I have not yet had the opportunity to see “The Book of Mormon” on Broadway, mostly because I’m incapable of planning an evening of theater a year in advance. Which is what’s required if you don’t want to spend as much for a pair of tickets as you would for a family vacation at Disney.
But the other day on Youtube I was hunting around for the first fifteen minutes of the Tony awards (which I’d missed) and came across a video from the previous year’s Tonys of Andrew Rannells as the show’s “Elder Price” performing “I Believe.”
In that song, the conflicted Price musically recites a litany of his deeply held beliefs, all of them accurate reflections of Mormonism.
It generated many laughs from the tony Tony crowd, but what I found intriguing were the things that the audience did not laugh at. It prompted me to consider the thought process of audience members when faced with Elder Price’s belief system.
“I believe that the Lord God created the universe,” sings Price.
No laughter. Okay, I’m with him so far. I believe the universe was created at the whim of a great unknowable entity.
“I believe that He sent his only Son to die for my sins.”
No laughter. Sure, everyone knows the aforementioned entity impregnated a human woman—just like Zeus did to create Hercules, except that’s just myth—to produce his son, the human sacrifice. That tracks.
“And I believe that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America.”
Big laugh. That’s ridiculous! I mean, yeah, a small group of people were selected by the entity to build a boat and turn it into a floating zoo during a massive act of God-sponsored near-genocide, but Jews building boats? Hilarious notion!
“I believe that God has a plan for all of us.”
No laugh. Absolutely. The unseen entity has a detailed plan for every single person on earth, including the victims of random violence, and the children who die from cancer, and…
“I believe that plan involves me getting my own planet.”
Huge laugh. How absurd to think that, like the Little Prince, he’d have his own world. I’ll still be chuckling over that idea when I’m sitting in heaven on my own cloud.
“And I believe that in 1978, God changed His mind about black people!”
Big laugh. As a Jew, I found that one particularly hysterical because I still remember in 1965, God’s reps changed their mind about Jewish people. My parents, who had never been invited to a New Years Eve party by any of the neighbors, got three invites that year. They stayed home. Funny stuff.
“And I believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri!”
Gargantuan laugh. That’s hysterical! Everyone knows the Garden of Eden, the place where the entity formed modern day man (screw evolution) out of clay and ribs was situated in…okay, I don’t know where. But it wasn’t in Jackson County, and the reason I know this is so because…well…
“A Mormon just believes!”
…a non-Mormon just believes.
It occurred to me, in watching the Tony audience laughing at the beliefs held by upwards of fourteen million people, that if the popular school of thought was Atheism, or perhaps a religion that had no ties to either Old or New Testament, that you could have a real knee-slapper of a song with what most people consider to be common knowledge, if you strip those beliefs (and practices) to their essence and reference them as scandalously as possible.
“I believe that ancient Jews spoke to God through flaming shrubbery!”
“I believe that God doesn’t want you to eat shrimp at Red Lobster!”
“I believe in communing with God’s son through acts of symbolic cannibalism!”
Personally, I don’t care what people believe, as long as it gets them through the day and it doesn’t involve harming others. But that may just be me, because one’s personal beliefs have become part of the political scene in a way that it hasn’t since people feared JFK would be taking his marching orders from the Vatican.
On one side we have people expressing deep concern about Romney because of seemingly laughable Mormon beliefs. A recent Gallup poll shows that eighteen percent of those polled would not consider voting for a Mormon. You ask me, it’s probably higher; it’s just that not everyone wants to admit truths that smack of bias to pollsters. In a poll taken this time last year, it was twenty two percent. On the other hand, that same poll also said that thirty two percent would never vote for someone who was gay, and forty nine percent wouldn’t vote for an atheist. Presumably they figure that a gay President would disgrace the office in a way that a randy heterosexual never would, while only an Atheist could possibly violate his oath to uphold the Constitution because swearing on a Bible wouldn’t mean anything.
On the other side we have people accusing the Christian Obama of being a Muslim. Not that most of them know what the Muslim faith entails, any more than they really understand what Socialism is. It’s just something to be afraid of. Because every other religion makes so much more sense, and we all worship a God who’s benevolent except when he’s killing tens of thousands through such “acts” of his as earthquakes and floods. And Mark Twain said, “If there is a God, he is a malign thug,” and he also said, “If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be — a Christian.”
I’m just saying that if you’re going to allow a candidate’s personal beliefs to determine your opinion of him, you’re on a slippery slope. No one’s religion is laughter-proof when examined from the outside in. Besides: “Judge not, that ye not be judged.” I read that in the Bible. So it must be true.
PAD
But it wasn’t in Jackson County, and the reason I know this is so because…well…
It’s Missouri, and that’s reason enough. 😉
For once, I agree with Craig.
That might explain why they did evrything possible to get kicked out.
I think it’s somewhat ironic that thousands of people put their faith and belief that Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.
Missouri, the “Show Me” state.
What’s with all the cracks about Missouri? Harry Truman, Gary Friedrich and Denny O’Neil are from Missouri
And Roy Thomas is from Jackson Missouri. It is the county seat of Jackson County.
I can’t speak for others here, but I currently live in Missouri. Only someone living in Kansas could think Eden was ever here.
I lived in southern Iowa, 30 miles from the Iowa-Missouri state line, for a number of years. So, I have some personal experience.
And southern Iowa was by no means a paradise, either. 🙂
There’s a reason they named it Misery. Or Missouri, however you want to spell it.
Well. as a life-long Missourian, I maintain that Missouri is perfectly capable of being paradise as any other place. I just got back from NYC and had a good time. It was the 3rd visit for me and I’ve always had a good time. But it is expensive.
I’ve also visited, San Francisco, New Orleans, Chicago, Rome, and Florence Italy. Had a good time then too but those places weren’t any closer to paradise.
I used to work with a guy who actively discouraged people from visiting St. Louis so as not to spoil the city with tourists. He’d say: “There’s no culture, no good restaurants, nothing to do. Don’t come here, You wouldn’t like it.”
I gotta disagree with you, George. You might have been to Chicago, but you’ve obviously never been to Wrigley Field.
Oh, I’ve been to Wrigley Field. Saw the Cardinals play baseball with some cub scouts I think.
Sorry, George, but I have a buddy who just moved back to Colorado after spending 2 years working in St. Louis. And he hated just about every minute of his time there.
I think the only thing he truly appreciated were Blues fans (he’s a big hockey fan in general).
Isn’t Colorado on fire?
Isn’t Colorado on fire?
Yes, and we’d still rather be here than St. Louis. 🙂
Considering the Garden of Eden was in Iraq, Lebanon or Ethiopia according to Jewish tradition, Missouri was probably an improvement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_eden
I think that’s one reason the Romney people might’ve been antsy about bringing up Rev. Wright for this campaign (wait, I thought he was a Muslim, what’s the meme again), they don’t want looking closely into religion to be an issue because of the ‘Mormon factor.’
its coming to detroit next year, come on over. you can have dinner with me and the wife
I’ve been wondering where I go to start a rumor. I’d like to start a rumor that Romney has several more wives who are going to start fighting over why one of them doesn’t get to be First Lady. Eventually, the whole thing will grow into a civil war.
MSNBC. If you ask nicely, they’ll even provide a video.
Earlier in the GOP Primaries when there were still a dozen GOP candidates, Steven Colbert quipped that Newt Gingrich had had 50% more wives than both Mormons in the race combined!
All religions involve believing in some very silly, very absurd things.
People believe them nonetheless, because they’ve been conditioned from early childhood, so that their bûllšhìŧ censor has a major blindspot.
People also are so desperate for life to have meaning, that they allow themselves to believe in things they would not otherwise. I can sympathize with that one.
As long as people don’t try to force their delusions onto others, it’s okay by me. Unfortunately, most religions involve changing the world to conform to their beliefs. So their bûllšhìŧ inevitably affects everybody.
I’m pessimistic about we ever finding a solution to that that is satisfatory to everyone.
Rene: People believe them nonetheless, because they’ve been conditioned from early childhood, so that their bûllšhìŧ censor has a major blindspot.
That may be the case for some people. But how do you explain the beliefs of those who choose a religion as an adult, after an examination of all available alternatives?
I’d explain it as there being seven billion people on the planet, none who has any idea what happens after you die. People who come to the conclusion later are either seeking comfort or influenced by persuasive individuals.
After consulting all available alternatives at Subway, I decided on tuna. Does that make it the best choice? No, but I picked it. Don’t mean šhìŧ one way or the other.
I believe Rene explained his opinion about the group you mentioned in the very next paragraph:
.
“People also are so desperate for life to have meaning, that they allow themselves to believe in things they would not otherwise. I can sympathize with that one.”
.
Andy –
The adult converts I’ve met only made me more skeptical about religious revelation, I’m sorry to say.
My brother found religion, after years of fighting drug addiction and living in a reckless way. I can see that religion offers him a sense of identity and community. And he does need a “grafted” super-ego, since he proved so bad at impulse control.
It was not a case of an adult chosing religion in a calm, measured way, after examining all alternatives, but of desperate man needing a support group.
My father found religion late in life, in a much calmer way than my brother, but I can’t help seeing it as an elderly, widowed man choosing what is more convenient, since he needs to spend a lot more time with his sisters, that are very religious.
It’s also of note that both my father and my brother are returning to their childhood faiths. It’s still the indocrination they received at an earlier age, now kicking in.
I’m happy that religion has helped them out when they needed it. I recognize religion as a positive social force in many occasions. But I am also even happier that none of them have tried to meddle in my affairs or criticize my living arrangement with my girlfriend.
Tony: I believe Rene explained his opinion about the group you mentioned in the very next paragraph:
Ah, I see. I read that paragraph as a continuation of the first, as additional reasons why the same people hold onto certain beliefs. But clearly it can, and probably should, be read as you suggest. Thank you.
Brent E: People who come to the conclusion later are either seeking comfort or influenced by persuasive individuals.
Rene: People also are so desperate for life to have meaning, that they allow themselves to believe in things they would not otherwise. I can sympathize with that one.
Certainly that is another model, and no doubt true for some. But there are plenty of people who cite reasons for conversion that have little to do with desperation, seeking comfort, or qualms about mortality. Do we suppose that those people are not being honest, perhaps not even with themselves, about their real reasons for belief?
Rene: The adult converts I’ve met only made me more skeptical about religious revelation, I’m sorry to say.
And I am sorry that that is your experience. But it is understandable that your immediate personal experiences would weigh very heavily in your considerations.
We’re getting into deeper waters. I’m sorry if I meant to say that all persons of faith are insincere. I don’t know how it evolved into that.
For some reason, I’m reminded of marriage. My own cynical take is that the huge number of divorces, cases of adultery, and unhappy marriages mean that people mostly marry out of social pressure, religious pressure, convenience, fear of loneliness, etc.
Relatively few people marry because they have met the right person and genuinely decided that a deep, lifelong, monogamous relationship is what they want.
But it does happen. And there is magic when it happens. I am also certain that some people have sincere faith.
I suppose that is another beef I have against organized, institutional religion. You know how they ruin kids by trying to force them to read novels at school? Reading is wonderful, but it becomes tedious when imposed.
Well, Rene, in that case it sounds like you and I agree on these points more than we disagree. I do think plenty of people get married for the wrong reasons, or without really understanding what they’re getting into. And I think your analogy between that and religious beliefs is apt.
You have shared your concerns about institutional religion in the past, and I am certainly sympathetic to such reservations. Much ill has been done in the names of various gods throughout time, and that is lamentable. Personally, that just makes me want to try to fix the system, rather than walk away from it.
Same goes for reading, now that you mention it – I’d love for more people to love to read. 🙂
Rene, people marry for one reason and one reason only: it seemed like a good idea at the time. Which, as Harlan Ellison pointed out, is pretty much the only reason anyone does anything. “Why were you driving 95 MPH in a 50 zone?” “Seemed like a good idea at the time.” “Why did you get married?” “Seemed like a good idea at the time.” Or, as Sarek once put it, at the time it seemed the logical thing to do.
PAD
For what it’s worth, Rene, Judaism specifically forbids proselytizing. If you ever see the Mitzvah Mobile with the Hasidic Jews set up, they always say, “Are you Jewish?” If you say no, they wish you a good day. They’re all about getting Jews to stop for a few minutes and pray.
That’s why “Jews for Jesus” is a misnomer. Jews don’t go around trying to get people to convert. In fact, Jews are supposed to discourage conversion.
PAD
PAD, that is one more reason why I love Jews. You guys are truly civilized. I have nothing but respect for guys that don’t want me to join their club. Grouxo Marx was right.
Funny thing, I was approached by “Jews for Jesus” folks once. They thought I was Jewish and tried to convert me. They saw that I had a bunch of DVDs with me, and asked me if I had seen the Mel Gibson movie about Jesus.
I suppose my Italian facial features and skin tone are enough for people to get confused. Also, I live in a mostly Jewish neighbourhood.
I forgot who it was, but some comedian once said “Jews for Jesus” is like “Vegetarians for Meat.”
One of the reasons I have no problems with the Jewish folk I’ve met.
Closest I’ve ever come to “the talk” from a Jewish person was one Friday I think it was, I stopped for gas and there were a lot of Jewish people all dressed up, heading to or from (I assume) temple. (Southfield, MI has a large Jewish population, and I-696 has a few “bridges” over the freeway that are more like tunnels with parks on top for the walking Jewish population.
He stopped with his sons and daughter and asked if I was Jewish (I have medium long mop of dark hair and at the time had a 2-3 week beard) When I answered no he looked a little disappointed and wished me a good day and continued n his way. I wished him a good day and his kids as well.
Christy’s on the other hand…
I love that comment from Harlan Ellison. It’s an incredible truth of human nature. Honestly, probably of all animals’ natures. If my sister’s dog could talk, I’m sure when I asked him why he ate an entire raw turkey, he’d say, “it seemed like a good idea at the time.”
Belief is a very, very powerful thing. Shift perceptions just a hair and suddenly, it’s what you believe in being laughed at in a Broadway musical. I’m with you, in regards to religion: have at it as long as you aren’t hurting anyone. I think, perhaps, we need to reevaluate what “hurting anyone” can fully entail.
It baffles me why voters prefer candidates who believe things without evidence (a standard definition of “faith”) over those who rely on reason and evidence. Not just prefer, but demand that their candidates believe things without evidence (as long as they are the same things the voter believes without evidence) and fear those who don’t believe things without evidence.
Sigh.
“Book of Mormon” is coming to Portland in January. Got my tickets already!!
If you rely on Faith – whether that means the location of The Garden of Eden, the appropriateness of shellfish as a foodstuff, or the effect of Government spending on the Economy – then you know THE Answer. And that Answer is always the same. So you can have confidence in what your candidate will do.
If you rely on Reason, well, things change. New evidence comes to light. Situations may seem different from a different perspective. You would like to think that your guy is intelligent, and will therefore come to the same conclusions as you. But what if they don’t? Can you really trust them?
Democracy is a fickle mistress. At least with Authoritarianism you know where you stand. (Fer ’em, or agin ’em!)
Well, David, with faith THE Answer is ALMOST always the same.
Remember “that in 1978, God changed His mind about black people!”
Because they live in the only country I know of off hand that has an affirmation of faith printed on the money.
PAD
Aha!
“In God We Trust” was added to paper money during the period from 1957 to 1966.
June 24, 1968 was the last day Silver Certificates could be redeemed for silver bullion.
We have faith-based currency!
No wonder faith is so important to American voters.
Thanks for triggering that insight.
Yep. You’d be surprised how many people think that those words had always been on our currency, and that the Founding Fathers gave us that as our National Motto, and that they themselves said the Pledge of Allegiance complete with “under God” (was it Michelle Bachman who said, “If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it’s good enough for me” when asked about those words in the Pledge?).
Actually, as Michael H pointed out, these are all “ancient traditions” that date back almost (but not quite) as long as we’ve had nationally broadcast color television and commercial jet airline travel!
The Founding Fathers, and even most of their children, were all in their graves long before the Pledge of Allegiance was even written in its original form (by a Baptist minister, no less!), without “under God” (and some other differences as well)!
And the Pledge of Allegiance was written as part of a marketing campaign for the company Francis Bellamy worked for to sell American flags to public schools.
Original version: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
The marketing campaign was incredibly successful. They sold about 25,000 flags in a year and eventually the display of the American flag, which was not commonly displayed or owned by public schools previously, eventually became a requirement for public schools.
Now THAT’S effective marketing.
Well, there is a little more history than that. It was on coins starting back in 1862, and the phrase was in used in various items and such as far back as 1812.
But yes, not from the very beginning.
I left coins out because they have some inherent value – even our copper-coated zinc pennies – and so don’t necessarily need to be tied to something else to give them value.
Those changes in currency, though, offered up an interesting coincidence in timing.
I had the exact same thoughts while watching The Book of Mormon, specifically that song, which is why it left a bad taste in my mouth. As an atheist, everything he said sounded equally absurd to me, but of course the audience only laughed at those beliefs that were specific to Mormons (and they were clearly meant to), which struck me as being hypocritical and mean rather than the rollicking good time it was supposed to be.
(Also, the show just isn’t very funny. It’s all geeky pop culture references and puerile obscenities… so, like South Park, basically).
I don’t have a problem voting for President based on personal beliefs, however. After all, a person’s actions are heavily influenced by their beliefs. I’d just as soon the world’s most powerful man not be someone who believes that those who sin will burn in a fiery dungeon for all eternity, while those who accept salvation from a guy who’s been dead for 2000 years will take them to a magical land of happiness. Obviously, there are other factors to consider, and political beliefs obviously trump religious beliefs, but the latter do factor in to my voting practices, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. For such an important job, everything should be taken into consideration.
PAD: if you’re going to allow a candidate’s personal beliefs to determine your opinion of him…
What else are we to use, Peter?
I get what you’re saying about prejudice towards someone because of their religion or other personal belief system. But what else other than a candidate’s personal beliefs (and their actual past actions) is there to base an opinion of them on?
If a candidate says they believe God made blacks an inferior race, are we supposed to ignore that?
If they say they believe marriage is only acceptable when between a man and a woman, are we not supposed to consider what their having that belief would mean in terms of what legislation would/wouldn’t be passed?
If they believe the Great Spaghetti Monster lives in Hazzard County, Georgia and speaks to them daily are we not allowed to consider what that suggests about their basic grasp of reality and their ability to lead the country?
To me is a matter of degrees. Are the candidates religious beliefs so strong that they completely dominate his/her personal code of ethics? Or are they willing to say: “I am a member of a religious institution but I disagree with them about X and Y and therefore I’ll follow my conscience and vote contrary to my Church’s believes”?
.
There are probably mormons that do not believe or follow everything their religion says just as not all catholics believe pre-marital sex and using condoms during sex are sins.
.
PAD said “Personally, I don’t care what people believe, as long as it gets them through the day and it doesn’t involve harming others.” Harming others can mean many things. I may feel that a legislator voting against same-sex marriage for religious reasons is causing emotional harm to same-sex couples.
Sean, in order:
1) No, because there would be the concern that that will carry over into how he responds to blacks.
2) No, because it can and will serve to curtail the rights of others.
3) Honestly? I’d be much more concerned about what the spaghetti monster is telling him. For instance, I’ll take a guy who says the spaghetti monster told him women should have control over their own bodies over a guy who says God wants him to take that control away, any day of the week.
PAD
Peter –
Thanks for answering. And I’m reading your answers as an agreement that one can (perhaps even should?) allow a candidate’s personal beliefs to determine their opinion of him.
Not in the “I’m never voting for a Mormon because he’s Mormon” prejudiced vein. But certainly in the “I’m not voting for this specific person because their beliefs cause me concern” way.
Another way of looking at it is that personal beliefs stop being personal when they affect how one treats others; if it affects that treatment in a negative way, then it’s cause for concern.
Doesn’t this just illustrate that the truth of a thing has nothing to do with how absurdly one can state it? I’m sure an equally funny song could be written about the absurdity of something appearing to be in two places at once, or moving through an insurmountable barrier. But just because those concepts can be made to sound absurd doesn’t stop many people from believing they are true. Or even more strongly, it does not mean that they are not absolutely true.
PAD is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of thinking someone else’s religion is “absurd” while yours isn’t. Actually, all of them are absurd to those looking from the outside.
And no, it isn’t the same for physical notions that may sound absurd, yet are true. Those can be disproven and people have come to them through research. With religion, they have come to them through revelation. So forgive me if I’m a bit more skeptical about them.
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen Roberts
Rene: PAD is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of thinking someone else’s religion is “absurd” while yours isn’t. Actually, all of them are absurd to those looking from the outside.
Understood. But my question still stands: does the fact that they sound absurd tell us anything about their truth?
Rene: And no, it isn’t the same for physical notions that may sound absurd, yet are true. Those can be disproven and people have come to them through research. With religion, they have come to them through revelation.
And here we have an answer: the issue is not sounding absurd, but whether evidence comes from research versus revelation. Now we’re getting somewhere!
Ah, but I’m afraid I’m still muddled. How do I know which things actually come from research and which from revelation? After all, knowledge of quantum physics comes to me personally by way of revelation. Whatever I know of it has been revealed through the writings and teachings of others, who relied on the writings and teachings of still others, and so on until we get to folks who have done actual research. So which is the important link – how the knowledge came to me, or how it came to mankind in general originally?
I presume that most would say that latter. In which case, what are we to make of the resurrection of Jesus? Current knowledge of it comes via revelation, but the original accounts come from people who apparently had opportunities to research the facts themselves. It’s not clear to me, then, how to evaluate the veracity of Jesus’ resurrection based on the criteria we’ve established thus far.
Rene: So forgive me if I’m a bit more skeptical about them.
Sorry for the double post, but I meant to add that I see no need to forgive you because I am all for skepticism and scrutiny. The only truths I’m interested in are ones that run deep.
Well, scientific experiments can be replicated. Scientific models to explain reality are constantly challenged by new discoveries. I don’t think it’s really analogous to religious experience.
But, more importantly, science also asks little of me. Sure, I can read medical studies that say smoking is bad, but generally science doesn’t ask as much of me as religion.
Religion not only makes certain claims that I think are unsubstantiated, it asks me to change my entire way of living and follow some very strict rules. Don’t you agree that, if you ask me to give you one million dollars, I will want a lot more guarantees?
As for the resurrection of Jesus and all that. I’m not as much of a hardline atheist as I seem to. I’m mostly agnostic. I have always felt that people may have glimpsed some sacred truths throughtout the history of mankind. But I think they have mixed those glimpses liberally with their own prejudices, stupidity, etc.
Rene: Well, scientific experiments can be replicated. Scientific models to explain reality are constantly challenged by new discoveries. I don’t think it’s really analogous to religious experience.
Repeatability is indeed an important component of certain kinds of scientific inquiry. But aren’t there well-accepted and fairly rigorous scientific models that are nevertheless not repeatable? The Big Bang comes to mind as an example. (Note that I am in no way trying to discredit the Big Bang Theory, which I happily accept as the best explanation for all available data.)
Rene: But, more importantly, science also asks little of me. Sure, I can read medical studies that say smoking is bad, but generally science doesn’t ask as much of me as religion.
Religion not only makes certain claims that I think are unsubstantiated, it asks me to change my entire way of living and follow some very strict rules. Don’t you agree that, if you ask me to give you one million dollars, I will want a lot more guarantees?
This is quite interesting. Of course, it doesn’t really speak to the veracity of anything in particular, but rather the palatability. This is a very pragmatic concern, and very reminiscent of Jesus’ admonition to “count the cost.”
So I won’t say that it’s not an issue. What I would say is that I think one of the areas in which certain believers have done more harm than good (as discussed above) is to misrepresent what actually is, and is not, required. In some ways, I believe the cost has been overstated, and in others, probably understated.
Rene: As for the resurrection of Jesus and all that. I’m not as much of a hardline atheist as I seem to. I’m mostly agnostic. I have always felt that people may have glimpsed some sacred truths throughtout the history of mankind. But I think they have mixed those glimpses liberally with their own prejudices, stupidity, etc.
To be honest, what you describe varies at most in degree, rather than method, from the approach that I (and as I understand it, many others) take to reading the Bible. It is not dictation directly from God, but the writings of various humans doing their best to interpret what they have experienced with/through/from/about God.
It’s tough to use personal beliefs because it’s near impossible to tell what someone really feels inside vs what they speak loudly and publicly to. Using someone’s track record (their past actions) seems relevant, since that’s the public record of their beliefs–something concrete. If they say and do things, that’s relevant; going on what they believe is a slightly different matter that’s hard to quantify or measure, since beliefs are internal.
Bill Maher had a similar theme when discussing Scientology in his movie RELIGIOUSNESS. In the movie, Maher poses as a “crazy” person on the street, proclaiming various ridiculous ideas that, in captions, we see are very seriously held beliefs of Scientologists. In interviews, Maher points out that while it’s easy to laugh at those “wacky” nuts, it’s just as easy to point out similar religious in mainstream religions as well, such as in Christianity where God is His own son (and “knocked up a Palestinian woman” so “you, and by you I mean me,” could be born “so you, and by you I still mean me, can be killed for the greater glory of you, which also means me”). If you’re a believer, it makes perfect sense. If not, it falls apart pretty easily.
Or, as the old juvenile-but-accurate joke goes, religions are like farts: You think yours are fine but everybody else’s stink.
What is WRONG with you people?!?
This is a ridiculously civil and thoughtful discussion leavened with a bit of humor.
I really expected a frenzy of vitriol and am incredibly pleased and impressed with what is going on here. Maybe Peter is a good influence on us, after all.
Or maybe the usual suspects are stymied by a posting that ultimately argues against a reason people are using not to vote for Romney.
PAD
Personally, I’d rather have a President from a minority religion in the White House. Aware that his faith is seem as unconventional, he’s much less likely to try and cram it down our throats.
Now, there are other reasons why I think Romney is a poor candidate. His religion actually is a point in his favor.
Wasted effort, methinks. Next time you say anything remotely less than positive about some right wing candidate/incumbent, they’ll start up about how you never have anything good to say and forget about this time.
“What is WRONG with you people?!?
This is a ridiculously civil and thoughtful discussion leavened with a bit of humor.
I really expected a frenzy of vitriol and am incredibly pleased and impressed with what is going on here. Maybe Peter is a good influence on us, after all.”
Jerry Chandler must be on vacation.
Given that the Bible says that St. Peter (then Simon) was a fisherman and that Jesus himself rode in his boat, I do believe that Jews could and did build boats. It’s the “sailing to the Americas that I have a small problem with. Although, it’s not out of the realm o possibility.
And BTW, for me, religious beliefs of a candidate don’t influence me one way or another about how I will vote.
We’re talking about the Sea of Galilee. In American terms it would barely register as a pond.
“I’m just saying that if you’re going to allow a candidate’s personal beliefs to determine your opinion of him”
I know what you menat, but i disagree with what you said. The PERSONAL beliefs of a caandidate are very important to me. The tenets of his particular religion, not so much. I could not vote for a creationist, or a Global Climate change denier. I would have a hard time with a candidate who though black people or Jews were inferior because God says so. Or that there should be no abortion, even in rape and incest. It is the PERSONAL beliefs that matter. I find most of what the Catholic Church does and says these days to be loathsome. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t vote for a Catholic. Most I know disagree with a lot of what the Church is doing. But if it is some one with the personal beliefs of Bill Donahue (of the Catholic League) or Mel Gibson. I think that is enough reason NOT to vote for them.
Nicely said.
The problem with Santorum was not that he was a Catholic, but that he had views that were right out of the Dark Ages.
Conservatives tried to defend him by saying he was just a man that was true to his faith. But Santorum went on record as saying that sex for recreation was a matter for public policy. In that, he was going against privacy standards that have been a hallmark of Western civilizations for decades. For that he was unfit for office.
For some reason this whole thread reminds me of the song “The Age of Not Believing” from the Disney movie “Bedknobs and Broomsticks.”
The sidebar’s link to Bob Greenberger’s site is down
I know 49% percent of the public won’t vote for me in 2016. Hëll, I’m probably going to loose to Lyndon Larousche.
Though if by some chance I win– I’m going to ask to be sworn in on my double signed (Pratchett and Gaiman) copy of Good Omens.
I’ll bet MORE than 49% of the public won’t vote for you.
🙂
Actually, you could pretty easily win with 49% of the popular vote if those votes were in the right states to give you the majority of the electoral college.
OK, maybe not so easily. I checked and it doesn’t happen all that often – at least in the 20th and 21st Centuries once we settled into a two party Republican/Democrat race:
2000 George W. Bush 47.87%
1992 Bill Clinton 43.01%
(and 49.23% in ’96)
1968 Richard Nixon 43.42%
then back to
1912 Woodrow Wilson 41.84%
There are a few more that received between 49% and 50% of the popular vote and won.
The real concern is whether a candidate feels him/herself bound by any oath, pledge, chain of command, or principles of any kind that s/he would place above his/her Constitutional Oath of Affirmation of Office.
The concern with JFK was that he would be beholden to the Pope more than to the Constitution, and would obey the Pope if he ordered JFK to do something as President (even if that something would not contradict his Oath of Office, it would still be wrong and a valid concern, but far more so if it would violate or contradict the Oath of Office).
The concern with Mitt Romney, and George Romney before him, and Congressman Moody prior to that, was that they would likewise feel bound to obey the First Presidency and General Authorities (including the Quorum of Twelve Apostles), and especially the then-current Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and President of the Church.
Similar concerns apply to all who seek office who hold to any authority that they place above the Constitution, be it the Holy Bible (or their interpretation thereof), any minister, or especially any pledge written by a thirteen-year-old (at the time) who went on to effectively rule this nation despite never having been elected to any public office.
I speak, of course, of Grover Norquist and his Pledge signed by nearly all GOP Congresscritters to never raise taxes under any circumstances. Even if the USA would cease to exist without a tax increase, even if the Constitution would be undone without it.
Even if our AAA credit rating would be downgraded without it. Which it was. Because of that pledge. Because of Grover Norquist. Because the Congresspeople who signed it made it clear that they placed it above their Constitutional Oath (or Affirmation) of Office.
This is not speculation. The actual report of the actual credit rating agencies who downgraded our credit rating outright point-blank said that that was the main reason why, that the GOP’s pledge to never raise taxes under any circumstances meant that no compromise could be reached to salvage the credit rating.
I’ll be blunt: any Congressperson who puts any pledge or anything else above his or her Constitutional Oath or Affirmation of Office, and actually follows through on that with his or her actions in office, has committed High Treason against the United States and should not only be impeached, but executed. By firing squad.
Grover Norquist is likewise guilty of treason and sedition against the Government of the United States (which he point-blank said his goal was to reduce until it was small enough “to drown it in a bathtub” — sure sounds like his goal is to indeed kill the government, since that’s what drowning does). The only reason High Treason may not apply to him is because he’s not in an actual position of high office.
Every Congressperson who has signed his pledge who does not publicly repudiate it in both words and actions should face impeachment, conviction, and execution for High Treason.
And that goes for any pledge or oath or covenant or whatever that any officeholder or candidate for Federal public office may take, other than the one in the Constitution applicable to his or her office. That’s the one and only Oath that they should feel bound by while in office, or at least while acting in the office. Even putting another oath or pledge or covenant below the Constitutional one, but still as one in effect involving his or her activities in office, is wrong.
What the oath or pledge or covenant is about, what it tells them to do, is irrelevant to this.