Religious Bigotry Lives
The occasion of Mitt Romney’s speech on the role of faith in politics has brought anti-Mormonism out of the woodwork. For example, Chuck Adkins dredges up the notorious professional anti-Mormon Ed Decker to regurgitate distortions and outright falsehoods about Mormon religious beliefs that Decker has been selling in book and movie form since at least the early 1980s. Decker’s particular choice for this effort is to revive his old conspiracy theory about Mormons using a presidential run to take over the country and abolish the Constitution, leading to theocratic Mormon rule. Adkins doesn’t even raise an eyebrow at the fantastic scenario:
To many Mormons, this is the beginning of the prophetic ‘End Times’ scenario of the last days of America and the Mormon theocracy that would usher in the millennial reign of Christ. It is in the very blood stream of Mormonism. It is part of the corporate DNA of a whole people group and a subject rarely discussed with outsiders…
This Theocracy would come into existence when the U.S. Constitution would hang by a thread and the Mormon elders would be there to save it and the country and thereby usher in The Kingdom of God, the prophesied Mormon theocracy…
The unique thing about this temple that struck me as singularly important was the design and furnishing of a large room on the upper floor. A photograph of this room is in the film, The Godmakers. It was set to house a presiding governing body. It is my own personal belief that it was designed as the place where the theocratic government of God would conduct its business, with the prophet in His place of authority…
You will also see that Mitt Romney has been raised and trained for this day.
(Adkins even went the additional step of sending out links to his post in email, specifically requesting that others assist him in spreading his message of anti-Mormon hatred.) As always, it remains unclear why a professional anti-Mormon is necessary to tell science-fiction tales about what Mormons believe when the LDS Church has its own website and when Mormons at large are willing, even eager, to speak for themselves. And the slur “cult” has made a return to the airwaves as anti-Mormons seize the new opportunity to sell prejudice for profit.
Even leaving aside the gross unconstitutionality of imposing a religious test on a presidential candidate, intolerance towards Mormons actually has a long pedigree in the United States. Largely untaught in the U.S. educational system is the story of Mormon “pioneers” who were, in reality, religious refugees fleeing the country in an American pogrom after being targeted for legally authorized genocide by anti-Mormon public officials, the precursors to today’s Ed Deckers. In the northern section of this city of Omaha lies a monument to their suffering at “Winter Quarters“, where over a hundred Mormons perished during a harsh winter after hastily crossing the border out of Iowa and into “Indian country” on the orders of the governor of Iowa. Engrossed in their fantastic tales of Mormon oddities, anti-Mormons avoid telling the story of their own moral and intellectual ancestors.
Anti-Mormons will also avoid telling the story of prior rounds where their antecedents imposed a religious test prohibiting one Mormon from holding office by telling falsehoods and distortions about LDS religious beliefs and forcing another to undergo months of hearings before being allowed to take his seat. Instead, they hope to leverage the empty but emotional power of the slur “cult” to do it again, setting a permanent bar against a Mormon even being nominated for the Presidency.
Further, Mormons are subjected to a double-whammy. At the same time that they are opposed by anti-Mormons who deem them a “non-Christian” “cult”, they are barred by anti-Christians who hate them because of their Christian religious beliefs. There exists, in effect, not one but two unconstitutional religious tests barring Romney and every other one of the millions of American Mormons from ever aspiring to the Presidency. That these two tests contradict each other in every way merely adds insult to injury.
Alas, religious hatred and bigotry remains the last socially-acceptable form of open prejudice in American political culture. One need not wander far across the political blogosphere to find expressions of contempt and hatred towards Mormons from elements of both the far right (anti-Mormons) and the far left (anti-Christians) that would never be tolerated if they targeted a racial or ethnic group. But their advocates are not ashamed, they are proud. And few other than their victims will call them out on it.
Sad.
What? Sounds quite non-sensical to me. Why save a secular constitution on the way to theocracy?
Definition (per dictionary.com): "In anthropology, an organization for the conduct of ritual, magical, or other religious observances. Many so-called primitive tribes, for example, have ancestor cults, in which dead ancestors are considered divine and activities are organized to respect their memory and invoke their aid. A cult is also a religious group held together by a dominant, often charismatic individual, or by the worship of a divinity, an idol, or some other object."
I may not be the best scholar of the LDS church, but like most religions the term "cult" accurately fits the mold. Not everyone says the phrase with a sneer, we just see all religions as cults of one kind or another.
How do we quote in this new thing? Anyway: Dustin, fine, is it alright if we refer to non-religious people and agnostics as members of cults as well then? After all, even atheists ‘believe’ that there’s no God, they can’t be sure.
I thought that this link was interesting and seems to relate directly to your subject here.
New Vanderbilt scientific poll reveals intense bias against Mormons; Romney must demystify his religion to gain support
Added indent and outdent features, as well as a color selector and bullet tab. Anything else anyone?
—–
And it’s not a matter of "believing" that there’s no God, as an atheist (which I will freely admit) I simply observe the available scientific evidence and find it lacking. I’m no more in the "Cult of No God" than I am the "Cult of Easter Bunny Denialists".
If science ever shows that supernatural phenomenon are real, and if it can show that there is a God, I will still not "believe". At that point I’ll know, which is an entirely different thing. Belief as properly defined implies lack of proof, and I’ve had the scientific method ingrained into my thinking too much to have belief… for anything.
If more christians were becoming mormons I would not be worried - mormonism is wrong about homosexuality but its fundamental alignment does not allow the type of casual or careless homophobia I see today. If people have to be christians in the first place I think a higher proportion of mormons would be a good thing.
In other words: your idol is science.
Xel; what’s it with you and Christianity?
"Xel; what’s it with you and Christianity?"
It’s a religion. Oh, and the bible is flawed and therefore can be substituted with something better. I recognize the good and bad in christianity but I just don’t think civilization should have to take the good with the bad. It would be best to slowly phase it out in order to prevent unforeseen consequences. I am not advocating illegal or unjust moves against it or its adherents, but I am adamant about diminishing its influence and sliding in a better substitute in increments. After all, if christianity causes more charitable deeds then that is great, but I don’t want to take the charity with more undesirable aspects of christianity that could come into effect at any time. I just want the good effects and I think I can get those in other ways, with other patterns of thinking and good values not set in a flawed context (the bible, assumption of a divine entity).
"If science ever shows that supernatural phenomenon are real, and if it can show that there is a God, I will still not "believe". At that point I’ll know, which is an entirely different thing. Belief as properly defined implies lack of proof, and I’ve had the scientific method ingrained into my thinking too much to have belief… for anything."
To be incapable of belief kinda makes life hard. I mean, I’ve never empirically observed Romania. I believe Romania exists and that the whole thing isn’t a very elaborate and well-designed prank on me by everybody else or something. But I don’t know Romania exists - it just wouldn’t make sense to act as if it didn’t exist just because of this sliver of doubt.
"In other words: your idol is science."
No it ain’t. Science is not an entity.
"No it ain’t. Science is not an entity."
That’s irrelevant. According to you God is not an entity either.
O, great. Well, why don’t we ask God to send something that suits your tastes then? Perhaps He’ll be so good as to send something just for you. Of course then we would have the problem that many other people would see something in it they object to - duties and responsibilities and all that - and they would, of course, refuse to believe that you’re a Prophet, so that’s the end of it I guess.
Mankind have already tried what you suggest - coming up with something of their own - it hasn’t worked. Why not? Because man is, contrary to what the great philosophes thought, fallible. What’s more, he constantly makes errors and mistakes.
Quite some of those who share your happy view have brought more disaster upon mankind then all the religions combined.
Nazism, communism, socialism, dictatorships, lack of moral values, society refusing to take responsbility for their own lives, societies abandoning true rights such as property… it’s all a sign of a country without a God.
If there’s one thing responsible for the moral decay of society today it’s not religion, it’s a lack of religion.
So, I’m sure this comment will upset some people
Non-religious people can be very moral individuals. Religious people can be very unmoral individuals. But society as a whole cannot possibly be civilized nor moral without religion.
Note: this is not an attack against non-religious people, it’s a criticism of people who want to push the role religion plays further and further back.
CNN is doing its part to promote anti-Mormon bigotry.
"That’s irrelevant. According to you God is not an entity either."
It’s totally giga-relevant. Science is not a separate entity from me but a structure of thinking, doubt, assuredness and structuring I employ to find what "is". I know God shouldn’t influence my decisions one bit since he probably doesn’t exist, yet I understand him as an entity whenever I bring him up.
"O, great. Well, why don’t we ask God to send something that suits your tastes then? Perhaps He’ll be so good as to send something just for you. Of course then we would have the problem that many other people would see something in it they object to - duties and responsibilities and all that - and they would, of course, refuse to believe that you’re a Prophet, so that’s the end of it I guess."
I’m not talking about a religion here. I am talking about good politics, communitarianism, making this behavior more likely and that behavior less likely, making good values seem good for what they are rather than using a God (that sort of killed over 2 million people according to the bible) to make them follow these values. Duty and responsibility is alive and well in me (and other atheists)and I have never considered heaven, hell, Jesus, God, the devil and his auntie or anything religious when I have acted responsibly or dutifully. If it works for me it can for others.
"Mankind have already tried what you suggest - coming up with something of their own - it hasn’t worked. Why not? Because man is, contrary to what the great philosophes thought, fallible."
Well, so is the bible, and christianity. Both are flawed, and you are just saying that they work better than the alternatives. In my view, religions are just ideologies that cheat by introducing eternal torment or plenty sexy raisins to the argumentation.
"Nazism, communism, socialism, dictatorships, lack of moral values, society refusing to take responsbility for their own lives, societies abandoning true rights such as property… it’s all a sign of a country without a God."
Armchair sociology = no thanks. No, it’s a lack of respect for freedom that’s involved here, not a lack of religiosity. Christianity is not the best or most consistent source of freedom.
"If there’s one thing responsible for the moral decay of society today it’s not religion, it’s a lack of religion. "
In my opinion discussing a ban on abortion, not giving gays the right to adopt or get the same civil marriage rights and trying to skirt sex-ed/deny pro-condom charity in Africa funding is a sign of pretty serious moral decay. When the pope thanked Nicaragua for their ban on abortion I found him morally decayed. I can see your angle, but I am not seeing it borne out by facts.
"But society as a whole cannot possibly be civilized nor moral without religion."
You’ve single-handedly solved a pretty serious and on-going debate. Excellent.
"Note: this is not an attack against non-religious people, it’s a criticism of people who want to push the role religion plays further and further back."
Michael used CRITICISM!
It wasn’t very effective…*
*This is a reference. If you don’t get it, I am too young or you are too old.
During the World Wars it was said that "Loose Lips Sinks Ships." Nowadays I think that idea should be revived as "Loose Terminology Sinks Ideas." The notion that since the government is not allowed to use religious tests as a prerequisite for holding political office then individual voters are not allowed to be uncomfortable with candidates who hold religious beliefs they find odd or downright weird is simple nonsense. We do not say that since the government cannot censor publications they dislike then any individual who chooses not to allow a copy of The Turner Diaries in their collection is guilty of censorship. The Constitution is a document that regulates the running of the mechanism of government, it is not a source of personal ethics. You may personally feel that voters shouldn’t ever take religious background into effect, but that is nothing but the expression of your personal preference.
I myself would find it difficult to vote for a practioner of voodoo, or a scientologist, or a believer in the divinity of Jim Jones, or someone who believes completely in astrology, therefore I cannot say that there is something inherently wrong with those people who are distrustful of Mormonism. Now, I may argue that their fears are exaggerated or completely misplaced, their ignorance too great to make any knowledgable decision on the matter, etc., but that is an entirely different argument than the one made here.
"Nazism, communism, socialism, dictatorships, lack of moral values, society refusing to take responsbility for their own lives, societies abandoning true rights such as property… it’s all a sign of a country without a God."
I hate repeating myself, but in Nazi Germany, traditional religion was replaced with one surrounding Hitler, in the U.S.S.R. it was Stalin. As for dictatorships, plenty of them are religious. Ya know… your favorite countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. I seem to recall England being under the rule of a religious leader in times past… One might even argue in some of these cases that too much religion was the problem.
Xel - You worship what is convenient to you. That’s your gig, man. Don’t blow smoke and tell me it’s not a religion. As I’ve said before: what you have looks and quacks like a duck. Don’t go telling me it’s a caribou.
Michael -Chuck Adkins is a vulgar pseudo-Christian and he’s gotten far more time from you than he deserves.
Jimmie: I didn’t write this post. I received the same e-mail but decided to ignore it because I considered it such blatant bigotry that I didn’t want to give it even 1 minute attention. On the other hand, I understand why Jason did decide to post it.
Of course it’s a religion. And Xel basically proves that the debate which goes back to the French Revolution - and before it - is still alive and well. We’ve still got the apprentices of ‘reason’ who ignore human nature but who think they understand everything, against the other side who says humans are limited and whatever we can come up with will be filled with errors and who says that it’s better not to innovate too much nor too quickly because before you know it you’ve caused more damage than good.
I think Jimmie is entirely too kind in his description of the personage linked. I’d go on, but any notice for same is too much.