Huckabee Should Lose Unless He Condemns Anti-Mormonism
Filed under: 2008 elections, Feature, Mike Huckabee, Mormonism, Mormons, Opinion — Jason, Managing Editor on December 15, 2007 @ 8:15 pm CET
Kenneth Anderson at the Weekly Standard captures the concern that many moderate conservatives have about the emerging dynamic of the Huckabee/Romney conflict within the Republican Party. Specifically, while many non-evangelical conservatives have been sympathetic to evangelical concerns about the anti-religious prejudices they face from many elements on the left (what Anderson calls the “predictable bigotry of the NPR cohort”, but now find themselves outraged at the willingness of many evangelical conservatives to embrace some of the grossest and most dishonest forms of anti-Mormon bigotry as their main reason for preferring Huckabee to Romney.
Anderson casts the resulting political problem in stark terms:
And if I, an ex-Mormon, am furious, I only wonder what actual Mormons think in the secret places of their hearts. The bigotry that has accompanied Huckabee’s rise has certainly shifted my view of evangelicals. Am I the only one to find tiresome the endless trope among Christians of this country that they wish they could have (wholesome, good hearted) Mormons without (cultish, anti-Christian) Mormonism? My former confrères among the Mormons apparently do not count as Christian, yet somehow feel themselves bound by their allegiance to the teachings of the Nazarene to turn the other cheek and meekly suffer these attacks upon their spiritual fitness to participate in the public square.
Many evangelicals are, in short, embracing hypocrisy and disloyalty with a sort of blatantness not often found even in the cynical world of politics. They object to anti-religious standards on the left that often seek to ban religious people completely from public affairs, but turn around and do even worse to Mormons who have heretofore been their staunch political allies. The consequenc, should Huckabee actually receive the nomination, might be a permanent schism within the ranks of Republicans’ religious voters and an easy road to Democrats’ victory in 2008 and beyond as secular conservatives join the betrayed Mormons in rejecting this new and dangerous application of evangelical power within the party.
Unfortunately, religious bigotry remains the last socially acceptable form of prejudice in American political society. Many activists on the feel little restraint in speaking about religious people in sweeping, pejorative terms that would leave audiences aghast if they were directed at racial or ethnic groups. And now even the usual victims of this sort of bigotry are embracing its fundamental tenets.
What is missing is the same thing that evangelicals often demand from Muslims — a prominent evangelical leader who is willing to stand up and directly condemn in unequivocal terms the extremism bigotry that is growing within evangelical ranks. Unless Huckabee himself is willing to become that leader, he will not deserve the political victories he may be poised to win and he will deservedly face the inevitable backlash from those of us who are concerned with religious tolerance and freedom across the board.
Bottom line: I won’t even consider voting for Huckabee in any phase of the 2008 election unless Huckabee takes a strong and explicit stance condemning anti-Mormonism. And I know that I’m not alone on this. If that leads to the election of a liberal Democrat, so be it. Better a round of even a substandard Democratic administration than the legitimation of a candidacy either built directly upon or willing to dance with blatant bigotry.
1 Tim D
December 15, 2007 @ 8:45 pm CETAs a life long Republican and member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, I have listened to the bigotry of many of my Republican "allies" and have come to decision that if Huckabee is nominated to head the party riding on the wave of anti-mormonism, then there is no room for me in the Republican party and I will change my affiliation to independent.
2 Lynx
December 15, 2007 @ 8:46 pm CETThat’s funny, because I decided that I wouldn’t vote for a person who tells me that I must "acknowledge a Creator" or that liberty requires religion. Which is not to say I wouldn’t vote for a person of deep faith (even if I wanted to, which I don’t, I wouldn’t have anyone to vote for, at least until anti-atheist bigotry lowers in this country), but I will not vote for someone who implies, directly or indirectly, that being religious gives you some superior grasp on the concepts of morality or freedom. Likewise, I would not, like you, vote for someone who would blatantly place his particular concept of God above someone else’s, or encourage that sort of behavior in others.
Which is really a shame, because I was trying to prepare myself to consider a Republican in case Hillary wins the nomination, but each one of them is going down. At first I thought Giuliani, but then I looked more closely. Then I thought Romney, who I was fairly certain was fairly moderate, but then he went off on an intolerant tangent on his tolerance speech. Huckabee, well, I’ll be honest, I wouldn’t vote for him, I don’t agree with him on most things, but I did admire his candor, he seems like an authentic guy who really feels the things he says. This whole Mormonism episode isn’t speaking well of him though. There’s still McCain, but frankly if it comes down to McCain and Hillary I think I’ll just go drown my depression in beer on election day.
3 Ron Chusid
December 15, 2007 @ 8:51 pm CETThe only way I can see Huckabee taking such a stand would be if pressured into doing so but I don’t think it is likely that such pressure will come from Republicans. So far Huckabee seems to be trying to play the anti-Mormon card while avoiding being so blatant about it that the average voter will be repulsed.
" They object to anti-religious standards on the left that often seek to ban religious people completely from public affairs,"
That is hardly an accurate view of most on the left. We want to keep religion out of public policy but that does not mean keeping religious people out of public affairs. Liberals have had no problem with the religions of those who respect separation of church and state including John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry and Barack Obama.
Even looking at Mormons, Mitt Romney’s religion didn’t keep him from becoming governor in a liberal state. Nor did it hinder his father’s political career in Michigan. Being a Mormon hasn’t been an issue among Democrats with regards to Harry Reid or Morris Udall. The Democratic party is such a hot bed of atheism that there is exactly one Democratic atheist in Congress. (Actually I suspect that there are more but only Stark will admit it. There is far more bias against atheists running for office than those who practice any religion.)
Romney’s problem is that he’s running as a Republican. If he was a Democrat his religion would not be an issue at all. Liberals do not care if someone is religous or what religion they practice as long as they don’t impose their religious views on other through public policy.
4 Michael van der Galien
December 15, 2007 @ 9:07 pm CETLynx: frankly, I find it way overdone to pretend that Romney was intolerant to those who don’t have a faith. That’s a liberal talking point not based on the actual speech (and yes, I watched it live). And from a strictly historical perspective, you could indeed very well argue that liberty in the US has always been connected to the belief in a higher power. That’s not intolerant, that’s basically a fact (as any serious student of American history and society should be able to tell you).
Frankly, if you think that his speech was intolerant, I get the impression you simply don’t want someone to believe in a higher being. Because, again, he didn’t show any intolerance towards atheists. Perhaps you should try to find some of the things Romney said in the past about religious tolerance?
What’s more, atheists are quite a small minority in the US. It’s quite logical that someone who’s fighting for the Republican nomination doesn’t explicitly mention them.
Step off that high horse and stop pretending that Romney was intolerant. He wasn’t. Those of faith, all those of faith, believe that in the end freedom derives from God. All Christians believe that. Better, I’ve never met a Christian who doesn’t. And if he doesn’t, his or her faith isn’t very ‘deep.’
What’s more, I find it interesting to see that you don’t mention Obama’s appeal, constantly, to religious voters. If there ever was a democrat who wears his religion on his sleeves it’s him.
"Intolerant…" Pff.
5 Xel
December 15, 2007 @ 9:08 pm CETWelcome to a field of debate where the name of the religion and the policies people think or feel it implies means more than the old way; of using a person’s past as an estimation of their present character and their stances in the future. How can one seriously think that whether a person believes that God and Jesus are separate entities or not could have any impact on their decisions in the oval office?! Ridiculous - one should elect presidents based on whether you agree with their view of the ideal society and how you get there - not whether you share politically inconsequential personal stances. If the debate was about people being worried that Mormonism contains notions that could make Romney choose certain policies, then I could at least "get it". But this is just emotionally charged speculative theology! If Romney’s faith told him that Satan was God’s cousin twice removed there still wouldn’t be the slightest reason to think his policies or morals would be steered in one direction.
I’m sorry, but regarding some disagreements between evangelicals and Romney the disagreement basically boils down to him not being viewed favorably for nomination because he prefers Bioshock over Halo 3. I think it is purely just that the GOP is having the blunt kind of religious permeation of politics strike back at it, and if so many evangelicals actually care whether a presidentail candidate think that God and Jesus are separate or not, then they have overplayed their hand and can’t expect to be taken seriously.
6 Bruce B.
December 15, 2007 @ 9:15 pm CETIt would be a shame to elect a man like Huckabee who would move into the White House, a house of the people, on a platform of bigotry. I am a democrat who, long ago, lost my stomach for democrats. Now with the current majority leadership in the House, I just can’t stomach them any longer.
So I have turned to the republicans in search of a true leader. I think I have found that leader in Mitt Romney. But I am struggling with his party. If the republication national party leadership doesn’t come out and put an end to the religious bigotry the party seems to be endorsing I will be obligated to stay with the dems. They may be a lot of things, but religious bigots is not one of them and I will not tolerate religious intolerance in elected officials–period.
7 Xel
December 15, 2007 @ 9:28 pm CET"He wasn’t. Those of faith, all those of faith, believe that in the end freedom derives from God. All Christians believe that. Better, I’ve never met a Christian who doesn’t. And if he doesn’t, his or her faith isn’t very ‘deep.’ "
Is the bible, in its entirety, the epitome of god’s expectations of humanity? In that case, you must agree, the bible is a flawed font for true freedom, and so is god, transitively.
However, one could argue that God is "love/freedom", or somesuch. Sure. But I feel that this belief makes God an intrinsic, self-derived entity that has no reason to be tied to christianity per se.
In short, I feel it is all very wishy-washy and holistic, and that it should remain personal. I can’t see one reason why evangelicals should prefer Romney to Obama. Heck, I can’t see how the bible recommends him over Kucinich.
8 John Locke
December 15, 2007 @ 9:46 pm CETHuckabee has not condemned any religion or religious beliefs - he has consistantly been pounded by the press for statements on religion - but his focus is and has been what is best for this nation - that is why he is leading in so many polls, and as more people discover his beliefs he will be polling higher. So why should Huckabee condemn anti-anything? Once on that bandwagon he would never be focused on the main issues - what is best for this country.
9 Lynx
December 15, 2007 @ 9:56 pm CETMichael, I didn’t have a problem with Huckabee, insofar as his religion, until the whole Mormonism thing. I don’t have a problem with someone deeply believing in god, I explicitly said that. You can think I’m lying, but I can’t stop that. Think that I am an Obama supporter, and he is certainly a religious man, so obviously I don’t have anything against people believing, or believing deeply. My issue is when someone uses that belief to place themselves above someone else with a different belief or with no belief.
I can understand that the speech didn’t seem like much for you, since you agree with it. You’re right that atheists aren’t a large group in the US, hence mentioning them explicitly was not necessary. I don’t disagree, but then, why mention the Jews, by all accounts a minority three times smaller than non-believers? Still, I don’t mind that he didn’t mention atheists or explicitly welcome us into the fabric of the US, though that would be nice. I didn’t even care (too much) about him bringing out the "secularists" bogeyman. No, my main issue was those two lines, the acknowledgment of the Creator, and the Freedom requires Religion. I vigorously disagree with the second affirmation and think that the first one is basically saying that it’s ok what religion you are, as long as your religious.
Upon some more thought (and dinner ;)) I’ve decided that yes, I may be overreacting. I wouldn’t discount Romney altogether because of those remarks, that’s a bit much. I still disapprove of them, but can’t honestly say it marks a trend. If I were to see a trend of that sort of thing, he’d be disqualified, but for one instance you’re right, it’s a bit much.
10 Louis Nardozi
December 15, 2007 @ 9:57 pm CETHuckabee never finished the seminary, so I can KINDA believe him when he said he didn’t know about Romney’s religion. Of course, comparative religion is a sort of low level class, but give him the credit for not being studious and drop it. He DOES believe in creationism, so at least he was awake PART of the time. I wonder how he does on other religious stuff. I know he got his Baptist girl friend Diane O’Connell a government job even though she had no experience. Cost Arkansas 1.6 million, so I guess he fails at not lying. Let’s see, he stole $60,000 out of the taxpayer fund so I guess he missed that class about not stealing. He tried to pay himself as a consultant in his own Senatorial election, so he missed that class on not cheating too. He opened a wedding registry at Target and Dillard’s while he was governor so his grateful subjects could buy him presents when he and his wife renewed their vows. Hm - guess he missed that class about not coveting his neighbor’s possessions too. Wait - maybe there’s a simpler explanation. Maybe the Huckster thinks YOU’RE stupid. After all, he DOES support the FairTax, which doesn’t tax corporations AT ALL, and millionaires and up at the same rate as someone who is near poverty level - i.e. less than 5%. Here’s the thing - religious people really ARE religious. Who among them wants any truck with THIS devil?
11 Michael van der Galien
December 15, 2007 @ 9:57 pm CETI was talking about Romney Lynx.
12 Lynx
December 15, 2007 @ 10:05 pm CETI’m aware of that Michael. I was reacting to this:
I referred to Huckabee in the context that deep religious convictions don’t bother me at all, as long as they aren’t exclusionary. I don’t agree with Huckabee on lots of policy issues, but his religion was never an issue with me. I probably should have kept the example restricted to Obama to be more clear on the subject.
13 Michael van der Galien
December 15, 2007 @ 10:10 pm CETListen: if Romney would come out and attack atheists (by saying for instance that atheists will bring down the US), I would understand your initial reaction. As it is, however, he simply said something that 99% of Christians worldwide would agree with. And… he didn’t say that in an arrogant way.
Of course you also have to look at it in its correct context.
As it is, you could advocate that Romney should’ve pointed out that many atheists are good people, etc. too, and that Atheists are Americans and freedom lovers as well, etc., but you can’t possibly argue that he was intolerant towards atheists. He was forced to hold a speech on how his religion influences his politics, you have to take that into consideration. Then look at how Huckabee and his supporters use religion and how Romney and his supporters use it: I think it’s quite easy to see that Romney isn’t the one who runs a religious campaign.
the main difference?
- Huckabee says: "Vote for me, I’m a good Christian"
- Romney says: "I share your values, vote for me"
Also, he was the Governor of Massachusetts. I can imagine that Mass. has a lot of atheists, relatively. O, and it’s a liberal state mostly. Yet, he was its governor, what does that tell you?
14 Xel
December 15, 2007 @ 10:10 pm CETHe has said that a belief in god is necessary to… I dunno, "feel" the freedom in some intentionally vague sense of the world. That is already kinda insulting towards me, especially since I have derived a concept of freedom from my own humanity; I can see that a national ban on abortions or a ban on states deciding church weddings of gays is just as reasonable a deviation from the bible as not stoning adulterers is anti-freedom.
Huckabee disproves his own thesis. The Christian God, as long as it is connected to the bible in its entirety, will not guarantee freedom. In fact, it might be an obstacle. Ironically, it was he that raised the notion that God is an exigency for actual freedom in me, so that I myself could think along the same lines and realize the opposite is probably true.
15 Lynx
December 15, 2007 @ 10:18 pm CETMichael, I can’t magically make you feel the offense I felt when I heard what he said about having to acknowledge a creator and that somehow freedom and religion are so intertwined that you can’t have one without the other. To me, and I’m guessing to many others, it sounded very much like if you don’t love religion you don’t love freedom. Think of it this way, had a prominent politician said "We, as a nation, should acknowledge Jesus Christ our Saviour" you probably would not find it odd that Jews and Muslims not be amused. So when I hear that as a nation we must acknowledge a god, I am likewise not pleased.
Again, I have qualified my statements. I won’t rule Romney out for what he said, mostly because I know that he was speaking to a certain audience, the kind that would actually find it within themselves to be concerned about someone being a Mormon. I hold no illusions about what that kind of audience would think of a non-believer. I didn’t like the statement, but since I can’t point to it being a part of a larger trend, it doesn’t automatically disqualify him.
16 Nalora
December 15, 2007 @ 10:52 pm CETIt is interesting to note, that it is not Huckabee who has talked ad nauseum about religion, but the pundits, the press, the bloggers and the media, who have pounded him daily about it. Why does no other candidate get questioned this way? It is also interesting to notice that one sentence would be taken from a New York Times article and construed this way. It is not Huckabee talking about religion, it is the MEDIA.
17 Jason Steck
December 15, 2007 @ 10:53 pm CETI think a lot of people aren’t aware of the cultural context behind Romney’s "religion is necessary for freedom". He is not asserting that non-religious individuals are incapable or undeserving of freedom at all. Rather, he is reflecting a deep Mormon belief that "free agency" is (the ability and right of individuals to choose according to their own conscious) is a gift from God. In fact, in Mormon belief, that gift from God is the single most important and consequential belief in the entire religion.
So the bottom line is that I think that there is absolutely nothing that non-believers need to perceive as threatening, dangerous, or degrading in Romney’s belief. Mormons would argue that atheism is a matter of individual free agency granted by God even if the atheist is completely unaware of it. And all Mormons would note that no action by man can EVER take away the individual freedom that God has bestowed.
Those who are still concerned might be interested in the 11th Article of Faith (these are the most fundamental LDS beliefs):
There is ZERO qualification there and ZERO potential for any theocratic or prejudicial tendency. It is an absolute commitment to freedom of individual conscience and Mormons place it not only in their religion, but as one of the 13 most basic tenets. I don’t think any other religion makes such an unqualified and fundamental commitment to freedom of individual conscience except maybe Unitarians.
18 Nalora
December 15, 2007 @ 10:54 pm CETHas anyone ever asked Romney over and over and over and over daily if he believes that Evangelicals are going to heaven?
19 Jason Steck
December 15, 2007 @ 10:56 pm CETBecause Huckabee advertises himself as the Christian candidate (italics in his actual campaign literature). Clearly, his intent is to make his Christianity a point of appeal and contrast to Romney. It is completely reasonable to hold him accountable for the consequences of his little wink-wink, nudge-nudge whispering campaign.
Also, I don’t buy his apology to Romney after he repeated a common anti-Mormon distortion of LDS beliefs in an interview. The old “attack and then apologize for it” gig is a classic in politics, perfected by the Clintons (and displayed recently also by the Hillary campaign). The point is to put the charge out there and then avoid accountability for undertaking a smear campaign. The apology serves to give “plausible deniability” while not actually removing the smear from the public domain. Unless Huckabee takes the step of making an explicit condemnation of anti-Mormonism, I will continue to believe he is willfully making his campaign an exercise in crypto-anti-Mormonism and I won’t support it any more than I would similar coded rhetoric from the likes of David Duke in the racial area.
20 Jason Steck
December 15, 2007 @ 11:02 pm CETRomney isn’t out there with his campaign literature implying that he is the "Christian" alternative to Huckabee’s evangelicals. In short, Romney is not using code to leverage religious prejudice into votes.
Huckabee is.
21 Michael van der Galien
December 15, 2007 @ 11:04 pm CETAnd what about the ad about God? "My faith doesn’t just influence my politics" etc.?
22 Xel
December 15, 2007 @ 11:26 pm CET"Rather, he is reflecting a deep Mormon belief that "free agency" is (the ability and right of individuals to choose according to their own conscious) is a gift from God."
This changes anything how? I mean, it’s like the incapability to appreciate fatalism even if one believed in it - it might have been destined for the police officer to fail in catching that crook, but he wouldn’t know until his now featured an escaped criminal - it is written in the script but we can’t cheat by flipping forward in order to spoil it. We can only act based on our experienced "now".
Likewise, even logical proof that god gave me freedom wouldn’t alter anything for me - I wouldn’t be able to experience or feel this fact. Maybe the belief that freedom was given to you as something to honor and cherish could have some positive effects on behaviour, but a lot of beliefs regarding freedom could do that as well.
"So the bottom line is that I think that there is absolutely nothing that non-believers need to perceive as threatening, dangerous, or degrading in Romney’s belief."
I think it is… Less-than-awesome to be told that God in any sense but my own, utterly subjective one is an exigency to an appreciation of freedom - in me or others. I derive my appreciation of freedom from myself and I can’t see Romney creating a more moral administration than I would
"Mormons would argue that atheism is a matter of individual free agency granted by God even if the atheist is completely unaware of it."
That’s not "arguing" but rather "positing" a possibility that is as important to my preparations and decisions as the Cartesian possibility that an evil spirit is manipulating my consciousness to believe that I am a "human" and that there are other "humans" around me. I might as well play along as if my experience is the real McCoy, and even considering altering my actions based on potential factors that are by definition beyond my consciousness is pure folly.
"I don’t think any other religion makes such an unqualified and fundamental commitment to freedom of individual conscience except maybe Unitarians."
I haven’t tried to use Romney’s big wording to say that his Mormonism prompted it, but I guess you were adressing generally and I see your point.
23 Lynx
December 16, 2007 @ 12:09 am CETXel, to be fair Jason was not addressing whether god has anything to do with freedom per se, but the intentions of Romney in that statement, which is the subject of this post, not what you are arguing.
If Romney was indeed saying that freedom is something given by god, it’s not as bad, but I still have my doubts. For one thing, there is the reciprocal nature of the statement. He said religion requires freedom and freedom requires religion. So if god is needed for freedom, freedom is needed for god? Doesn’t sound quite right. I suppose you could say that in one direction (freedom requires religion) he was talking about god, and in the other (religion requires freedom) about religion itself, but it sounds a little shaky. Why not just say freedom requires god? I’d still disagree, but I see god as something separate from religion. I suppose though that many people see them as one and the same concept. Still, my first doubt remains.
Jason, a doctrine question for you. If I’m understanding you correctly, when Mormons talk about "freedom of conscience" are they actually saying that being of any other religion or none is OK? I’m thinking about heaven and hell at this point? Or is it (as I suspect) more a matter of Mormons supporting a "freedom of religion" in the sense that they don’t think that anyone should be FORCED to worship in any given way? Does regular Christian text say otherwise?
24 Jason Steck
December 16, 2007 @ 1:06 am CETThe point, Xel, is that even if you disagree with Romney’s statement, it is in no way legitimately demeaning or threatening to anyone. His own religion forbids him at a fundamental level to ever do anything to coerce anyone to adhere to his religious beliefs in thought OR in deed. While other religions certainly do have similar beliefs, Mormonism is unique in the extremely high emphasis and central placement that it puts on this point.
As for your doctrinal question, first, Mormons do not believe in hell as understood by most other Christian denominations. They do believe in different “degrees” of heaven, the worst of which would be such a paradise that people would kill themselves to get there. And only the very highest degree of the Mormon idea of heaven is reserved for members of the “true faith”. They believe that those who live good lives will be rewarded lavishly even if they are non-Mormons or atheists or whatever.
The most important doctrine, however, is that Mormons believe at the level of a fundamental statement of faith that they are not empowered to coerce others to accept or adhere to their religious faith. Thus, even if Mormons did believe that everyone else was going to “hell”, they would NEVER act on it from a position of authority. What is “ok” to them in a religious context is simply irrelevant in the context of the U.S. presidency. This makes a Mormon who says “freedom requires religion” much less potentially concerning than, say, Pat Robertson saying the same thing.
Mike Huckabee has never made clear his position on religious freedom and tolerance, so I don’t know what he would say. The fact that he accepts without complaint the endorsements of anti-Mormon bigots and uses coded anti-Mormon references in his campaign literature is a matter of serious concern to me, however. I feel his acceptance of anti-Mormon support is likely more opportunistic than a reflection of actual bigotry on his part, but the prospect of tacitly endorsing one of the most vicious forms of religious bigotry out there is enough for me to make a blanket commitment to oppose Huckabee as long as he allows even ambiguity on his position to remain.
25 kreiz
December 16, 2007 @ 1:43 am CETBottom line: I won’t even consider voting for Huckabee in any phase of the 2008 election unless Huckabee takes a strong and explicit stance condemning anti-Mormonism.
Spot on, Michael. I’m there too, dude.
26 kreiz
December 16, 2007 @ 1:44 am CETSorry, I mean Jason- just now figured out that Michael probably won’t be voting, even though I’m sure he’s in alliance w/Jason.
27 nate
December 16, 2007 @ 5:14 am CETPeople have underestimated Huckabee his entire political career, and he continues to confound those who have set low expectations for him. The number of moderates swayable by Huckabee is far greater than the number of "secular conservatives" plus "betrayed Mormons".
While religious bigotry is as ignorant as racism, it remains somewhat socially tolerable, and the majority of people voting will overlook somebody not taking a stand for another person’s religious beliefs. This is why Huckabee will win in Iowa.
http://www.huckabeewatch.com
28 Andrew Price
December 16, 2007 @ 9:23 am CETEdit by MvdG: we’re not accepting any anti-Mormon comments.
29 Xel
December 16, 2007 @ 12:00 pm CET"Thus, even if Mormons did believe that everyone else was going to “hell”, they would NEVER act on it from a position of authority. What is “ok” to them in a religious context is simply irrelevant in the context of the U.S. presidency. This makes a Mormon who says “freedom requires religion” much less potentially concerning than, say, Pat Robertson saying the same thing."
Hm. I’ve stated before that I wouldn’t mind Mormonism being a more common kind of christianity, and this further increases my respect for it. I guess Romney’s statements was the result of a far less odious and separatist way of thinking than what I am used to seeing.
30 Lynx
December 16, 2007 @ 12:31 pm CETCertainly an admirable position. I like the non-existence of hell. Well besides my lack of faith in a god figure, the existence of hell has always been the biggest hurdle for me in terms of thinking of a benevolent god. I’m actually not very worried about Romney establishing a theocracy, I don’t think he could even if he wanted to, and I don’t think he wants to. No, my main concern is what I saw as encouraging or playing on certain forms of bigotry. Of course seeing past statements of Huckabee it’s clear who’s more into that, the whole AIDS victims thing is shocking.
It looks like Romney is going to be getting the paleoconservatives and Huckabee the religious right. I’ll be interested to see who really carries more weight in the party.
31 C Stanley
December 16, 2007 @ 12:48 pm CETLynx,
On the doctrine of hell though, have you ever considered that it wouldn’t be consistent with a just God to NOT have punishment for evil?
32 C Stanley
December 16, 2007 @ 12:57 pm CETI think all of it is irrelevant in the context of the US presidency, unless a candidate clearly is advocating (or has a history of) attempting to push legislation that violates the First Amendment restriction against establishment of religion.
Agreed, I’d like to hear that from him as well. Particularly because his faith has been made central to his campaign, I think he should clarify where the boundaries are. Politically it is probably more expedient for him to NOT do so, to allow others to read into it what they wish- but I don’t think the rifts in the party and in the country over religion can be mended until people begin to draw these lines.
I think the problem with asking Huckabee to denounce anti-Mormonism though is a bit like the wife beating conundrum; it presumes something that he’s not necessarily guilty of and asks him to prove his innocence. And also, there’s a difference between being anti-Mormon because you strongly disagree with their theology (which I think is a legitimate stance) and being anti-Mormon in a bigoted way. I have a feeling that this exact distinction poses a problem for Huckabee on a personal level; as a Baptist minister he’s probably very opposed to Mormon doctrine, and it can be hard to put those feelings aside in the context of a political campaign (where those feelings MUST be put aside.) In other words, I think he has every right to feel personally that Mormon doctrine is wrong (or even that it’s harmful) but he has no right to make that into a campaign issue in any way.
33 Article VI Blog » Weekend Reading (UPDATED)
December 16, 2007 @ 3:59 pm CET[…] Huckabee Should Lose Unless He Condemns Anti-Mormonism […]
34 kreiz
December 16, 2007 @ 8:34 pm CETThe real surprise to me is that the GOP religious right coalition, the loose affiliation of Protestant evangelicals, Catholics and Mormons, has held together for so long, particularly Protestants and Catholics. I would’ve surmised that this coalition would’ve run aground decades ago. It’s been amazingly resilient, given the doctrinal differences between these groups.
35 Xel
December 16, 2007 @ 9:05 pm CET"I would’ve surmised that this coalition would’ve run aground decades ago. It’s been amazingly resilient, given the doctrinal differences between these groups."
They feel that they have something worse that they need to deal with first. Flip knows what this actually is but I think the word "morals" is in there. "Ethics", "agenda" and "activist" has a slot somewhere. Oh, and "children".
36 Lynx
December 16, 2007 @ 10:04 pm CETOf course I’ve considered it C. Stanley, but I can imagine a benevolent god that wouldn’t have a place of eternal suffering, but I can’t imagine a benevolent god that would. Eternal? That means forever and ever. That means that even if you regret it, even if you’re sorry, it doesn’t matter, you still suffer. It doesn’t sound very benevolent to me. Also, hell is hell, it’s a black or white issue. If it exists it’s a place I will go to for not believing, and a place a child rapist will go to as well. So I’m the same in God’s book? I deserve unending punishment (or the absence of God, or however you decide to describe it, it’s still the same for both) for the crime of not having faith? Not only doesn’t it seem benevolent, it doesn’t seem even faintly fair.
The "ideal" would be a god that gives proportional punishment for proportional crimes, and proportional rewards for good behavior, even the kind that wasn’t done in his name.
Again, I don’t believe in any god for reasons that are a lot more fundamental than benevolence and fairness, but I can’t imagine myself worshiping a god that came up with hell, even if I were to believe in him/her/it.
37 Xel
December 16, 2007 @ 10:38 pm CETI for one am a bit disturbed by any entity that punishes those that didn’t have the environmental determinism necessary to permeate their minds with faith about that which can’t be proven/disproven. Anyway, if I stand before Iahve and he asks me what I have to say in defense of my faithlessness I’ll just hold up a cigarrete and ask him if he’s "Got a light?".
38 C Stanley
December 16, 2007 @ 11:11 pm CETThen Catholic doctrine would appeal to you if you were so inclined to explore it. The idea of purgatory is a theological concept formulated for the reasons you’ve described; we also don’t believe that everyone would be punished the same for living a good life but having trouble accepting certain beliefs or for living a life that actually embraced evil. Hell would be for the latter, while purgatory would be a purifying time for those who fell short of the mark (and actually that includes just about everyone, but to varying degrees.)
39 Doug
December 16, 2007 @ 11:46 pm CETJust reading the dialogue here and took interest in the question regarding God’s punishment for evil. Based on my Latter Day Saint belief and echoed by Elder James E. Talmadge, he shares the following: "It is blasphemous to thus attribute caprice and vindictiveness to the divine nature. In the justice of God no soul shall be condemned under any law that has not been made known unto him. True, eternal punishment has been decreed as the lot of the wicked; but the meaning of this expression has been given by the Lord Himself: 21 eternal punishment is God’s punishment; endless punishment is God’s punishment, for "Endless" and "Eternal" are among His names, and the words are descriptive of His attributes. No soul shall be kept in prison or continued in torment beyond the time requisite to work the needed reformation and to vindicate justice, for which ends alone punishment is imposed. 22 And no one will be permitted to enter any kingdom of glory to which he is not entitled through obedience to law." I think Elder Talmage’s comment provides an extremely "Benevolent" nature of a just and loving God.
40 Kermit
December 17, 2007 @ 3:24 am CETPLEASE Nalora…. get up to speed…. It’s Huck that said during the u-tube debate that HE was the only one with a theology degree (oops…..not QUITE the truth there, but what’s a little fudgin’ between friends?). It’s Huck who is running and advertising "as a Christian leader." It’s Huck who meets with Iowa and NH pastors at "private" meetings to "discuss his candidacy." Imagine what the press would say if Romney were to meet privately with Mormon leaders to "discuss his candidacy." Oh, and by the way, to answer your question…. Mormons wouldn’t think to judge ‘who’ is going to heaven or not, or who is NOT a Christian (when they claim they ARE Christian). They leave that to the evangelicals.
41 Xel
December 17, 2007 @ 7:52 am CETHuck and those who are streaming to him simply because of his promise of continuing Bush’s infusion of dogmatism and moral superiority into everything simply won’t be able to get another one past the part of the GOP that cares more about the entire country and the electability of the candidate. We are about to see a long overdue tug o’ war between two aspects on the GOP and if Huck gets the nomination it is obvious the party needs more time out in the cold.
42 Article VI Blog » Beyond Disagreement, Evangelical Backlash, and more…
December 17, 2007 @ 3:01 pm CET[…] PoliGazette […]
43 Sharon
December 17, 2007 @ 4:55 pm CETI’m having trouble understanding what the flap is about. Maybe it would be good to define "bigotry" and "anti-Mormon." Because I just don’t see either (as I understand the terms) in the question asked by Mike Huckabee. If Huckabee, responding to a question about atheists, said, "I don’t really know much about atheism. Atheists don’t believe in God, do they?" would people be so up in arms, calling Huckabee an anti-Atheist or a bigot and declaring him unworthy of their vote for asking such a question? Honestly, to me the whole thing is ridiculous. Mormonism does teach that Jesus and the devil are brothers. To make the public more aware of the doctrines of Mormonism falls under the umbrella of full disclosure and due diligence. In America we have the freedom to individually decide whether or not such information is pertinent to the question. Does anybody remember when Spain broke free of Franco? Their rally cry was, "Without information there is no freedom." It’s true. I’m thankful for any correct information I come across, and I’m thankful for the freedom to assess it and make my own decisions.
44 Pam Cantrell
December 17, 2007 @ 6:28 pm CETNote to Atheists: "Mormons" are perhaps the only religion in the world that doesn’t ban you all to Hell. We think God recognizes that honorable men can be mislead by the world and they will be judged accordingly by their lives. I am sure that will shock the "real Christians" again by us terrible Mormons! Yes, we believe in Hell, we just don’t think a merciful God would ban most of mankind to it. Yes, all men must come to God thru the Lord Jesus Christ but I trust He has a plan for all of the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, people born before Christ, and on and on. Thank goodness the Lord judges man and not each other. So to you non believers of anything out there - even if you don’t believe in God, He believes in you. Merry Christmas.
45 Tim B
December 17, 2007 @ 8:30 pm CETI have to agree with the first comment by Tim D - I am a passionate and lifelong Republican, coming from a long line of passionate and committed Democrats who continue to fight with me to this day about my conversion during the Reagan years. I also am a committed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The past decade has been marked by a remarkable sense of cooperation between Christian faiths when regarding social politics - but the emergence of Romney has unearthed a previously hidden bias that seems prevents a member of my faith, regardless of his merits, to be disqualified from public office when face with a "true believer". If Romney loses, and it is due to a wave of evangelicals who triumph the win of the Christian candidate over the non-believer - where does that leave the faithful republican latter day saint? Not that we move as a large voting block - but I would not be shocked to see more than a few mormons who feel the same way I do move into the independent ranks and look suspiciously at Lincoln’s party going forward.
46 Lynx
December 17, 2007 @ 9:48 pm CETTo Pam and C. Stanley, it’s interesting to see how religions have gotten around condemning decent but not pious people. It’s also a bit of a relief, I am constantly mystified by how you can worship a god that invents Hell, but if it’s more of a divine justice, with actual common sense and proportionality, it’s more understandable. It’s not going to make me believe, I don’t really think I have it in me in any even, nor do I feel any particular desire to, but I do love knowing. I am a little confused though. It seems like Jason is saying there is no hell for Mormons but Pam is saying there is?
Sharon, saying "Don’t atheists not believe in god?" is NOT the same as saying "Don’t mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?", anyone without the innocence of a six year old can see that the intention is to attempt to paint Mormons as bizarre or even Satanic. Give us information eh? I say this as an atheist AND as a Spaniard, information is absolutely a must, the generation before me fought hard for it, but not just ANY information, GOOD, OBJECTIVE information. Franco gave "information" too, about how great everything was for Spain and what good he was doing. He would show pictures of poor youth being given bread and the like. They didn’t show people like my mother being forced to work at age nine and suffering malnutrition. Likewise, even if there is some level of truth in the whole "question" it’s clear that there is omission as well, and especially clear that it’s not about giving unbiased information, it’s about smearing your opponent.
47 Robert E.
December 18, 2007 @ 2:40 pm CETPredictions are not my usual indulgence, but I have little doubt that Huckabee will lose. He simply doesn’t have the money or the grassroots support to pull the nomination off.
48 Robert E.
December 18, 2007 @ 2:43 pm CET<< it’s interesting to see how religions have gotten around condemning decent but not pious people >>
How right you are Lynx. Of course this is really nothing new. Most oranized religion after all is mostly about theology and dogma and sadly gives very short change to universal spiritual values.
49 Xel
December 18, 2007 @ 3:05 pm CET"We think God recognizes that honorable men can be mislead by the world and they will be judged accordingly by their lives"
I am most definitely not misled and no one can prove that I am, but thank you very much anyway. I’ve always said that mormonism is a much more respectable and impressive denomination than the others.
"Most oranized religion after all is mostly about theology and dogma and sadly gives very short change to universal spiritual values."
This is my problem with religion today as well. It is separatist, and seems to lead to the same type of thinking and reaction one usually only sees in politics.
50 C Stanley
December 18, 2007 @ 3:58 pm CETTo Pam and C. Stanley, it’s interesting to see how religions have gotten around condemning decent but not pious people
Lynx, I don’t think that’s a fair or true statement. You seem to be talking about the worst of the religious people (the sanctimonious ones who condemn others for the speck in their eye without removing the plank from their own) and acting as though this is what all ‘religions’ do. I think, just as you wrote in the article that there’s an element of ‘projection’ in the way religious people can’t seem to understand nonreligious people finding value in life without God being the source of our purpose, similarly here you display projection because you can’t seem to accept that our belief in God isn’t due to a wish to figure out who is going to heaven and who is going to hell.
As far as what Pam wrote about hell, she didn’t say that Mormon’s don’t believe in it, she just stated that they don’t believe that all nonbelievers will be condemned to it. I don’t know if that’s true of Mormon teaching, but I’ll assume she knows what she is talking about- and if true, that is similar to the Catholic belief but it would separate both groups from evangelicals who base their theology on John 3:16 (belief= salvation.)
51 Michael van der Galien
December 18, 2007 @ 4:00 pm CETQuite well said Christine.
52 Lynx
December 18, 2007 @ 4:16 pm CETYou’ve misunderstood me entirely Christine. What I wrote was not a criticism, more like a compliment. I was commenting on something I’ve always wondered about, how religious people manage with a doctrine that may condemn to hell people who aren’t evil. The result is, at least in the two cases you and Pam have presented to me, that they don’t, both doctrines have clauses that allow some form of escape from that sort of a destiny. My point was not that most religious people can’t wait to condemn others to hell but precisely the plight of those (a majority, I think) who would feel great distress at the idea of nonbelievers who aren’t evil being condemned along with the evil people.
As for my question about hell to Pam, it was a comparative one. Pam seems to say that for mormons there is a hell, while my understanding from what Jason said was that there isn’t. It’s a question of secondary importance to me, since it’s purely comparative mythology in my book, but I was/am curious.
53 Michael van der Galien
December 18, 2007 @ 4:22 pm CETFor what it’s worth Lynx: I think that non-Christians can go to heaven as well, although I’ve got to say that I don’t know about atheists. It seems to me that if you want to go to heaven, well, you should at the very least acknowledge God’s existence.
On the other hand I’m not God and I don’t know what He does about that.
I can imagine that it may be a bit awkward for Christopher Hitchens, for instance, when he dies. He has dedicated his life to convincing as many people as possible that there’s no God and then, in my belief, he will suddenly stand before God when he dies.
Can someone like that enter heaven? I’m not sure. It’s difficult to think he will go, but who knows? God doesn’t play by our logic, He plays by His logic.
54 Robert E.
December 18, 2007 @ 4:29 pm CETWhy fret over life after death now? Soon enough you will know. Deal with it then. In the mean time, be the best you can be every minute of the day.
MTCW
55 C Stanley
December 18, 2007 @ 4:51 pm CETI’m sorry if I misunderstood you then, Lynx. I do think that’s a common misconception about religious people by those who aren’t religious- that they think it’s all about trying to establish that we’re better than others, or that it has to do with judging others. To me, it’s pretty clear that we’re not only not empowered with that sense of judgment, but actually required to refrain from it and leave the judgment to God. That we have ideas about what standards He might apply ONLY means that we are to apply those standards to ourselves, not to others. In other words, if I believe that I should accept Christ as my personal savior, I might believe that others should do so as well- but I have to respect their right to believe otherwise and I have to presume that God will ultimately be just in how he judges those who don’t believe or accept this.
As far as what you wrote about atheists like Hitchens, Michael, it does seem to me that those who actively choose to oppose the idea of God and Christianity might face condemnation- but again, that’s not really my job to sort out. And of course- the vast majority of people that are agnostic (esp) and even many atheists, don’t hold those antitheistical views. They simply say that without proof, they won’t or can’t believe.
56 Robert E.
December 18, 2007 @ 5:04 pm CET<>
That is actually a fallacy.
Whithout proof, the only thing one can do is believe or remain agnostic.
With proof, one can toss beliefs out the window. One knows.
57 Robert E.
December 18, 2007 @ 5:07 pm CETOOPS, the editing controls had vanished and my attempt to use html tags instead failed. In #56 I was responding to this:
"They simply say that without proof, they won’t or can’t believe."
Now the editing controls are back. Trying to sabotage me MvdG?
58 C Stanley
December 18, 2007 @ 5:11 pm CETSemantics, Robert. I guess a better way to phrase it would have been:
"They can only accept that which can be proven, not that which requires belief."
Better?
And BTW, by the same token as your comment, wasn’t it then strange when the GOP candidates were asked to raise their hands if they didn’t ‘believe’ in evolution? Shouldn’t that term not be used for the scientific theory of evolution, and didn’t the use of ‘belief’ then also frame the question as a philosophical one (as many Christians feel the scientific community sometimes crosses those boundaries- not simply applying scientific method to understanding the processes of evolution, but making philosophical claims about no need for a Creator?)
59 Robert E.
December 18, 2007 @ 5:24 pm CET<< wasn’t it then strange when the GOP candidates were asked to raise their hands if they didn’t ‘believe’ in evolution? >>
Agreed. There are questions at these debates which I would consider only of secondary relevance to the issues at hand, this being one of them. I am much more interested in hearing what a candidate is going to do (or not, as the case may be) about those issues.
60 Lynx
December 18, 2007 @ 5:25 pm CETRobert E. the whole atheist vs. agnostic issue is an old one, which has been addressed previously here (the part on that question is brief, but explains the basics). I’ll admit the whole thing about God having his own logic that may not conform to human logic, therefore making gross injustices (on human terms) acceptable, always seemed like a cop out to me. For instance my humble human logic would tell me that someone who lived a good life, trying to help others, while honestly believing that religion was harmful and attempting (through words, non-violently) to convince others, should not warrant hell. Certainly excluding someone from heaven on the basis that all they did wasn’t in the name of a deity because they simply didn’t have it in them or didn’t have the upbringing to believe, seems rather petty. Yes, that’s human logic, but it’s all I’ve got. Again, these are things that I find interesting but not too important. Since I do not believe in an afterlife I obviously don’t spend too much time thinking about my posibilities of getting into heaven or fear going to hell. Robert E. that’s where your quote fails. Not worrying about an afterlife only makes sense if you don’t believe there is one. If you do, it makes all the sense in the world to worry about it. After all, your time on earth is but a speck compared to what’s coming after.
61 Michael van der Galien
December 18, 2007 @ 5:30 pm CETHow can such a person go to heaven if he believes that the mere belief in a God is harmful? How can a person who’s so dishonest or blinded (with regards to the pros and cons of religion) go to heaven? Doesn’t someone like that cause people to leave their faith and, by doing so, perhaps change their behavior / convince more people that there’s no God and that religion is bad?
Frankly, if you don’t believe in a God and actively try to convince people that all religion is bad, I wonder why the heck it is you want to hear that believers believe that you’ll go to heaven nonetheless.
I beg to disagree, at least to a degree. When you do like Hitchens, again, I don’t think it’s being ‘petty’ to say "well, heaven’s for people who did good and convincing people that I [God] do not exist and that believing in me is per definition bad isn’t what I’d call ‘good’."
62 C Stanley
December 18, 2007 @ 5:35 pm CETI don’t consider it important personally either, to know what the candidates believe about the origins of the universe. But I do think that there are people who use that as a code for viewing a candidate either as a religious, anti-science nut (and excluding him from consideration on that basis) or as a secularist who would refuse to protect religious beliefs from encroachment by atheistic scientists (and thus, some religious people might exclude candidates on that basis.) And I think the question as asked was designed to force the issue along those lines.
63 Lynx
December 18, 2007 @ 5:40 pm CETSo Michael, where do those people go, hell? You and I disagree about the nature of religion, not just it’s accuracy. I don’t like Hitchens I find him to be childish and bombastic, but for instance Richard Dawkins is a hero of mine, and he’s very much an antitheist. I’m also antitheistic, though I’m probably very soft compared to most antitheists. I don’t think that I’m a bad person. I don’t know that I would deserve heaven, but I’m pretty certain I don’t deserve hell. In fact, I can’t think of ANYONE, even bonafide evil people, who deserve an ETERNITY of suffering.
I guess if you believe in purgatory, the equation changes. I still don’t think not believing in god is a bad thing, so I obviously don’t see that it should be punished. In the end though, it seems like it’s going to be two camps, heaven and hell, and if atheists can’t get to heaven, there seems to be only one place for them to go…I will never find that to be fair or logical.
64 C Stanley
December 18, 2007 @ 5:42 pm CETI think what Michael is pointing out though, Lynx, is that some people (using Hitchens as an example) seem as though they DO have it in them to believe (otherwise, why the anger? Why discuss whether or not a being that you truly don’t believe exists is ‘petty’?) but they choose not to believe and not only that, but choose to try to convince others not to believe. Personally, if I had to guess how God might judge someone like that, I’d think it would depend on what the person’s true inner motivations were (and that’s only really known by God and the person himself.) I think some people like that are truly motivated not by disbelief, but by anger at God- which I’d say should be a sin that carries grave consequences.
65 C Stanley
December 18, 2007 @ 5:45 pm CETBut again, why would you CARE what religious people think about where you’ll ‘go’, if you truly don’t believe you will ‘go’ anywhere?
That’s a bit like being offended that some primitive tribe thinks you’re ugly for not having stretched your neck out with 100 gold rings. If that’s what they believe, what’s it to you? You’re not trying to find a mate in their culture, so there’s no harm done by their feeling that you are not meeting some standard of theirs.
66 Lynx
December 18, 2007 @ 5:47 pm CETBoth charactizations are unfair, as religiosity need not mean you’re anti science, and "atheistic scientists" tend not to care what you think as long as you fund them (and yes, I’m aware that’s an issue unto itself). Asking about evolution in the debate (as shocking as it was for me to see three people raise their hand) would be like asking the dems "do you think we are a nation under GOD?". Sure it’s a good idea to make sure that a candidate is not extreme, but I think they can all be given the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. Huckabee for instance, with his tone and commentary, could NOW be asked about evolution and other issues of religion, since he has overtly inserted religious conflict into his campaign.
67 Michael van der Galien
December 18, 2007 @ 5:49 pm CETWho says that hell’s like that? Some believe those in hell burn, others believe that all people have their personal ‘hell’, again others believe that hell will consist out of not being with God while knowing what you miss, etc. Some believe it’s eternal, others believe it’s not. And on and on.
Do they ‘deserve’ hell? I don’t know, it’s not up to me to jump to that conclusion. What I do find interesting is that you piss people off by saying "yeah, I think you will go to hell if you don’t believe there’s a God and actively try to get others to lose their faith as well and pretend that religion is per definition bad."
Do I find it hard to believe that someone like Hitchens will be received with open arms in the afterlife?
Yep.
I don’t find it logical for people to say that they think they should go to heaven while they don’t even believe in a heaven. What’s more, I also don’t find it logical for people who say they don’t believe there’s a God to go to heaven nonetheless.
That’s in contradiction with logic as well.
On the other hand, God is great. I consider it possible that there’s a way for people to enter heaven even if they don’t believe there’s a God.
I don’t know it, obviously, but perhaps there is.
Also: an important part of Christianity is the emphasis on faith. You seem to emphasize good works. Although these are important, they’re not what qualify someone for heaven according to Christian teachings.
And now I’ll stop talking about who qualifies for heaven for in the end I don’t know what’ll happen so it’s only a ‘if, if’ discussion which won’t lead to anything anyway.
68 Chris
December 18, 2007 @ 5:50 pm CETReligion is not the mere belief in a god. Religion is organized belief.
I’ve known people that leave open the possibility
that there is a god, but they also think that organized religions like Christianity and Islam have had a net negative effect on the world. They also live their lives in a very moral way, even by Christian standards. Why would they not go to heaven if there is one?
69 Michael van der Galien
December 18, 2007 @ 5:50 pm CETExactly.
70 Michael van der Galien
December 18, 2007 @ 5:51 pm CETThat question has already been answered - and no one here said they can’t - we were talking about antitheists like Hitchens.
71 Lynx
December 18, 2007 @ 5:57 pm CETI vigorously disagree. Certainly there may be a few people "angry at god" and pretending to be atheists, but I can assure you that anger can exist without believing in god. Why? Because lots of people DO believe in god, and if you think that is a harmful thing, something that affects the whole world, you can become very passionate, and angry. There are two levels to this. On the one hand, you can be very displeased with the effect of a religion (or all religion) on society. You can find Islam harmful, and also point out flaws in their "perfect doctrine" without actually believing in it. On the other hand, you can also work within the doctrine itself. Think of it this way, I can talk about how I don’t think that the character of Sauron of the Lord of the Rings is a good guy, without actually believing he exists.
Also, if you really believe that God exists, and that hell is the price for going against him, you’d have to be unbelievably stupid to rebel. If I really thought I had a choice between heaven and hell trust me, I’d be working for heaven. Why do I care? I care because I have an annoying habit, which you’ve already tolerated quite a bit of, of wanting to understand things and people. I find religion fascinating, and it’s interaction with real people even more fascinating. I don’t believe a word of it, but greatly enjoy learning about it and the different ways people who DO believe it interpret it.
72 C Stanley
December 18, 2007 @ 5:58 pm CETThe last is what I believe, and when you think about that it makes the most sense. It even explains why ‘hell’ as the consequence for an antitheist isn’t necessarily God taking His vengeance on that person (in other words, not pettiness as you described it earlier, Lynx) but instead, it’s what the person himself chose. If the person chose to view the world as one where human beings could pursue goodness without God, then in the eternal life perhaps he has condemned himself to that state of being, and perhaps at that point, since he is able to actually perceive that he is wrong and there is a God, he regrets having made that choice. And that regret might carry with it a form of eternal misery, for not having the opportunity any longer to make a different choice.
73 C Stanley
December 18, 2007 @ 6:02 pm CETThat makes a certain amount of sense, ONLY if you limit it to people who direct their anger specifically at the aspects of organized religion which find harmful. I rarely see this to be the case though, and if you include being angry at people for even holding to the idea of existence of a God, then it no longer makes any sense. What could the possible harm to society be in that kind of belief?
74 Michael van der Galien
December 18, 2007 @ 6:11 pm CETYes, that’s why I mentioned it. It’s also what I believe.
Yes, although I wouldn’t rule out that at a certain point that’s reversed. "Eternal’ can also be a feeling: think about it, what’s worse than to feel that you’re separated from God? A horrible feeling, that’ll give you the idea it lasts forever.
Even if it doesn’t.
75 Anthony T
January 2, 2008 @ 9:45 pm CETI agree with Tim D I am a Republican and a mormon and if this is the way Huckabee and the republican party see’s us than I will no longer be a republican bigotry against any religon is probably one of the most horrible things some one could do
76 Anthony T
January 2, 2008 @ 9:50 pm CETReligon shouldent really matter in the Presidential race I mean it shouldnt matter who is running for president (Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, woman, man, Christian, Catholic, Jew, Budhist, Taoist, Jainist, Athiest, Agnostic, and even Mormon.) As long as the person has great ideas and is a good person for our country and thats what should matter in the Presedential primaries and election.
77 sashal
January 2, 2008 @ 10:08 pm CETAnthony T: in the Presidential race I mean it shouldnt matter who is running for president (Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, woman, man, Christian, Catholic, Jew, Budhist, Taoist, Jainist, Athiest, Agnostic, and even Mormon.) -
-You missed Muslims
78 Anthony T
January 3, 2008 @ 4:30 am CETand muslims as long as they arent fanatical one which is most fo them but okay muslims to althought they will never win cause a lot of America hates muslims but yah