it feels straight. Which sense do you trust? You trust your sense of touch and dismiss your sense of sight -- why? Because you have a scientific theory (one of science's myths) that tells you about light refraction. But you could just as easily have a myth that says there are water creatures that bend the stick, and when you reach in to feel it, they bend your arm too -- out of spite -- so that it feels straight. Under this explanation, you should trust your sight and not your touch. The only reason you favor science's myth over the water fairy myth is that you have bought into science as a mythology.

It isn't so much that we *can't* trust our senses, or induction -- obviously we can and we do, all the time. The point is that this is a decision we make -- to trust these things -- and this trust and loyalty to these things is a kind of faith.

Why have faith in one myth/mythology (i.e. "answer") over another? That's the big question, isn't it. The important thing is to realize that it's a choice -- one mythology is not ultimately, externally verifiable as more reliable than another. So prejudices and bigotry toward those who choose to adhere to a mythology different from the one you choose is stupid and indefensible. It's far better to look for ways to cooperate and coexist peacefully.

Jason,

Why have faith in one myth/mythology (i.e. "answer") over another? That's the big question, isn't it.

Not for me, since I don't accept your assertion that science is a "myth/mythology." But it's obviously a huge question for you. Why do you put your faith in science rather than fundamentalist Christianity? Why do you favor the answer from science about the age of the Earth over the answer from biblical creationism? Random choice?

Butting into a rather intense conversation, here's a possibility.

Having "faith" in what one sees is hard to argue about. It's the faith in things we can't experience empirically that's the problem. Nobody was around 6,000 years ago, or however many billions of years ago, to see the earth get started. What happens when we step off a cliff can't be argued with effectively--that's now and we can see the results. But did natural processes always go as they do now? Scientists say yes. Other's say no. That is where the "faith in science" comes in. But we can't PROOVE either one.

What happens when we step off a cliff can't be argued with effectively--that's now and we can see the results.

Yes, but Jason and Ivanova claim that the dead person we think we see may actually be alive. They say the belief that the person is dead is just a matter of faith. Someone else may believe through their faith that the person is alive, and their faith that he is alive is just as good as your faith that he is dead.

Mixner,

Thanks for the response. My point is that if it's not testable, then it is a matter of faith. At some point, everything comes down to untestable assumptions--science takes longer to get there, but it does. There's no test we can observe in our lifetime for the Big Bang, or evolution (I mean microbes to monkeys, not species differentiation--I'm not trying to open that can of worms, just make a general point), or God--although evidence for all of them can be found if you look in the right places. But evidence isn't proof.

Oh great, more bigotry.

what? I was trying to be reasonable. Name calling is not an answer.

Mixner,
You seem to be talking about science and religion as though they are mutually exclusive -- as though the choice must be stark between one OR the other. I do think there is a choice regarding which mythology one adheres to, for understanding the world. But I don't think it's a stark one for EITHER science OR religion. There are myriad religions, and myriad ways of understanding something within a single religion -- and the same goes for within science (i.e., scientists don't always agree).

I'm not evading the question -- I'm answering it directly. You're asking "why choose this over that" as though there is some external rationale that justifies the choice as right/correct. But what I'm trying to tell you is that there is no such external rationale. There is the choice -- and that is all. I told you why I think science belongs in public schools and religion belongs in churches. I can give you arguments for why this is best, but in the context of this discussion I cannot give what you seem to be asking for, because (as I'm trying to tell you) it doesn't exist.

You want a ground to stand on, from which you can say (from the external perspective, looking down on all the possible mythologies to choose from) mythology X is preferable to mythology Y, for these reasons. But the point is that there is ultimately no ground -- only faith: the decision to embrace and adhere to a mythology, without an external ground from which to make that decision. There is no external reason to privilege one view over another -- only reasons offered by competing views, which are offered (of course) from within those views. If there was an external measure for these things, we wouldn't argue about anything -- we could always appeal to the external measures for the final answer on what is best, correct, or preferable.

*********

This has been fun, but I gotta check out. Thanks (to most of you) for the respectful, intelligent, spirited exchange!

I think I had this conversation about "but what can we REALLY ever know?" in my dorm room when I was a college freshman. I was very stoned then, so I had an excuse.

Hey, you joined in. Obviously you didn't get it out of your system.

It has been fun reading the give and take.

Jason,

I'm answering it directly.

You haven't answered it at all. You just keep evading it and trying to change the subject.

You're asking "why choose this over that" as though there is some external rationale that justifies the choice as right/correct. But what I'm trying to tell you is that there is no such external rationale.

I know you're telling me that. That doesn't address my question of why you choose the answer from science about the age of the Earth over the answer from biblical creationism. Why do you choose the "myth/mythology" of science over the "myth/mythology" of religion? I keep asking, and you keep ignoring the question. Gee, I wonder why.

There is the choice -- and that is all. I told you why I think science belongs in public schools and religion belongs in churches.

Yes, you said it's because you think teaching religion in schools would violate the Establishment Clause. And as I said in reply, that just begs the question of why you support the Establishment Clause. If religion and science are both examples of "myth/mythology," why should religion be excluded from public schools but not science?

Mixner:

"You questioned the value of logical induction as a source of knowledge."

Not me, David Hume: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_Problem_of_Induction

I'm not saying induction doesn't work, I'm just saying you have to accept some other premises before you can say induction works.

"Well, are you saying that claims of knowledge from science and reason rest on axioms accepted by faith, or aren't you? You aren't, then we agree. But if you are, we're back to the walking-off-a-cliff and age-of-the-earth questions."

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your objection here. I said that for science to work, three things have to be true: A: the material world exists; B: the senses give us true information about it; C: induction is valid. I said further that you can't prove any of those statements; you just have to accept them as givens. ("On faith," if you like.) You seem to disagree, but I'm not quite sure where you disagree: would you say that science works even if A, B, or C is untrue? Would you say that A, B, and C are in fact provable? Would you say that A, B, and C are irrelevant to science? What?

"Either you believe there's some sort of fundamental epistemic equivalence between science/reason and religion or you don't."

OK, first, I have to take issue with "science/reason," because they're not the same activities. Science is (roughly) the attempt to discover how the material world works by means of experimentation. Reason is the mental activity whereby we progress from premises to conclusions. Reason is obviously necessary to science, but science isn't necessary to reason; reason has all sorts of everyday, non-scientific applications.

Now, as to whether I think science and religion are epistmologically equivalent: I think "equivalence" might not be the most useful term for trying to understand the situation, but I'll just try and explain what I think and I guess you can see whether you think "equivalence" would describe my position.

Ok: There are certain statements you need to accept as true before you can think about much of anything: "I exist," "reason works," "what I perceive is a good approximation of reality," etc. You cannot reason your way to these beliefs, so either you don't know them, or you know them somehow other than by reason. Of all of them, only "I exist" is really and truly indubitable. So: they cannot be arrived at by reason, and (except for one) they are not indubitable. How do you know them? You know them almost by an action of the will; you just trust that they're true, you take them "on faith."

All other knowledge rests on your acceptance of these axioms, and "all other knowledge" includes science. So science does depend on axioms accepted on faith (specifically, the three axioms designated A, B, and C above). I believe in the discoveries of science because they're empirically proven and testable and so forth; but the only reason I believe empiricism even **works** is because I've accepted those other, more foundational, axioms first.

Again, it's not the individual findings of science which rest on this sort of faith; it's the entire method of science which rests on faith. And once I accept the method, I have to accept *all* of its conclusions: ie, if I believe axioms A, B, and C, I can't believe that you float if you fall off cliffs, I can't believe the Earth is 6000 years old, etc.

So that's what I'd say about science and faith. And then I guess I'd just say that religion requires a couple of different axioms: that the intelligible world exists, that there is some sort of all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing being, and a couple of others. Again, you don't accept every single tenet of the religion "on faith": you accept some main premises on faith, some for other reasons, and extrapolate out. (I guess you could object that the most certain path to knowledge is to accept as few of these axioms as possible; but it's by no means clear that the axioms science requires are the first you get to, logically. Descartes has to posit the existence of God before he can posit the reliability of his senses.)

Sorry this is all so long, but I honestly didn't quite understand what you were objecting to, so I tried to spell things out as much as possible. Does it clarify things at all?

P.S. And I think Jason's post about the "mythologies" is wrong: again, if you accept A, B, and C, you have to accept that science works, and if you accept that science works you have to accept that the Earth is 6000 years old. Not a mythology, a fact.

Whoops! NOT 6000 years old!

(Boy, I'm helping myself!)

Attention Mitt Romney: There IS a religious test for politicians: If you talk about religion, you FAIL.
(You're welcome)

Last word from me:

The choice is not between science is always right and science is never right. I can accept that science offers plausible explanations a great deal of the time, but is possibly wrong some of the time. So I can accept science generally as "working," but still not be forced to agree that science is right in all its claims. After all, science itself revises its claims all the time -- so there's no demand that I accept any given claim as "right without possibility of being wrong."

Also, Mixner, I can tell you why I choose this or that -- but in order for it to be more than simply "because that's what makes most sense to me," it would have to be a long and complicated explanation. I don't have the time for that, so you have to accept that "that's what makes sense to me." The Constitution makes sense to me, and separation of church and state make sense to me, and thus science in public schools and religion in churches makes sense to me -- with the caveats and qualifications that I mentioned earlier.

Ciao!

I hate liberals. They never grow up. These reviews sound like a bunch of self-loving, disrespectful, hateful millenials who think emotionally and not logically. Mitt Romney radiates wisdom.

Oh... When will Athiests stop complaining? Never! They choose that life when they give up on God.

Let us be wise, and respectful of one another. Even liberals occasionally make sense.

Ivanova,

Okay, I think you've made your position clear now. But I don't see that you've responded to the problem with that position I have been describing.

You argue that science and religion each rest on a set of unprovable axioms. And all answers from science and religion therefore also rest on unprovable axioms. And you think that to commit to or favor one set of axioms over the other is an act of faith.

So why do you favor the answer from science about the age of the Earth over the answer from religion? Why favor one set of unprovable axioms over the other set of unprovable axioms? Why favor one faith over the other faith?

And why should the "faith of science" be privileged over the "faith of religion" in our public schools?

And please don't respond that you favor science because it "works" or because it's "practical" or somesuch, because you can only conclude that science "works" by using some set of unprovable axioms!

Jason,

The choice is not between science is always right and science is never right.

I know it isn't. I never said it was. Another red herring.

So I can accept science generally as "working,"

But what does this mean, "generally as working?" And with respect to the age of the Earth (or any other question), why do you believe that science "works" and religion doesn't, or that science "works better" than religion? Your claim is that both science and religion rest on a set of axioms that cannot be verified and must be accepted on faith, remember?

Also, Mixner, I can tell you why I choose this or that -- but in order for it to be more than simply "because that's what makes most sense to me," it would have to be a long and complicated explanation.

But you just got done telling us why you think choosing science over religion does not make sense. You keep saying that they are both examples of "myth/mythology." That both of them rest on faith. How does it "make most sense" to choose one faith over another?

I find comments here mostly amusing. It seems the level of intellectual commentary today is to start with the end result you want. Then view everything in such a way as to reach that conclusion.

So those who disliked this speech started out with the idea that since it was done by a conservative Republican it has to have been bad. They then find a reason to claim so.

The same people were jumping up and down in Novemember of 2004 shouting "Kerry won, Kerry won".

So excuse me if your comments on if this speech was good or bad fall on deaf ears!

Mixner

I'm fascinated by the discussion you are having, but the answers seem reasonable to me. Maybe I'm just not going deep enough. What would, to you, be a definitive answer?

Also, Mixner, I can tell you why I choose this or that -- but in order for it to be more than simply "because that's what makes most sense to me," it would have to be a long and complicated explanation. I don't have the time for that, so you have to accept that "that's what makes sense to me."

Yes, I think it does make sense to you to choose science over religion. And the reason it makes sense to you is that, despite all your claims to the contrary, you do in fact recognize that the foundations of science are different in kind, and superior to, the foundations of religion. They're not merely different varieties of faith.

Unless you grant a privileged epistemic status to science, you have no basis for favoring the claims of knowledge from science over the claims of knowledge from religion, and you're in the absurd position of saying it's just as likely that the Earth is 6,000 years old as that it's billions of years old.

ahh. okay, I get it. I don't know about the others, but I'm not sure that I recognize the superior foundations of science over religion in the non-empirical areas. The logic I subscribe to demands acceptance of grey areas in logic for untestable hypotheses, although for observable facts science is hard to argue with because it's hard to argue with experience. But I do agree that scientific and religious foundations are different in kind. Not that that resolves anything. Thanks.

veto said...
This is not true. I have been a mormon my whole life. Mormons believe that God the father, Jesus Christ and the Holy ghost are 3 seperate entities, three seperate gods.

I don't think I will vote for Romney simply because I feel like he is putting on a front and that he will do or say anything to be accepted so he can grab the gop.

Of course he is going to be influenced by the prophet on political matters if he is really a believing mormon. "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done" because he speaks for god.

Re influenced by the prophet: You're wrong. The LDS Church believes "in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

In matters of government, the Prophet would be subject to the President (and other officers of the government).

Renee,

What makes you think there's such a thing as non-empirical knowledge at all? If a proposition cannot be tested by science or reason, how can it be tested?

"...the dashing nautical flair of the scientologists..."

"...the profound despair, vast and black as the Deepest Abyss, of those who heed the Call of Dread Cthulhu..."

"...the fashion sense of the Satanists..."

Shorter Willard: "Can't we all just smite the unbelievers?"

I thought the speech was inspiring and so did most of the media and most religious leaders who commented on it. He looked like a president that I would be proud to show off to the world. People talk about his flip flops in ignorance. In politics you have to cater to your constituents. It's called democracy. If Mitt Romney cannot call himself Christian, then nobody has the right to. He is a much better man than I am. Other Mormons have had high positions and nobody says a word about it. Grant Hill would be the Prime Minister of Canada right now if he would have chosen to be the latter leader of the Conservative party instead of immediate Interim Leader of the Opposition. That is the second highest political post in Canada. Nobody said a negative word about his Mormon faith. I only heard positive things about it when I was visiting in Canada as a political science student. He was very active in the Mormon faith and was a leader in it in the past. It never even phased me then because I could see past it.

I thought the speech was inspiring and so did most of the media and most religious leaders who commented on it. He looked like a president that I would be proud to show off to the world. People talk about his flip flops in ignorance. In politics you have to cater to your constituents. It's called democracy. If Mitt Romney cannot call himself Christian, then nobody has the right to. He is a much better man than I am. Other Mormons have had high positions and nobody says a word about it. Grant Hill would be the Prime Minister of Canada right now if he would have chosen to be the latter leader of the Conservative party instead of immediate Interim Leader of the Opposition. That is the second highest political post in Canada. Nobody said a negative word about his Mormon faith. I only heard positive things about it when I was visiting in Canada as a political science student. He was very active in the Mormon faith and was a leader in it in the past. It never even phased me then because I could see past it.

Beware: friggin' long post.

Mixner:

Yep, I think we understand each other now. So, your big question is: If all knowledge rests on various unprovable axioms, how the heck do we choose between them? Isn't any choice essentially arbitrary?

I guess I'd have a few responses to that. My first and entirely unhelpful temptation is to reply: you're right. The choice is essentially arbitrary! Behold the nightmare that is epistemology!

But that obviously won't do, so here's a couple of suggestions:

1. First of all, I think the problem of choosing between sets of axioms occurs less frequently than you might expect; lots of disagreements are caused not because people accept different premises but because one person or the other reasons wrongly from those premises. For instance, let's take your "6000 year Earth" example. The people who believe this say they believe it because they believe the Bible is true. So let's take "the Bible is true" as the relevant axiom, the one which is accepted or rejected. But in order to believe in a 6000-year old Earth, they actually have to believe in a lot of other things too.

[You probably already know this, but just in case, because the following kinda won't make much sense without it: the 6000-year figure is reached by counting up various Biblical genealogies from Adam on, and adding up the ages (when given) of the people listed, and it's about 4000 when you hit Christ, and then you add 2000.]

They have to believe:

* That in the Bible, "son of" can never mean "descendent of," so that the genealogies list every single generation, and not just especially important figures. (Despite the fact that it is sometimes used, in the Bible, to mean exactly that: Jesus is called the "son of David," to mean "descendent of David.")

* That the Bible must always be interpreted literally, so that the seven days of Creation are seven literal days, and Adam is Year Zero. (Despite the fact that the NT authors themselves interpret passages from the OT allegorically -- eg Jonah is an allegory of Christ -- and the fact that in the Gospels, Christ is very fond of conveying knowledge not literally, but through parables. So the Bible itself establishes the principle of nonliteral interpretation.)

* That the evidence that the Earth is older than 6000 years has somehow been divinely planted to "test our faith." (Despite the fact that this would require God to try and fool us, ie, would require God to be a liar, and that this contradicts other passages in the Bible which say that God is good, and that lying is bad, and that God hates liars, and that no, lying in a good cause counts too.)

Now, none of these beliefs is a foundational belief. ("The Hebrew word for 'son' can't mean 'descendent'" hardly attains the status of a first principle.) None of them is necessitated by the evangelical's foundational belief in the Bible, either; in fact, as I hope I've shown, you can argue equally well that they're contradicted by the Bible. So the 6000 year Earth position isn't really implied by the axiom "the Bible is true;" and to disagree with that position, you don't have to address the question of whether the axiom's true at all, you just have to point out a lot of faulty reasoning and internal inconsistencies in the argument.

So first of all, I'd say that we can actually clear away a lot of disagreements before we ever even reach the question of choosing between one set of axioms and another. (I mean, this is only one example, of course, but there are many others.) Not that that answers your question, so:

2. This isn't really conclusive, of course, but if I had to give suggestions for choosing between sets of axioms I guess I'd say that internal consistency and explanatory power are the most helpful criteria.

Internal consistency: Sometimes, two axioms will seem perfectly reconciliable, but if you extrapolate out from them far enough, one will contradict the other. This is a problem for the set of axioms, because practically every such set includes, as one of its members, the axiom "logic works" and one consequence of logic working is that two things can't contradict each other and both be true. So if, in set of axioms A, the consequences of axiom X contradict those of axiom Y, and axiom Z says that logic works, so this shouldn't happen, then set of axioms A kind of self-destructs. At that point, you don't even have to choose whether or not to believe set of axioms A; you *can't* psychologically believe it.

Explanatory power: This is much trickier, but the reason you accept any set of axioms at all, instead of just sticking with "I exist" and sitting still and thinking nothing but "I exist" and starving to death (although I guess you wouldn't believe you had), is so you can think about and do stuff. (Btw, the scenario in that last sentence isn't as absurd as it sounds: there really are stories of hard-core Skeptics, in the classical world, who die rather than act as if anything were true; walking off cliffs and so on.) So, we're going to tend to prefer a set of axioms which explains lots of things, and so lets us think about and do lots of things, to one which is relatively narrow. For instance, some branches of Hinduism include the axiom "material reality is an illusion." Now, it's not necessarily illogical to believe that, and it might not be inconsistent with anything else in those branches of Hinduism; but it does make the world a narrower place. It accounts for fewer things than does the axiom "material reality exists," it lets me think and do fewer things. I realise that this comes perilously close to the "science works better" argument which you quite rightly warn me against. But since the whole point of the axioms is to allow us to reason and act -- to connect us to reality, in a way -- a set which gives us greater latitude of reason and action is a set we're just going to tend to prefer. It does its job better, if you want to put it that way.

So: you don't have to choose between sets of axioms so frequently as all that, and there are (possibly) some (faint) guidelines for doing so when you really do have to choose. But I guess my bigger point would be this.

3. Let's say it is completely arbitrary, and we have no reason to think what we think. That would be foul, but what is your argument for saying that it's false? I mean, I hardly invented Skepticism, and people have been trying to disprove this stuff for an awfully long time, and pretty much not having any success. I'm happy with Descartes, personally, and various Christian arguments about revelation and God not letting us be deceived and so on; but then I would be, wouldn't I? You probably wouldn't; so what's your argument?

In other words, you were right to complain that I hadn't answered your question, but you haven't really answered mine, either: what is science based on (the method, I mean, not the individual findings), if not on those axioms I mentioned? And aren't those axioms finally unprovable? I mean, even if that isn't a very satisfactory situation, epistemologically speaking, I don't see any way out of it.

Well, on that incredibly unsatisfying note I shall retire for the night. Thank you for a thoroughly enjoyable debate -- although I really probably should have bought my groceries instead -- and especially for taking my position seriously enough to understand what I was saying.

P.S. It seems to me that the biggest point I haven't addressed -- although you can likely think of a bigger one -- is "how do you define an axiom;" ie, why can't "The Hebrew word for 'son' can't mean 'descendent'" be called an axiom? Because that would obviously kill the nice distinction I'm trying to make in 1. I guess I'd say that to be an axiom, a statement cannot be provable or disprovable by any a priori or a posteriori argument, but nevertheless is necessary for many of our daily activities (like "logic works"). But I can think of problems with that definition right now, so I think I'd better just go look all this up in a book somewhere.

Well, at one time in this country, back when we had a beef with the Barbary pirates, the US Congress passed a resolution explicitly stating that the United States was in no sense a "Christian nation" and thus had no beef with the Muslim faith - and the President signed in without a qualm.

Try that today and see how far you get.

PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP

Treaty signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796, and at Algiers January 3, 1797
Senate advice and consent to ratification June 7, 1797
Ratified by the President of the United States June 10, 1797
Entered into force June 10, 1797
Proclaimed by the President of the United States June 10, 1797
Superseded April 17, 1806, by treaty of June, 4, 18051
8 Stat. 154; Treaty Series 3582

[TRANSLATION of 1796]3

TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE BEY AND SUBJECTS OF TRIPOLI OF BARBARY

ARTICLE 11

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,4 - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This is pretty wild thread - between the Mittbots, the political (and social) criticism of the speech, the theological debate over Mormonism, an argument over the relative epistomological merits of science vs. religion . . . wow.

I just want to address the secularism issue from many comments back. Jason wrote:

"If you mean "secular" in the simple "not religious" sense, then sure, one could say the Const is "secular." But "secular" these days tends to mean affirmatively "not religious" -- as in against or in opposition to religion. "

Yes, these days it is often used to mean that. This is in large part - though not totally - the work of folks who oppose secularism, at least to some degree and as they understand it. I think it's vital that we preserve the sense of the "secular" and "secularism" - of spaces apart from religion where we can all meet as equals, whether before the law and the state, at the lab bench or classroom, or merely in the bustle of society. A common and neutral ground, an open and welcoming public square. This is the idea of the secular state as the opposite (not merely the mirror image) of theocracy, the secular society as the opposite of the 'theocratic' one. (In other words, not merely an atheocracy, either, not even a fairly mild one.

see wikipedia on secularism if you want.

Now, to be fair, there is a certain kind of religion (or belief more widely), for which this is anti-religious - one which makes totalitizing social or political claims, which cannot accept the existence of any separate sphere. Many - perhaps most of our anti-secularists are merely standard culture warriors responding to real or perceived threats and opportunities, but there are some of this latter sort as well. There have been a number of pieces relating to how liberal democracy can (or can't) deal with this in the NY Times lately, including an interesting one by Mark Lilla on http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/magazine/19Religion-t.html?ei=5088&en=0d0706fa13a2d362&ex=1345176000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1187554536-MUy3e1a6I%201E8mA%20YxOs6A&pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow">The Politics of God, and some irritating babble by Fish in which nevertheless a genuine point was struggling to emerge . . .


Or, alternately, The Politics of God, for a non-ugly link that works.

Preview is my god now.

Ivanova,

As in your last post, your lengthy discussion raises all sorts of issues and makes all sorts of assertions that are unrelated or only tangentially related to my argument against this science-also-rests-on-faith claim that you and Jason have been making. I don't have the time or the inclination to respond to all of these other matters and I'm just going to ignore them.

But I do want to address one big problem in your new post. You appeal to logical criteria like "internal consistency" to justify favoring one set of "unprovable axioms" over another. But you also claim that the axioms of logic are themselves "unprovable" and are accepted on faith. So logic cannot be used to argue for one faith-based set of axioms over another. It's a circular argument. You're back to "it all boils down to faith!" and you haven't justified anything.

Chopping through all the dead wood, I think the most relevant paragraph in your post is this:

In other words, you were right to complain that I hadn't answered your question, but you haven't really answered mine, either: what is science based on (the method, I mean, not the individual findings), if not on those axioms I mentioned? And aren't those axioms finally unprovable? I mean, even if that isn't a very satisfactory situation, epistemologically speaking, I don't see any way out of it.

Then I don't understand why you're not a radical skeptic who disputes all claims of knowledge. Nobody knows anything. There is no knowledge, there is only belief, and all belief is really just faith. Is that really your position?

If not, if you do believe we have knowledge, then you must believe that some axioms are more justified than others, even if you don't think any of them are "provable." And that's the qualitative difference between science and religion that you have been denying.


I guess I understand why many liberals would not like Romney's speech, but MY's reasons for hating it seem a bit lame to me. Perhaps saying you admire the frequent prayers of the Muslims could sound trite in some ears, bit it is a distinctive practice of Muslims (indeed one of the five pillars), and it is, unfortunately, somewhat remarkable when prominent GOP candidates say something nice about Islam.

As for the supposed significant difference Romney is papering over, I'm not sure what MY is even getting at. The Mormon emphasis on Gethsemane makes Mormons beyond-the-pale in Christianity? Based on what standard? Because it seems to a non-Christian who doesn't like Romney that it somehow should matter a lot (but say, the stations of the cross and the crucifix as opposed to the cross don't stop Catholics from being part of the same Christianity as Protestants)? It reminds me of Chris Hitchens opining that Christians should really be offended that Mormons think the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Not that Hitchens cares one bit where the Garden of Eden was supposed to be, but he's pushing for Guiliani.

Mormonism is not trinitarian. That is a big difference, theologically. But who really cares, in the presidential race? Why does MY care? If Romney did make a mistake, it could be mentioning his faith in Jesus right after saying that the particulars of faith aren't relevant. But not in "papering over" theological differences, which, in the area of Christology, Romney seems sincerely to believe aren't that great.

When I hear the words 'science also rests on faith' (or 'science is just another mythology'), I reach for that person's antibiotics . . .

Mixner:

What is science based on? You keep saying that it has superior epistemological claims; what are they?

I'm an atheist (ex-mormon) from Utah and thought I'd throw in my two cents.

I wish Mitt were an atheist and not a Republican, but I would still vote for him if he passes primaries.

He co-founded a firm that pumped out 100% returns for decades (this is impossible). He turned a profit on the Olympics (also impossible) and ran them very well and balanced the MA budget (also impossible) and pushed forward an interesting healthcare experiment. But nobody really cares about competence.

He delivered the speech because as a smart man he knew he had to pander to the evangelicals, possibly the dumbest single segment of the population. And he did it well. But it won't win him the nomination because nobody cares if he can deliver a speech or run a nation. That includes my fellow atheists and ex-mormons who will hate him along with the evangelicals.

i LOVE that the nicest thing he can say about muslims is that they ... ummm ... let's see ... ummm ... they pray frequently! yes, that's the ticket! how about cleanliness? we take washing before prayer seriously, too! :)

"...the communal dedication of Jim Jones and his Peoples Temple, the great faith in a better world of Heaven's Gate, the righteous Itality of the Rastafaris...."

I have read the entire preceding thread word for word. I now fully understand the reason Mitt Romney did not address the doctrinal issues of the Mormon church that the MSM (and many Bloggers) suggests is at the root of every thoughtful American's concern with Romney's Mormonism ... and therefore his presidential effort.

As the dialog between Jason, Mixner and a few others make crystal clear ... very reasonable, enormously coherent, exceptionally well educated, highly intelligent people cannot come to an agreement simply by explaining their ’doctrine’ even when going to great (some would say infinitely tedious - other would say odious) detail. Romney is thus demonstrably correct in keeping away from that quagmire.

Romney said, in his ‘FAITH in America’ speech, that He is declaring what HE believes about ‘FAITH’ and it’s power to unite Americans ... and why. HE pointed out that He lives HIS FAITH in His personal life and that HE will do the same when HE presides as POTUS.

Romney's governorship in Massachusetts was an example of how he tried to unite the citizens of that state by making concessions with those (mostly Democrats, Liberals, Progressives) that strongly held beliefs that were fundamentally different from his own. His mistake wasn’t that he flip-flopped (that is a canard successfully foisted on him by selective parsing) but that he believed it was possible to make concessions with the Devil’s minions. He’s not likely to make that mistake again.

Those who should be Romney's closest allies, the 'Evangelicals', have instead chosen to be his greatest enemy. It makes me weep for America. I'm certain that I am not alone ... which gives me very little comfort.

In the interest of full disclosure: Who I am voting for is solely between me and my conscious ('conscious' as used here is non-scientific).

Ivanova,

What is science based on?

I'm not sure what you mean by "based on," but I would say science is "based on" the scientific method, which I would broadly describe as the production of knowledge from the application of reason to the results of observation and experiment.

You keep saying that it has superior epistemological claims; what are they?

Scientific knowledge.

I'm still not sure what your own position is. At the end of your previous post, you seemed to arrive at something like, "Yes, I realize that my argument leads to absurd conclusions (e.g., about claims of knowledge regarding the age of the Earth), but I can't see anything wrong with my argument." So do you accept the absurd conclusions your argument leads to, or do you think there must be something wrong with your argument?

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government."

"We do not insist on a single strain of religion, but rather we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

This speech did it for me. He preached tolerance, while also discriminating against people with no religious beliefs.

Oscar

It was a speech on FAITH. What part of "Faith in America", the title, did you not get? Was it the word in the title called "FAITH"? Self-described atheists have no faith in anything but themselves (or big brained scientists). I'm sure the Satanists also feel the pain of exclusion.

I am sick and tired of this line of reasoning (?). I hope people who think (I use the term loosely) the way you do can understand, in some sort of feeble, simple minded way, that Romney didn't leave you out. You are among the "secular" folks Romney was talking about. You're the ones who believe there is no "higher power" than yourselves. Go trundle back to your laboratories and Florence flasks and pay homage to your priests in lab coats. I doubt Romney was ever on your short list for POTUS anyway.

Ooops! I misspelled "conscience" in my first rant above. My wife, an astrophysicist at Boeing, pointed that out to me. I'm just an engineer so she likes finding mistakes like this. It goes to show that I do not have enough book learnin'.

Great speech. period!

Mitt Romney is right on target with his speech. Liberals are destroying this country with their views and laws. Just look at the moral values that are destrying this country. Good for you Mr. Romney.

VSteven, do you actually (knowingly) know any "self-described atheists"?

"Just look at the moral values that are destr[o]ying this country."

I have - why do you think I'm gonna vote Democratic?

Why do some of you seem to think that your being discriminated against if you're "particular belief" is not mentioned exclusively? You're attacking the speech by Romney with no valid reasoning. Your biased to your own lack of faith in a higher being and find fault with others who do have faith in a higher being. Boo Hoo...

Dan S - Yes. I know several who have told me they are atheists. They state quite categorically that there is no consciousness beyond death. Not coincidentally they are all self-described Democrats - except one ... she's an "Independent" - another name for a fence sitter. Frankly, I prefer the atheists – at least they stand for something.

"Romney said, in his ‘FAITH in America’ speech, that He is declaring what HE believes about ‘FAITH’ and it’s power to unite Americans ... and why. HE pointed out that He lives HIS FAITH in His personal life and that HE will do the same when HE presides as POTUS."

Curious. I'd only seen people capitalize the pronoun when referring to God or Jesus, but here such an honorific is extended to Mitt Romney.

But maybe this is appropriate; for when else has it been stated more profoundly and eloquently, that it doesn't matter how you follow Jesus? Maybe your priest is a pedophile, maybe your pastor is a closeted gay man, or only uses female prostitutes. Maybe your leader's wife talks up college boys, or steals from the church. Maybe you wear magic underwear, or speak in tongues, or kill doctors. Maybe your revered leader sat out Korea in Japan, or Vietnam in France or Texas. Maybe you'd rather violate the law with torture, or by illegally spying on your fellow Americans, or imprisioning them indefinitely, or by using the government to force them to believe as you do. None of these differences matter, as long as you love Jesus and hate the godless. Mormon, Catholic, Evangelical: why can't we all just smite the unbelievers? That was Romney's message, and in today's fast-paced, everchanging world, what could be more unifying and inspiring?

After submitting my post I immediatly thought, "someone will make an issue of capitalizing the pronouwn "HE", normally reserved for the Lord Jesus. You are right and I was wrong to do it. My intent was to emphisize that it was Romney's beliefs, not anyone elses, that he was speaking to. Please forgive me for the mistake.

You make the point that we are all found wanting. That is not an entirely astute observation. However, it does not speak to the fact that the basic doctrine of any religion does not guarentee the bahavior of the people to profess to be adherents. However, poor behavior does not make the case that therefor religion needs by marginalized to make way for the more enlightened progressives. I agree with Romney. Wow, who'd a thought?

Rombots, meet Hitchens:

This does not mean that freedom of religion is not as important as freedom from it, yet Romney makes himself absurd by saying that Mormons may not be asked about the tenets of their faith, lest this infringe the constitutional ban on a religious test for public office. Here is another failure of understanding on his part. He is not being told: Answer this question in the wrong way, and you become ineligible. He is being told: Your family is prominent in a notorious church that proselytizes its views in a famously aggressive manner. Are you only now deciding to make a secret of your beliefs? And if so, why? Would he expect a Scientologist to be able to avoid questions about L. Ron Hubbard? Does the governor of Massachusetts who publicly tried for mob applause by demanding that we "double Guantanamo" (whatever that meant) add that the detainees must not be asked what branch of Islam they favor? If an atheist was running against him, would Romney make nothing of the fact? His stupid unease on this point is shown by his demagogic attack on the straw man "religion of secularism," when, actually, his main and most cynical critic is a moon-faced true believer and anti-Darwin pulpit-puncher from Arkansas who doesn't seem to know the difference between being born again and born yesterday.


According to the admittedly very contradictory scriptures of the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth warned his disciples and followers that they should expect to be ridiculed and mocked for their faith. After all, how likely was it that God had decided to reveal himself to only a few illiterate peasants in a barbarous backwater? Those who elected to believe this stuff were quite rightly told to expect a hard time, and the expression "fool for God" or "fool for Christ" has been with us ever since. That concept has some dignity and nobility. Entirely lacking in dignity or nobility (or average integrity) is the well-heeled son of a gold-plated church who wants to assume the pained look of martyrdom only when he is asked if he actually believes what he says. A long time ago, Romney took the decision to be a fool for Joseph Smith, a convicted fraud and serial practitioner of statutory rape who at times made war on the United States and whose cult has been made to amend itself several times in order to be considered American at all. We do not require pious lectures on the American founding from such a man, and we are still waiting for some straight answers from him.

that last post is unkind. I have lately had the opportunity to see some Arabs close up, and as much as I admire them personally, I also see all the disinformation and hate-mongering they have been subjected to, and I despair of peace in the Middle East--and in other war zones in the world--there are too many to mention. But posts like the previous one, and the other intolerant posts on this thread are not any different. Hate-mongering does nothing for anyone. If whatever you have is so much better than what someone else has, tell us why your beliefs/ideas are so great, but stop bad-mouthing others!

Who is Hitchens? Is he/she someone I should cheer or loath? A spokesperson for American values? Sorry, I've never heard of she/he. Probably some European intellectual no doubt.

And if the goofy stuff being presented by 'southpaw' is representative of that person's brilliance, full of invictive and misinformation that it is, I'm glad I don't know the person and I don't believe that those opinions presented as 'facts' are shared by many Americans. I could be wrong.

By the way, what's a Rombot? Is that like a JewBaiter, a kike, a nigra, a cracker, a mick, a papist, a Democrud, a Repugnant, or some other belittleing name? Or is is like moron, bonehead, idiot, dunce, twit, nudnik, dork, jerk, etc. Wow! Very conducive to intellectual discourse.


Comments closed December 21, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.