Mormons Are Obviously The Wrong Kind Of Minority

[ebeddoulos]

"Mormons are obviously the wrong kind of minority," according to Mona Charen of the National Review Online.

http://www.nationalr...ity-mona-charen

So "don’t expect applause for the first Mormon president."

Edited December 31, 2011 by ebeddoulos

[Deborah]

This is so ironic because My sister and half her kids have just left the church because they have come to the conclusion through a study of the JOD articles in which many quotes are given that when the church is no longer persecuted we will be in apostasy. Since we are so "mainstream" now we are obviously in apostasy. This article puts the lie to that.

[DarkScythe]

Well forward the link to your sister, Deborah and see what she say.

[thesometimesaint]

ebeddoulos:

The persecution of one minority doesn't delegitimatize the persecution of another.

[orion88]

I think Romney has a good chance to win the Republican nomination this time

around.

I could vote for a devout Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, or Seventh Day Adventist

over someone who merely goes to church and does not practice their faith.

Even though I'm from Canada, I was proud to see that a black person had become

president in the US. But it turned a little sour for me when I saw that Obama and his

camp adopted a "Rome-Caesar" motif at the inauguration ceremony.

It's going to be tough for whomever wins - given the infighting between the two

parties. If the economy slows down as the election approaches, this will be helpful in

Romney's bid.

[thesometimesaint]

orion88:

A persons religion or lack there of has never been a qualifier for any public office for me.

See Article of Faith #11

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

[Mariner]

Is it the consensus opinion here that the personal beliefs or worldview of a candidate should not be evaluated when deciding that individual's fitness for public office?

Should any professed belief automatically given a pass in politics or public life just because the one who professes it claims it to be a religious belief?

What if it became known that a candidate for POTUS was an Operating Thetan III Level Scientologist? Should this fact, and all that it implies, be ignored by the electorate?

Humans have no control over their race or their sex or, to a great extent, their physical characteristics. They do have control over what they choose to believe, and should be held to account for, and evaluated by, these beliefs when seeking the highest office in the land.

[Stargazer]

Is it the consensus opinion here that the personal beliefs or worldview of a candidate should not be evaluated when deciding that individual's fitness for public office?

Should any professed belief automatically given a pass in politics or public life just because the one who professes it claims it to be a religious belief?

What if it became known that a candidate for POTUS was an Operating Thetan III Level Scientologist? Should this fact, and all that it implies, be ignored by the electorate?

Humans have no control over their race or their sex or, to a great extent, their physical characteristics. They do have control over what they choose to believe, and should be held to account for, and evaluated by, these beliefs when seeking the highest office in the land.

In general, I agree with you. If Person A, a Latter-day Saint, ran for POTUS, and Person A indicated that he would be governing based upon the Standard Works as informed by various books written by LDS general authorities and Cleon Skousen, I believe I would oppose Person A. If Person B, also a Latter-day Saint, ran for POTUS and indicated that it was her intention to govern pragmatically and conservatively, according to the Constitution, I believe I would support her.

It isn't the personal beliefs of the person running for office, it is how the person intends to conduct the office he or she is running for. If an "Operating Thetan III Level Scientologist" (is this a real designation?) ran for POTUS, I would support or oppose him or her on the basis of how he or she intended to conduct the office of President, not upon the basis of his or her religious faith.

Just my opinion.

[Deborah]

I think we've seen enough LDS in political office or cabinet positions to see that they do not let their religion overtake their obligation of the job.

DS, I posted the article on FB but I'm sure she'll ignore it. They ignored all the quotes my other sister and I posted by the old prophets which countered their quotes.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

I'll allow you the right to believe any silly thing you want as long as you allow me the right to believe any silly thing I want.

The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:

I, <name>, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

As long as they can do that I really don't care, what if anything, they personally believe.

Edited December 31, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Mariner]

In general, I agree with you. If Person A, a Latter-day Saint, ran for POTUS, and Person A indicated that he would be governing based upon the Standard Works as informed by various books written by LDS general authorities and Cleon Skousen, I believe I would oppose Person A. If Person B, also a Latter-day Saint, ran for POTUS and indicated that it was her intention to govern pragmatically and conservatively, according to the Constitution, I believe I would support her.

It isn't the personal beliefs of the person running for office, it is how the person intends to conduct the office he or she is running for. If an "Operating Thetan III Level Scientologist" (is this a real designation?) ran for POTUS, I would support or oppose him or her on the basis of how he or she intended to conduct the office of President, not upon the basis of his or her religious faith.

Just my opinion.

Operating Thetan levels are indeed actual designations, or levels of "achievement", in Scientology. Scientologists also believe that through the process of "clearing" they can attain for themselves supernatural powers. Let us not forget another central figure in Scientology, Xenu, who Scientologists believe is older than the universe itself by several orders of magnitude.

All of this nonsense was written down by a second rate science fiction writer who figured he could do better financially if he turned his bad science fiction into a religion. He did so, rather cynically as it turns out, but he made a ton of money anyway and so has the Church he founded.

[Mariner]

Mariner:

I'll allow you the right to believe any silly thing you want as long as you allow me the right to believe any silly thing I want.

The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:

I, <name>, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

As long as they can do that I really don't care, what if anything, they personally believe.

So, you would be comfortable with, and trust the judgement of, an individual in the White House who professed his true belief in, and I quote here:

Xenu

(

/

ˈ

z

iː

n

uː

/

zee

-noo

),

[1]

[2]

[3]

also spelled

Xemu

, was, according to the founder of

Scientology

L. Ron Hubbard

, the

dictator

of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions

[4]

[5]

of his people to

Earth

in a

DC-8

-like spacecraft, stacked them around

volcanoes

and killed them using

hydrogen bombs

. Official Scientology scriptures hold that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.

[1]

[6]

These events are known within Scientology as "Incident II",

[7]

and the traumatic memories associated with them as

The Wall of Fire

or the

R6

implant

. The narrative of Xenu is part of Scientologist teachings about extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in earthly events, collectively described as

space opera

by Hubbard. Hubbard detailed the story in

Operating Thetan

level III (

OT III

) in 1967, warning that the R6 "implant" (past trauma)

[8]

was "calculated to kill (by

pneumonia

, etc.) anyone who attempts to solve it".

[8]

[9]

[10]

Within the

Church of Scientology

, the Xenu story is part of the church's secret "Advanced Technology",

[7]

considered a sacred and

esoteric

teaching,

[11]

and normally only revealed to members who have already contributed large amounts of money.

[12]

The church avoids mention of Xenu in public statements and has gone to considerable effort to maintain the story's confidentiality, including

legal action

on the grounds of both

copyright

and

trade secrecy

.

[13]

Officials of the Church of Scientology widely deny or try to hide the Xenu story.

[14]

[15]

Despite this, much material on Xenu has leaked to the public via court documents, copies of Hubbard's notes, and the

Internet

.

[14]

In commentary on the impact of the Xenu text, academic scholars have discussed and analyzed the writings by Hubbard and their place within Scientology within the contexts of

science fiction

,

[16]

UFO religions

,

[17]

gnosticism

[18]

[19]

and creation myth.

Really?

So long as this individual took the Oath of Office you would be okay with his demonstrated logic skillls, general level of knowledge and judgement?

[bluebell]

Operating Thetan levels are indeed actual designations, or levels of "achievement", in Scientology. Scientologists also believe that through the process of "clearing" they can attain for themselves supernatural powers. Let us not forget another central figure in Scientology, Xenu, who Scientologists believe is older than the universe itself by several orders of magnitude.

All of this nonsense was written down by a second rate science fiction writer who figured he could do better financially if he turned his bad science fiction into a religion. He did so, rather cynically as it turns out, but he made a ton of money anyway and so has the Church he founded.

All religions sound like nonsense to someone. I've seen atheists refer to Christianity in similar terms. Sometimes, if you can't say something nice, it really is better to say nothing at all.

Per the OP, it's never been about 'minorities'. It's about who is popular to defend in the moment. Mormons aren't popular to defend, so they won't be, not by the majority, regardless.

Edited January 1, 2012 by bluebell

[Mariner]

All religions sound like nonsense to someone. I've seen atheists refer to Christianity in similar terms. Sometimes, if you can't say something nice, it really is better to say nothing at all.

Per the OP, it's never been about 'minorities'. It's about who is popular to defend in the moment. Mormons aren't popular to defend, so they won't be, not by the majority, regardless.

bluebell,

I could not disagree more about "not saying anything if you can't say something nice". We are not talking about a grade school playground.

We are talking about giving a pass to people seeking high public office who have demonstrated severe deficits in logic, reasoning and judgment skills simply because they tag their demonstrably false and unfounded beliefs as religion.

Rather than a lecture on manners, I would like to hear your thoughts on whether you would vote for an avowed Scientologist, or (closer to home) an FLDS prophet, for POTUS.

[bluebell]

bluebell,

I could not disagree more about "not saying anything if you can't say something nice". We are not talking about a grade school playground.

No, were not. I'm talking about loving our neighbor (and our enemy) as we love ourselves and treating other people how we want to be treated.

We are talking about giving a pass to people seeking high public office who have demonstrated severe deficits in logic, reasoning and judgment skills simply because they tag their demonstrably false and unfounded beliefs as religion.

Per, your opinion, and there's the rub.

You can vote for whoever you want to, of course, but since everyone exihibts a 'severe deficit in logic' to someone else, all your reasoning achieves is no one being able to vote for anyone.

I think you are exhibiting a severe deficit in logic right now, for example, but i'd still vote for you for president if i thought you would do a good job.

Rather than a lecture on manners, I would like to hear your thoughts on whether you would vote for an avowed Scientologist, or (closer to home) an FLDS prophet, for POTUS.

If i thought they would do a good job, yes, i would.

[Stargazer]

bluebell,

I could not disagree more about "not saying anything if you can't say something nice". We are not talking about a grade school playground.

We are talking about giving a pass to people seeking high public office who have demonstrated severe deficits in logic, reasoning and judgment skills simply because they tag their demonstrably false and unfounded beliefs as religion.

Rather than a lecture on manners, I would like to hear your thoughts on whether you would vote for an avowed Scientologist, or (closer to home) an FLDS prophet, for POTUS.

Interesting. In connection with your text in bold above, I note that the now-banned 44Foxtrot once made similar statements (though in connection with employment at his firm) about any theist, includng Scientologists, Mormons, Catholics and religious Jews, among others. He was of the opinion that anyone that believed such unprovable and counter-intellectual things as God could not function adequately in a science/enginnering environment (such as his company). Although he had selectively allowed at least two active LDS to have jobs there.

The thing is, a belief in any kind of supernatural entity is ultimately unfalsifiable, whether they be Elohim, Allah, or Xenu. The fact that Scientology is the "new kid of the block", as it were, only seems to deprive it of the aged patina we associate with the religions we are used to. I agree with you that Scientology is a complete crock and that it was created by a second-rate Sci-Fi hack who saw it as a more reliable source of income than his own writing. That being said, however, its principles and doctrines are believed by a not-insignificant number of people, and their beliefs, silly as they may seem to you (and me), are their sincere beliefs, and I will respect them the same way I would respect a Catholic's or a Muslim's.

And I would give credence to a Scientologist seeking to be elected US President, and on the same basis as I would for anyone else of any other religious faith, and that basis would be, "Do I believe that he or she would execute the office of President of the United States in accordance with the Constitution and law of the land?" If the answer were "Yes", and I otherwise agreed with their platform, then I could vote for such a candidate.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Stargazer

[Mariner]

No, were not. I'm talking about loving our neighbor (and our enemy) as we love ourselves and treating other people how we want to be treated.

Per, your opinion, and there's the rub.

You can vote for whoever you want to, of course, but since everyone exihibts a 'severe deficit in logic' to someone else, all your reasoning achieves is no one being able to vote for anyone.

I think you are exhibiting a severe deficit in logic right now, for example, but i'd still vote for you for president if i thought you would do a good job.

If i thought they would do a good job, yes, i would.

bluebell,

If you don't mind my asking, on what possible basis could you believe that electing someone like Warren Jeffs as POTUS would be of benefit to this country?

[Stargazer]

bluebell,

If you don't mind my asking, on what possible basis could you believe that electing someone like Warren Jeffs as POTUS would be of benefit to this country?

You didn't ask me this question, but begging your pardon I will answer nevertheless: I would not in a million years believe that Warren Jeffs would make a good POTUS. But not because of his religious beliefs, or not because of them alone.

[Mariner]

Interesting. In connection with your text in bold above, I note that the now-banned 44Foxtrot once made similar statements (though in connection with employment at his firm) about any theist, includng Scientologists, Mormons, Catholics and religious Jews, among others. He was of the opinion that anyone that believed such unprovable and counter-intellectual things as God could not function adequately in a science/enginnering environment (such as his company). Although he had selectively allowed at least two active LDS to have jobs there.

The thing is, a belief in any kind of supernatural entity is ultimately unfalsifiable, whether they be Elohim, Allah, or Xenu. The fact that Scientology is the "new kid of the block", as it were, only seems to deprive it of the aged patina we associate with the religions we are used to. I agree with you that Scientology is a complete crock and that it was created by a second-rate Sci-Fi hack who saw it as a more reliable source of income than his own writing. That being said, however, its principles and doctrines are believed by a not-insignificant number of people, and their beliefs, silly as they may seem to you (and me), are their sincere beliefs, and I will respect them the same way I would respect a Catholic's or a Muslim's.

And I would give credence to a Scientologist seeking to be elected US President, and on the same basis as I would for anyone else of any other religious faith, and that basis would be, "Do I believe that he or she would execute the office of President of the United States in accordance with the Constitution and law of the land?" If the answer were "Yes", and I otherwise agreed with their platform, then I could vote for such a candidate.

Stargazer,

The Xenu narrative is definitely falsifiable. Any claim that a supernatural entity (such as the Galactric Lord Xenu) existed in this universe before the universe itself existed is not only falsifiable, but falsified.

Any number of revelations and statements made by LDS Church leaders as written or recorded in official Church publications are also clearly falsifiable, and falsified. One example is Jeffrey Holland's article in the Ensign claiming in no uncertain terms that the continents of the Eastern and Western Hemispheres separated less than 10,000 years ago.

Sorry, you do not get to simply claim that all stated religions beliefs involving the supernatural are not falsifiable. And since many of them have been falsified, why should those who profess such beliefs be afforded the same credibility as those whose stated beliefs are evidence-backed and verifiable?

I often wonder if folks who claim that every religious notion, no matter how silly, should be given an pass in public and professional life would feel that way if they had lost relatives on the TunisAir flight that had to ditch when it ran out of fuel because the Muslim pilot paused to pray before initiating emergency procedures. Had the pilot gotten on the controls, feathered the props, and put the plane in to a glide, he could have made the nearest airport. Instead he prayed while the plane lost altitude and airspeed, and he ended up ditching in the ocean close to shore. Sixteen people died because of this delay. The court ruled that the little prayer constituted manslaughter and sentenced the pilot and the co-pilot to 10 years in prison.

[Mariner]

You didn't ask me this question, but begging your pardon I will answer nevertheless: I would not in a million years believe that Warren Jeffs would make a good POTUS. But not because of his religious beliefs, or not because of them alone.

Stargazer,

Good answer. What is it then about Warren Jeffs, or people like him, that would disqualify them, in your mind, as good candidates for POTUS?

Could it be, as was the case for the Muslim pilots mentioned above, that given his background, he could not be trusted to make the right (or at least appropriate) decisions when under stress in a crisis?

Is it because, like the pilots, when under stress (as he clearly is now) Jeffs might revert to the comfort and old habits of his religion as Jeffs is doing now (which in Jeff's case seems to be writing revelations)?

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

See LDS Article of Faith 11.

Catholics believe that the euchrist turnes into the literal body of Christ. I don't. Hindus believe that one of their many Gods has the head of an elephant. I don't. Only Englishmen and mad men go out in the mid day sun. I go out in the mid day sun when ever the opportunity presents itself. I am neither an Englishman and I hope not a mad man.. Let people believe any silly thing they want. As long as it neither breaks my bones nor picks my pocket for them to believe so. Even if I disagree with that belief. It is fine with me.

Edited January 1, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Mariner]

Mariner:

See LDS Article of Faith 11.

Catholics believe that the euchrist turnes into the literal body of Christ. I don't. Hindus believe that one of their many Gods has the head of an elephant. I don't. Only Englishmen and mad men go out in the mid day sun. I go out in the mid day sun when ever the opportunity presents itself. I am neither an Englishman and I hope not a mad man.. Let people believe any silly thing they want. As long as it neither breaks my bones nor picks my pocket for them to believe so. Even if I disagree with that belief. It is fine with me.

The part of your response that I bolded is the problem - unfounded beliefs and the primacy of religion in professional and public life can do more than break your bones. Nonsensical and unfounded religious beliefs, and the habits and actions that go with them, or follow from them, can be fatal to others. One need only consider the track record of religionists at the controls of airplanes in recent memory to see the problem.

Mariner has brought Godwin's Law to life and he has exited the building.

[Stargazer]

Stargazer,

The Xenu narrative is definitely falsifiable. Any claim that a supernatural entity (such as the Galactric Lord Xenu) existed in this universe before the universe itself existed is not only falsifiable, but falsified.

Gosh, I never thought I would be channeling the banned spirit of 44Foxtrot, but here goes.

It is clear that you don't understand the meaning of the word "falsifiable". Because of this, it is likewise clear that you don't understand the significance of it. Let me explain.

When it comes to science, and the philosophy of science, one works by proposing hypotheses and then proving them. Or by disproving them. Something is in the realm of science if a hypothesis regarding it can be proven or disproven. The alternative terms are "verified" and "falsified". If I assert the hypothesis that "All swans are white," this hypothesis can be verified by observing all the swans on earth to see that they are all white, or alternatively, falsified by finding at least one swan or another color, such as black. In other words, we are dealing with science if it is possible to make a testable hypothesis regarding a matter, in which the possibility exists that we may find that the hypothesis is true or false. If can do neither, then we are not dealing with science, but with something else.

An hypothesis regarding the existence of God is not falsifiable, hence it is not science. I say He exists, and you say He don't. My word against yours, and neither of us can verify or falsify either of our positions. An hypothesis regarding the existence of Xenu is exactly the same. You say that Xenu's existence is falsified. OK, then, if that is the case, then show me the money. Your assertion of Xenu's non-existence proves nothing whatsoever. Shall I call on you for references that prove Xenu doesn't exist?

You can't do it. Any more than you can prove that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God.

Any number of revelations and statements made by LDS Church leaders as written or recorded in official Church publications are also clearly falsifiable, and falsified. One example is Jeffrey Holland's article in the Ensign claiming in no uncertain terms that the continents of the Eastern and Western Hemispheres separated less than 10,000 years ago.

Heh. Let's see... try this one on for size.

According to this diagram, the connection between the continents disappeared less than 10,000 years ago. Just like Elder Holland said.

Now, I don't know if Elder Holland was referring to Pangaea or just the little matter of this land bridge, but I suspect possibly the latter, and in any case there appears to be some justification for his claim in the current concept of the the land bridge.

Sorry, you do not get to simply claim that all stated religions beliefs involving the supernatural are not falsifiable. And since many of them have been falsified, why should those who profess such beliefs be afforded the same credibility as those whose stated beliefs are evidence-backed and verifiable?

Now, now, falsifiability and credibility are entirely different things. You're trying to compare apples and central processing units here. I do believe that the Law of Gravitation is true, as do I believe that God exists and is the Father of my immortal spirit. However, the former is falsifiable while the latter is not. Nevertheless, the latter is a valid belief, and if you want me to, I will fight you to the death for the right to believe it.

And sorry, but I DO get to claim that all stated religious beliefs involving the supernatural are not falsifiable. I'm not the only one who gets to say so, either. Take evolution vs creation science for example. One reason why creation science is not permitted to be taught in public schools as science, is because it is unfalsifiable.

I'll quote you a quote that states it in slightly different form: "A statement is considered falsifiable if there is an observation or a test that could be made that would demonstrate that the statement is false. Statements that are not falsifiable cannot be examined by scientific investigation since they permit no tests that evaluate their accuracy." This is from the Wikipedia article "Objections to Evolution", specifically the section about Unfalsifiabilty.

I often wonder if folks who claim that every religious notion, no matter how silly, should be given an pass in public and professional life would feel that way if they had lost relatives on the TunisAir flight that had to ditch when it ran out of fuel because the Muslim pilot paused to pray before initiating emergency procedures. Had the pilot gotten on the controls, feathered the props, and put the plane in to a glide, he could have made the nearest airport. Instead he prayed while the plane lost altitude and airspeed, and he ended up ditching in the ocean close to shore. Sixteen people died because of this delay. The court ruled that the little prayer constituted manslaughter and sentenced the pilot and the co-pilot to 10 years in prison.

And thanks for claiming that I believe that every religious notion should be given a pass. I don't. And in your example above, I don't know if the pilot even knew how to take the proper corrective actions -- maybe he was praying because he didn't know what to do and was hoping inspiration was going to strike him, or else that maybe Allah would take over the controls and save them all. In any case, it is not religion or the principle of prayer that is at fault here, it is the pilot's error in applying the wrong corrective action. I'm reasonably certain that Capt. Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger was silently praying while he guided US Airways Flight 1549 down to a safe ditching on the Hudson back in 2009, and I don't think it hurt him or his passengers to do so, assuming he did.

[Calm]

. I'm reasonably certain that Capt. Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger was silently praying while he guided US Airways Flight 1549 down to a safe ditching on the Hudson back in 2009, and I don't think it hurt him or his passengers to do so, assuming he did.

Not according to an interview, but apparently there were many others doing it for him.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/02/08/capt-sullenberger-didnt-pray-when-the-plane-was-going-into-the-hudson/

[Stargazer]

Not according to an interview, but apparently there were many others doing it for him.

http://www.patheos.c...nto-the-hudson/

That makes sense, in fact. I have been in a few tense situations where the utmost attention was required to avoid disaster. In those situations I was definitely focussing on my performance to the exclusion of all else, including the seeking of divine guidance. I assume that all the praying I had done up to that point would contribute to success -- or failure. I do not presume to know when God plans to terminate my mortal probation, I guess I just hope I get all that done that he wanted me to accomplish by that time.