Dan Kervick's picture

    A Profound Interrogation of the Correct Liberal Response to the Gathering Mormon Threat

    By Dan Kervick on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 10:25pm |

    I don't want to talk about high principles like freedom of religion in America and what our civil compact on religious questions means for the way we should conduct presidential elections.

    I just want to talk about the fact that I never realized liberals had so many sticks up their asses about Mormons.

    Maybe I've missed something.  Mormons sound dangerous.  Is there a temple or community center going up somewhere that I can protest?  I have now obtained a stick and will do my best to insert it into my rectum along with everyone else.  But I'm kind of a natural born tightass, so it might not fit in there with all the other sticks I carry around.

    I don't know a whole lot about Mormons.  For me growing up, "Mormon" meant the Osmond brothers, a squeaky clean bunch of smiling and inoffensive All-American kids.  Not really anything I would ever want to listen to on purpose, but nothing loathsome about them.

    Later in life I learned Mormons had some odd doctrines and rituals.  But that only added to their kooky charm.  How deceived I was!

    I learned that they used to be polygamous.  They seem very embarrassed about that now, but I think they would be more fun if they were still polygamous.  Am I bad?

    Salt Lake City is a beautiful city.  Clean; civically well-organized; healthy; plenty of fun things to do; amazing mountains; great Saturday farmers market in the park.  The people I met there seem to like living there.  Karl Malone spent a whole career there and lived to tell about it.

    On the other hand, they still execute people by firing squad there.  There was an execution when I was visiting.  Strange that they don't follow the more civilized method of poisoning people to death on a gurney.

    In my job, I sometimes work over the phone with Mormon publishers in Utah.  Very pleasant and polite people.  Can't say the same about New Jersey, which based on my experience should change its nickname name to "The Dickhole State."

    I remember that Donny Osmond went through a stage where he tried to be a little "bad" or "dangerous" - occasionally wouldn't shave.  But he couldn't do it because he was just too darn nice.

    Every once in a while I see some Mormon kids out proselyting. I ask, "On a mission?"  and they say "Yeah", with a smile.  No Mormon so far has ever tried stuffing religion down my throat, unlike some of the more intense protestant Christian evangelizers.  But maybe that's their dastardly trick?

    Orel Hershiser - great pitcher.  Mormon I think.  (Or is he just a Mormon-ish guy named "Orel"?)

    The kooky rituals are perplexing.  But really no kookier than the idea that God wants you to cut off your foreskin and cover your head so he doesn't see you impertinent skulltop when he looks down from the sky; or that a giant angel is going to come down and blow a trumpet straddling the shoreline.

    Isn't it enough to talk about the fact that Romney is a greedy and soulless venture capitalist who believes the purpose of life is to chew companies and workers up and then shit them out in more profitable pieces, so rich people can collect a buttload of money in the process?

    Comments

    I love it when people babble on about how religions are basically the same, one no kookier than the other.

    But they're willing to die over the smallest and most asinine "political" difference.

    I mean, it's good to be tolerant and all.

    But ignorant? Not so good.

    P.S. How about those kooky Scientologists, eh? 


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 11:39pm

    Hey, without the jihad against those kooky Scientologists , we'd probably have never seen a new religion named "Anonymous" sprout and grow

     


    by artappraiser on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:02am

    Stab me and sink me, DoubleA, you are right...I had forgotten that before Julian Assange there was that apostate Scientology guy (name swallowed up in the ADD afflicted forebrain...) 


    by jollyroger on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 3:40am

    Travolta?


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 9:45am

    Well, I've visited the heart of the Evil Mormon Empire, and seen the great Tabernacle of Doom near the shores of the Salt Lake.   And it seemed like a nice place to live.   So people are going to have to come up with some really horrible dirt to make somebody like me think that Mormons are scarier than anyone else.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:05am

    ahahahahahahaa

    Frankly, my favorite creation myth deals with the world growing out of a god's belly button.

    Logic does not enter into religion.

    It is not supposed to.

    Religion is an emotional state.

    Ignorance is bliss.

    Religion can be bliss.

    Let us take bliss out of politics!

    Politics is never bliss.

    I have no idea what this comment means.

    the end


    by Richard Day on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 1:41am

    I'm with you as neighbors...kooky but fine. Upstanding people you can trust with your kids.

    But I wouldn't vote for them for any position of power. I don't trust zealots of any stripe, particularly not organized well funded ones that hold secretive and even apocalyptic views.  I don't trust them. You could be voting for an charismatic ayatollah (the 1980 secular Iranians thought that was what the were getting)  

    I vote for secular candidates, or those that seem secular but came from established mainstream religions where religion is just a cultural thing, or I vote for obvious moral hypocrites (kennedy, clinton & bush all come to mind). 

    I think my reasons are valid. Or maybe Atwood's The Handmaiden ​was too good of a book.  My advice: Lube up. 

     


    by Saladin on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 3:25am

    Also what's with the profound title?

     


    by Saladin on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 3:29am

    It would be interesting to know how (all who speak pro, con and/or with indifference about Mormon dogma) knowledgeable they really are about this and specifically what  their research entailed.  Based on factual data?  What they've 'heard'?  Supposition?  Fact or fiction? Any read the Book of Mormon?  Have factual data about their businesses and what role the Church plays in oversight/participation?  

    This topic encompasses more than most, I believe, than other religious entities. I would venture to say that for most their knowledge base foundation on this subject is built in quicksand rather than solid ground.

    Your post states:

     'I don't know a whole lot about Mormons.'

    You're in the majority.  

     


    by Aunt Sam on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 1:26pm

    You ask some good questions, Aunt Sam. 

    For my part, I learned all I needed to know about the Mormon church from being married to a Mormon for over a decade and previously living in an area of the country where they aren't a persecuted minority, but an oppressive and omnipresent majority. Let's suffice it to say I never converted and never allowed my children to be instructed in that church. I have voted for Mormons in the past, mostly because they were the only choices on local ballots. Would I vote for Mitt? Not if my life depended on it. Do I dislike his religion? Most assuredly. 


    by Kudra on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 3:57pm

    There's a part of me that would love to have the liberty to say, "you believe what about the universe and you expect me to give you the power to appoint the Federal Reserve Chairman and enforce environmental regs?"  But I don't have that liberty since, in my time voting, there hasn't been a legitimately poised to win presidential candidate who has not affirmed the existence of some form of singular universal creator, to whom we are morally accountable.

    Obviously this is because I'm wrong, god is real and he only lets people who believe in him anywhere near the White House.

    That's the lesson, right?

     


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 3:17pm

    Destor,

    I think it's a proven fact that while many (i.e.) state they are Christian, there is a huge divide in their belief systems.

    A few years ago, I got into a discussion about the whole 'going to hell' issue if one doesn't, as the bible proclaims, acknowledge that one accepts as fact that God and Jesus are their Creator and Jesus died on the cross for their sins.  My base was what about those w ho live in remote areas that have never been exposed to the bible?  Yep, I was told, they would go to Hell. I don't believe that.

    Another discussion was that since all over the world there are those whose 'God' is Buddha, Allah or another, but in essence the base tenet is about loving one another, so isn't it logical that belief in a Supreme Being, by any name, as long as the foundation is the same that they could all be representative of the same entity?  I was told again that there is only one God for all and that is the God and begotten Son of our Christianity.

    As for agnostics, atheists, non-Christians and any other segment of 'non-believers', I've known many who are kind, smart, loving, generous and practice the Golden Rule without bounds.  And I would vote for one of them in heartbeat.

    It's not who, what  you proclaim to be that needs to be the decisive factor about a person's qualities, it's character and actions.

    I'm not going to deny the fact that many of our fellow brethren would immediately disavow one who doesn't share their religious beliefs as a candidate and/or person of import.  All I can say is 'Judge not, lest ye....'.


    by Aunt Sam on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 3:58pm

    I asked that same question of my religion teacher in HS, a Catholic priest, specifically about people in China. He said God would move mountains to bring the faith to one who wanted to believe. That answer didn't satisfy me because it meant that a very tiny percentage of Chinese were worth God's help.


    by Donal on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 4:09pm

    The problem is that major geological enhancements and modifications in China are very difficult to achieve without permitting from various upper party members.  He's working on it.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 4:19pm

    Well, that's just it.  The espoused faith of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and Barack Obama will tend to inform their actions in ways that some one like me would find palatable.  The espoused faith of Pat Robertson, though, leads him to conclusions that I find offensive and disturbing. George W. Bush's belief that we're living in or near Biblical endtimes freaked me out a bit.  It's not the faith, it's the individual and how they handle it.

    There's actually very little about Romney's Mormonism that gives me any cause for concern, with the exception of the post-mortem baptism of his atheist father in law.  But Bill Maher took care of that last week by unbaptizing the man on his HBO show.  To me, one ritual has about as much meaning as the other, so we're square. 


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 4:14pm

    Too late.  I just re-baptized the poor SOB.  Except I did it with a whirlwind DDT off the turnbuckle.  Your move, Nature Boy!


    by DF on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 5:11pm

    Chop block to the knee, several kicks to the knee.  Whooo! Strut.  Strut.  Strut.  Figure Four and you're... whooo! Losin' your religion!


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 5:25pm

    That actually made me LOL.  Thank you.


    by DF on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 6:39pm

    Who's got the energy for a Figure 4?

     

    Best I can do these days is a Figure 2.

     

    Maybe 2.5. 


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 8:55pm

    I just want to talk about the fact that I never realized liberals had so many sticks up their asses about Mormons.

    First I would say that liberals have an even bigger stick up their ass about that Catholic named Santorum and his religious views, and if he were to become the front runner in the race, the attacks on his religion will dwarf those against Romney's.  And do you think that if Huckabee became the inevitable candidate last election cycle, his religious beliefs wouldn't be attacked by liberals?

    With that there has been some on the blogosphere who have crossed the line in questioning his religious beliefs as they pertain to what kind of presidency he would bring upon the country.  Then again there were liberals making vicious sexist attacks on Hillary and vicious racist attacks on Barack.  So there is in a sense nothing new under the sun going on.

    As I mentioned on another thread, some of the excessive delving into Romney religion has to do with the fact he has made such a dramatic shift in some fundamental positions, such as on abortion.  Some people are just trying to figure out who this man is - and since religion is such a significant source of one's world view this seems a natural place to go a-delving.

    And the Mormons for some are not just your run of a mill religion.  My first exposure to the religion was watching Barbara Walters interviewing Donny and Marie, and hearing Donny try to justify why blacks had a subordinate place in the church, and Marie affirm the need for the patriarchy in society and the home.

    Shortly after that, I spent a number of years growing up in a town that 95% Mormon and I left there with little respect for the institution that was LDS.   There was the typical mix of people who followed the faith of course, from jerks to good souls.  But it seemed the decent ones were such in spite of the church rather than because of it.  I approach a candidate who claims to be Mormon the same way I would approach a candidate who claimed to be Southern Baptist - that is with a lot of skepticism that their world view aligned with mine.  I would assume in fact the two world views diverged in some significant ways until the candidate proved to me otherwise.

    People cannot go around and claim religion is a significant,  if not the most significant, factor in a person's life and then say it is irrelevant in understanding a political candidate.  What is critical, however, that we do not assume we know what a candidate believes based on their professed religion - although we are human and the assumptions will pop into our minds before we can blink. 

    The Catholic Church is making a big deal over making contraception accessible to women.  They are taking a stand that it is a central facet of being Catholic.  I would expect any representative of mine who was Catholic at any level of government who had the ability to influence the outcome on matters related to this issue to take a stand on where they are on this issue if they claim to be a devoted Catholic.   I would not oppose them because they are Catholic.  I would oppose them only if they felt the Church was right on this matter and that they would vote accordingly.

    In the end on cannot claim to be a follower of a certain belief system, but expect not to be held accountable to positions taken by the institution which guides and dictates the parameters of that belief system. 

    Now if the candidate wants to go on the record and say their religious doctrine plays no part in how they will vote on issues, then that is different matter.  But one doesn't hear that too much these days.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 9:04pm

    Latest Comments