…and this is a 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as they insist on being called, has earned another reason to be regarded with a sneer of contempt: they sent a letter to all of their churches in California urging their adherents to vote for Proposition 8. It's bizarre that a religion known for being out of step with the rest of the country on the issue of marriage, a place populated with polygamists and young girls treated as chattel and coaxed into child marriages, now wants to "preserve the sacred institution of marriage". They sunk tens of millions of dollars into the campaign.
Californians are rightly demonstrating against the Mormon church—I'd be more than a little pissed off myself. After Enron enriched itself by bilking Californians, now you've got Salt Lake City trying to turn you into a little Utah. You've got cause to be annoyed at the way you're being targeted.
People are trying to do something, and one thought is to try and revoke the Mormon church's tax exempt status. Ah, sweet dream. I'd dearly love to see Obama repair the damage to our economy by revoking religious tax exemptions across the board, and refill our treasury with loot from the theological con artists. Alas, I'm at an Americans United meeting, and the place is crawling with lawyers and experts on separation of church and state issues, and I asked Barry Lynn directly what kind of legal recourse we had, and he regretfully pointed out that what the Mormon church did was entirely legal. It was ethically repugnant, of course, but complaining to the IRS is likely to net you doodly-squat in this case.
We may have to settle for escalating our mockery of mormonism. It's not hard, after all: it is one of the most palpably ridiculous, unethical, dumb-ass religions flourishing in our unfortunate nation of theological dumb-asses. Did you know that being excommunicated from the Mormon church can get you expelled from BYU? Don't go to BYU (not that there's much chance many of my readers would do so), and feel free to sneer a little bit at the poor BYU graduates. Forget that ski vacation in Park City; Colorado has great snow, too. Be even ruder to the next pair of white-shirted Mormon missionaries who come to your door. Hey, does anyone know what a Mormon would find heretical? Send me something they find sacred.
Otherwise, we're just stuck with this ugly outcome. All we can do is be more aware of the flock of smug, sanctimonious, hypocritical holy meddlers in our midst.
Remember, though, that all they were doing is trying to keep the definition of marriage as it has been since the beginning of time. Dumb-asses.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: SC | November 9, 2008 9:42 AM
Posted by: Tim | November 9, 2008 9:43 AM
Might I suggest Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "A Study In Scarlet", one of the early Sherlock Holmes novels and reflective of how mormons were seen in the last century. Available in economical paperback for gifting those white-shirted gentlemen.
Posted by: funda62 | November 9, 2008 9:46 AM
Their underwear. You get a pair of those "magical mystical underpants" and wear them around for awhile then mail them back to the temple in SLC.
Posted by: andyo | November 9, 2008 9:46 AM
I think you mean "to vote for" Prop 8?
Anyway, yeah, it's disgusting, there were protests here the next day of the election, good to know that people are pushing back.
Posted by: SC | November 9, 2008 9:48 AM
Best line.
:O
Posted by: andyo | November 9, 2008 9:49 AM
whoop-dee-doo, magic happened, and there was no error.
By the way, the fucking caths, my (ex)sect, were also responsible for this crap. I'd like to see some protestin' outside those churches, or having their tax privileges removed as well.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 9:49 AM
Humm lets see.
Magic underwear
Wives must be invited into heaven by their husbands.
Theology constantly changeable on additional revelation from leaders. (see what happened in 1978)
The book of mormon more correct than any book ...EVAH (yet there have been thousands of corrections to it...)
Baptism of the dead. Yes you to can become a mormon....after you are dead
Native American's are the lost tribe of Israel (Hi Lehi!)
Jesus visited North American
Celestial Marriage
Founded by a Con man and criminal
lets see what else.....
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 9:50 AM
While I think the LDS should have their tax exempt status revoke, I also think it is an unlikely scenario. Even if the churches themselves can't speak out, there is no way to stop their members from acting on their own, with their own money. Still, we need to work on the concept of MYOB, and make the groups who won't look like the bullies they are.
Posted by: Speaker to Third Graders | November 9, 2008 9:52 AM
As a pissed off Californian, I'd love to see one or all of several things happen:
1) A new proposition that would repeal Prop. H8 (not bloody likely at present)
2) The Legislature stepping in and repealing it. (doubtful)
3) A test case wend it's way through the federal court system to arrive at the door step of the Supreme Court with one or two newly appointed justices.
It wasn't that long ago that this conservative court repealed all sodomy laws. With a few more moderate or (FSM willing) liberal judges it could do wonders for gay rights in this country.
Its an unfortunate fact that many African-Americans who went to the polls for Obama also voted for Prop. H8. There seems to be a lot of resistance to the idea that gay rights and civil rights are the same thing. There is of course a lot of scripture quoted which is really odd considering that more of that fairy tale addresses the keeping of slaves than it does homosexuality. That's the problem with that piece of trash, Martin Luther King can find words to inspire and so can Fred Phelps.
Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist | November 9, 2008 9:53 AM
I think that, until fairly recently, admitting that a black man was fully human would at least get you censured in the LSD Church.
I find it amusing that the Mormons spent $115 million to deny human beings basic civil rights and then have the nerve to be surprised that there is a backlash. They also seem pissed off that their contribution is even mentioned.
Posted by: 43alley | November 9, 2008 9:53 AM
Is there is a website out there for ammunition for the door-to-door Mormons? I've seen them creeping about my neighborhood recently. I usually tell them to go away, but I might get an itch to sit down with them and then cross-examine them.
Post #7 had a good place to start. But I wonder if there's a really good website going deeper into this stuff?
Posted by: Norman Doering | November 9, 2008 9:55 AM
PZ wrote:
Not as bizarre as it seems. They want to integrate with the old "moral majority." They want their own quirks over looked. And ultimately their marriages are about producing children and less about "romantic" love.
Obama wouldn't ever do that. I wish he would. But no one is going to do that until this country turns around on the culture wars. Even in European societies where atheism is high they give financial support to the church.
Yep! Always a good idea. That contradiction between their own marriage practices and their attack on other's marriages is rich in humor to mine.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 9:56 AM
OT but amusing:
Monks brawl at Jerusalem shrine.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | November 9, 2008 9:57 AM
Here is the actual link displaying the dumbassitude mentioned in the blogpost referred to by PZ's link at the end of his post...
At least - I was gratified in finding - there were a few sane people in the comments (except for the Anon person, who surprisingly (NOT!) sounded like the blogger himself/herself)...
And talk about the oppressed becoming the oppressor... What's with 70% of African Americans voting in favor of the despicable Proposition 8?
Posted by: Craig | November 9, 2008 9:58 AM
If I had known you were going to broach this topic today, I would have tried to hang around longer after the lecture last night. I'm the guy who explained what's supposed to happen to the dropped host, but most of my information on Catholic matters comes from my highly informed, formerly devout friend who was sitting to my right.
Myself, I'm a former member of the LDS faith and I wouldn't mind giving you a primer on LDS stuff. For example, I note funda62 above and other posters on other sites talk about sending things to the temple. And though the temples are iconic, they have no real administrative function in the faith. All the real business is handled out of the 28-story Church Office Building:
http://www.lds.org/placestovisit/location/0,10634,1866-1-1-1,00.html
Anyway, I'm happy to field questions, though I'll be busy at work today. :)
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | November 9, 2008 10:02 AM
The way to really piss in these chaps' porridge is to donate to Lambda Legal, ACLU and other organizations that are working on this in the courts.
The current anti-gay laws are a patchwork of local statutes and state constitutional amendments that are specifically intended to deny homosexuals the legal protections of marriage. They're the best the homophobes can manage, but they're tissue thin and will be wiped from the face of the earth as soon as SCOTUS is forced to rule on them.
One 1960s case that should put the wind up the Mormons and all the "Yes on 8" bigots: Loving v. Virginia. Another: Brown v. Board of Education. These laws will die an ignominious death.
Posted by: Fergy | November 9, 2008 10:19 AM
I lived in Utah for a few years in the mid-80's, and it was an eye opening experience, to put it mildly. Stores featured tee shirts that said "Welcome to Utah. Remember to set your clocks back 200 years." My wife and I (who look like we could be Mo's) weren't asked "DO you have children?", but rather "How MANY children do you have?" People really do wear that funny underwear.
I was a manager at a computer company in Provo, and had an employee who was chronically late. When I confronted him about it, he cheerfully explained that morning prayers with his children took over an hour, and that was more important to him than his job. Smiled the whole time, as if that explanation should excuse any and all latenesses. (At a job interview at another Utah company, I was asked straight out where I had gone on my mission, because he didn't see it mentioned on my resume. I didn't get that job.)
After about three years, it finally wore us down and we moved to California. Utah is a stunningly beautiful part of the country, but the Mo's have turned it into a mad, theocratic wasteland. Mormonism is a truly virulent societal disease, and I am deeply disturbed to see its growing influence extend into California and elsewhere.
Posted by: James | November 9, 2008 10:20 AM
Back in 2004 when the Tennessee Marriage Amendment was on the ballot, I attended a service where the preacher told the church exactly how to vote on the measure. I thought it was a clear violation of the tax exception status.
Isn't this the very definition of electioneering?
Posted by: Zach | November 9, 2008 10:20 AM
I have a big (so large that it is a landmark) Mormon church near me. I think it has lots of gold in it. You might have heard of it. It is near Lake Chabot science center in California.
Posted by: Zach | November 9, 2008 10:22 AM
It is the exact definition James.
Posted by: David Roberts | November 9, 2008 10:24 AM
I'm a non Mormon business owner in Utah(closed for the winter)and I can tell you that not everybody here is happy with this situation.Okay, we're a small, small minority. But we do exist. Please ask, "Are you a Mormon owned business?" If the answer is yes, HANG UP ON EM".
And why the hell does every other tax exempt organization have to remain politically neutral, except churches? If they want to pay the game, they have to pay the dues.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 10:26 AM
this is interesting but not really surprising.
Guess who one of the biggest financial supporters of Prop 8 was?
Elsa Prince Broekhuizen, mother of the head of Blackwater, Eric Prince.
Posted by: Zach | November 9, 2008 10:26 AM
I looks like I am one of several pissed off californians.
Posted by: Tim Fuller | November 9, 2008 10:29 AM
How bad are things in Mississippi since Obama won the election?
Here in Mississippi, some of the locals are going ape shit over this election. Whitey has been keeping the Black guy down so long around here they don't know how to act. You're not gonna believe the following, but if you want to read about an institutional attempt to abuse our SCHOOLCHILDREN....
Outlawing Mississippi Enthusiasm for Obama
http://thetimchannel.com/?p=245
Enjoy.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | November 9, 2008 10:30 AM
"They also seem pissed off that their contribution is even mentioned." - Billy, #10
Many of the radio ads for Prop 8 clearly stated that the primary sponsors were the LDS Church and the Knights of Columbus.
Posted by: Tom Woolf | November 9, 2008 10:32 AM
PZ - you relay that what the Mormons did was legal. I do not doubt the accuracy of what you were told, but as a layman I am very curious as to *why* (or how) it is legal. Can you expand on what the fine Barry Lynn told you?
FYI - I am not totally against churches receiving tax exemption, as taxing churches can lead to religious prosecution. I am a devout atheist, but believe everybody has the right to be delirious about a god. But once a church steps over that political threshold, they should lose that exemption.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 10:33 AM
Technically I do not think it is. I believe they are barred from supporting any political party or candidate but propositions do not fall under that rule. in the same way that churches are allowed to tell their parishioners how to vote on issues but not on candidates.
I could be off on that but I believe I heard some explanation about it that included the above.
Looking online right now to find a better explanation.
Posted by: SLC | November 9, 2008 10:33 AM
Speaking of the Americans United meeting, Ed Brayton has posted a picture of himself and Prof. Myers standing next to each other. Is Prof. Myers going to comment on his encounter with Mr. Brayton?
Posted by: Ka | November 9, 2008 10:33 AM
In addition to # 7:
Mormons believe that Jesus is Satan's older brother.
Posted by: TSC | November 9, 2008 10:39 AM
Now *this* is the PZ I know and love!
Posted by: Spook | November 9, 2008 10:41 AM
If Pharyngula isn't already blocked at BYU, I'll be surprised.
And terribly disappointed. You'll just have to work harder, PZ ;)
Posted by: Zeno | November 9, 2008 10:42 AM
Sunday sermons in Roman Catholic churches prominently featured "respect for marriage" in the weeks before the election. As my mother explained to me, her pastor merely "gave out information, he didn't tell us which way to vote." I scoffed at her claim: "You mean you couldn't tell which way you were supposed to vote?" Without thinking, she blurted, "Oh, you have to vote No!" Right. And I'm sure she did.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 10:44 AM
That and the whole "no taxation without representation".
Once you start taxing Churches, you legitimize their call for a say so in Government.
Now if they break the tax law they should have their tax status rescinded. But I'm not sold on removing tax exemption for all churches just on the basis of it sounds good.
I could be convinced otherwise.
Posted by: Loren Petrich | November 9, 2008 10:45 AM
The Los Angeles Times has an interesting map of the results, a county-by-county map of which side won, and by how much. Here's one for Proposition 8, and a similar one back in 2000, Proposition 22: Gay marriage ban: A tale of two votes. The rejection of gay marriage went down from 61%-39% in 2000 to 52%-48% this year, and the biggest supporters of gay marriage were in the San Francisco Bay Area. Support increased from some to all the counties there, and opposition decreased in some other urban areas, notably Los Angeles County and Sacramento County. However, much of the Central Valley and the North End had little change.
So I think that what made the difference for the Bay Area was San Francisco's very visible gay community. Elsewhere, Los Angeles has a sizable gay community in West Hollywood, even if it does not stand out as much as SF's.
Which could be a lesson for atheist activists -- visibility helps.
Posted by: Carlin Black | November 9, 2008 10:51 AM
The original definition of marriage as it has been from the beginning of time, is that the tribal leader gets to marry as many women as he can fuck with or without their consent. Why Mormons are concerned with the definition of marriage.
Posted by: S. Fisher | November 9, 2008 10:52 AM
"Do the Left not understand that the majority of Californians want to keep the definition of marriage as it has been since the beginning of time?"
Do the right not understand that they glorify ignorance?
Posted by: havoc | November 9, 2008 10:54 AM
I used to attend church for a few years and I remember my church passing around a petition to get a marriage ammendment on the ballot. I don't really think the church fears any sort of legal ramifications... nothing will happen. I've seen preachers say straight-up that one can't be a Christian and vote for a dem.
I hope Obama has a pair and does what he needs to do... though I suspect he won't because he knows just as well as me that a majority of voting Americans are ignorant bastards... and surely Obama wouldn't wanna be seen as "elite."
Posted by: Paul Burnett | November 9, 2008 11:00 AM
"Do the right not understand that they glorify ignorance?" - S. Fisher, #36
As Sarah Palin recently repeatedly demonstrated, ignorance is a virtue for the right-wing fundagelical evolution-deniers.
Posted by: savagemickey | November 9, 2008 11:00 AM
How do you keep a Mormon from drinking all the beer at your party? Invite two of them.
Posted by: Hank Fox | November 9, 2008 11:02 AM
No matter what the Mormon Church thinks, Utah is still subject to US laws. I'd think the thing to do is start a long-term movement of non-Mormons into Utah. Get some fresh thinking into the state, and demand equal rights and freedom from religious discrimination.
It seems to me that anyone applying for a job in Utah, for instance, and questioned about their "mission" as part of the job interview, might have some basis for a discrimination lawsuit. I wonder if a class action suit is possible.
On the other hand, we could just sit back and let them make themselves more of a laughingstock.
This protest by the church over being targeted for their support of Prop 8 probably means they're feeling some heat for what they've done.
...............
And I still think naming that angel "Moroni" (the angel who supposedly revealed the holy golden plates) was an obvious joke on his idiot followers by Joseph Smith.
Heh -- interesting tidbit from Wikipedia's "Angel Moroni" entry:
"Some scholars have theorized that Smith became familiar with the name "Moroni" through his study of the treasure-hunting stories of Captain William Kidd. Because Kidd was said to have buried treasure in the Comoros islands, and Moroni is the name of the capital city and largest settlement in the Comoros, it has been suggested that Smith borrowed the name of the settlement and applied it to the angel who led him to buried treasure--the golden plates. Complementing this proposal is the theory that Smith borrowed the names of the Comoros islands and applied them to the hill where he found the golden plates, which he named Cumorah."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 11:02 AM
bwwahaha
I wonder if Lluarraaarara will show back up.
Posted by: wildlifer | November 9, 2008 11:03 AM
Hmmmm .... articles sacred to Mormons?
Drive a nail through Romney's magic undies?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 11:07 AM
I'd almost consider it. Utah is beautiful. I used to spend a few months a year in Zion National Park and Maple Canyon.
But the tightened fist of Mormonism is evident everywhere.
I've actually heard that it's starting to happen on its own though. As the population changes, the church's death hold on Utah is loosing.... however slightly.
Posted by: epsilon | November 9, 2008 11:08 AM
I'm actually enrolled at BYU, though not attending this semester. I was gonna wait until I graduated to remove my name from the church's records since I'm close to graduation, but the way the Mormon church has handled this has really pissed me off too and will probably do so this month. Right now I'm looking at getting a job in Salt Lake and just leaving BYU to finish up at the University of Utah. Oh, and I do happen to have some brand new pairs of the magic underwear laying around here, should anybody want them.
Posted by: Walton | November 9, 2008 11:08 AM
It's bizarre that a religion known for being out of step with the rest of the country on the issue of marriage, a place populated with polygamists and young girls treated as chattel and coaxed into child marriages, now wants to "preserve the sacred institution of marriage".
Erm, in the mainstream LDS Church, polygamy has been prohibited since 1890, and child marriage is not practised. It's only some of the breakaway fundamentalist sects which still practise these things.
Posted by: Stephen B. | November 9, 2008 11:08 AM
Chicago Bears quarterback great Jim McMahon had a couple of great quotes about his alma mata.
"Happiness is Prove in the rearview"
When asked about the best thing about BYU,
McMahon's response "Leaving!"
Posted by: Dior | November 9, 2008 11:09 AM
The LDS church is an odd bird. They want to be recognized as a "peculiar people", but at the same time they want to be the same as any other religion. To embarrass them keep pointing out the silliness of a con-man as a first prophet. The manifesto repealing plural marriage was not prophesy, but later was accepted as such. The Book of Morman (BOM) has been altered, edited and changed thousands of times, so some revelation huh? As a deconverted Mormon in Utah it's tough not to laugh at my friends and maintain a level of civility, but most of my Mormon friends do not support a limit on civil rights of Gays, but they must do as the "prophet" says. Dumb asses.
Posted by: Joel | November 9, 2008 11:09 AM
Christians are humanity's crazy uncle, Mormons are his bat-shit crazy brother. Yet we keep electing the followers of these ideologies?
Posted by: raven | November 9, 2008 11:12 AM
Funny about the Catholics. Mormons usually hate the Catholics. There are two Popes who talk to god regularly, one in the Vatican, and one in SLC (the "President"). Each one is convinced the other is an imposter.
Fundies claim the Mormons are heretics. By their theology, they are heretics.
As Huckabee pointed out, jesus and satan are brothers. No big deal, jesus and satan are also the brothers of all humans as we are all children of god and his wives.
God is married to an unknown but large fleet of baby making goddesses. You too can become a god with your own baby making harem and your own planet, only males of course.
The LDS beliefs are no stranger than most other belief systems but they are only vaguely related to the xian ones.
My impression is Mormonism is a strenuous religion to follow. They tithe 10%, seem to have meetings all through the week, a lot of "volunterr" activities as there isn't much of paid clergy, the semi required missions, a lot of pressure for conformity to the point where they all seem to be clones.
No coffee or wine. I could give up wine with much regret but coffee, forget it, no way!!! Some claim that there is a high conversion rate, matched by a high dropout rate.
Posted by: AmyD | November 9, 2008 11:15 AM
Peaceful protest of Prop H8 at the Capitol Building in Sacramento this afternoon. (Sunday)
Posted by: John Morris | November 9, 2008 11:15 AM
Some mormons came to my door the other day as I was coming home carrying in a computer & monitor and they stood there with their fake plastic smiles and asked me if I needed any help. It occured to me that their attitude was so motherfucking fake. My own neighbors wouldn't have asked me that. The mormons were women and it would have been actually funny if I had said yes, please carry this monitor in.
I would have liked to tell them how much I wished they were lesbians and that prop 8 applied to them.
Seriously how does it affect anyone if anyone else gets married? Christopher Hitchens was right tho- RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING - even the right to marry in the great liberal bastion of California-
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 11:15 AM
Actually I agree with Walton on this one. The one True LDS church has made these practices a big no no. I mean who cares that the only reason they really threw it out was to get statehood...
But since it is their policay, The One True LDS church has plenty of its own fucked up marriage doctrines to make fun of without mentioning Polygamy.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 11:17 AM
policay... wtf is policay
Policy
KoT
Posted by: Burning Umbrella | November 9, 2008 11:17 AM
Now you nigger-hugging liberals get to see what happens if you give them the same rights as to real people: they turn around and bite you in the ankle!
The Righteous Americans have once again defeated the bent commies!
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | November 9, 2008 11:19 AM
Actually, there is something more that can be done. One might consider not holding conferences in Utah. For instance, there's a pretty sizable one planned for Snowbird in July '09. Maybe it ought to be held somewhere where it's a little less likely to funnel money to the Mormons? Just sayin'.
More about the upcoming conference may be found here: Botany & Mycology 2009.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 11:23 AM
The LDS church is an odd bird. They want to be recognized as a "peculiar people"
Well, I don't have any problem with that; downright weird, I'd say!
Posted by: Jeeves | November 9, 2008 11:24 AM
#54
You must be joking, right? It is always difficult to gauge intent online, but Righteous Americans...really? And that first sentence of yours gives me the feeling you just like attention and one supposes scorn. Did you start fires as a child?
Posted by: PYRETTE | November 9, 2008 11:26 AM
Getting a pair of magic mormon underpanties sounds like a good idea but i think it'll be a little more difficult to get them than it was to get crackers. You could sneak into some mormons bedroom and remove them while he was sleeping maybe.
Also im interested to know how you would desecrate them. Put them on and eat a tin of baked bean, then fart in them for several hours? Then, once they are thouroughly soaked in methane you could try lighting them up.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 9, 2008 11:28 AM
Burning Umbrella,
I think you might have crossed the line with that one. I'm sure it appeals to your particular brand of humor, but really? Was that the least bit necessary?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 11:29 AM
Burning Umbrella likes to pull Poes on us. Once we realized it, we started to smile and move on. We have a couple of others who are just here to mock and disrupt, and aren't as funny. They get shredded.
Posted by: raven | November 9, 2008 11:29 AM
Utah has a falling percentage of Mormons, now at 60% and down from 75% a few decades ago. It is projected that in 22 years, they will lose their majority. Or not, this is disputed. Maybe the Mormon church counts like the Catholics, once in your in whether you leave or not.
SLC itself is majority nonmormon although a map I looked at once indicated that they gerrymandered the state so all the heathens and pagans were in one spot, at least for local elections. The mayor of SLC IIRC, is a far left democrat.
Some of my relatives live in Utah and I've been there many times. The state is spectacularly wild and attractive and SLC looks prosperous, modern and clean. There seem to be two coexisting and highly segregated societies, one LDS and one pagans that virtually never interact beyond unavoidable routine commerce.
Posted by: The Chemist | November 9, 2008 11:30 AM
Perhaps some of the ire is misplaced. I have to point out that the Mormons didn't pull this off alone. Many of the African Americans who voted for Obama on the same ballot voted for prop 8. A large proportion of Africa-Americans are tragically homophobic, even if not necessarily for religious reasons.
Blaming the Mormons for this is like blaming Nader for the 2000 election. Why not point the finger at the huge percentage of people who voted Bush over Gore? In this case: What about the large proportion of Californians not Mormons?
Posted by: C. L. Hanson | November 9, 2008 11:31 AM
So true. My hope is that -- because what the LDS church did was legal while being over-the-top unethical -- this episode may inspire people to seriously reconsider the current laws about churches and what they must declare to the IRS.
As a BYU alum, I've been advising young atheists there to transfer (including getting their transcripts and credits transferred ASAP) before "coming out" because what happened to Chad Hardy doesn't surprise me in the least. This has been their policy for decades, and probably from the beginning, as far as I know.
The LDS Church has just come out with the most outrageous press release complaining that they would be the target of political protests. There have been many responses -- you can see mine here.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 11:33 AM
No, I'm pretty sure you can pick them up at the local ZCMI.
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 11:35 AM
Calling Phil Plait:
While looking up "Danites: I found:
Now if those damned astronomers will just chart God's throne, you atheist assholes are TOAST! BWAhhahahahahahahahahaha
(Mormonism:"I reject your reality and substitute... some crazy shit that a well-adjusted 8 year old would know is ludicrous.")
Posted by: epsilon | November 9, 2008 11:35 AM
"Getting a pair of magic mormon underpanties sounds like a good idea but i think it'll be a little more difficult to get them than it was to get crackers."
True, because you have to have one of their temple recommends. But, I used to have one, and have several unused pairs still, so it won't be all that hard to get if PZ (or anyone else for that matter) wants them.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | November 9, 2008 11:37 AM
Jeeves:
ISTR that BU has admitted to being a Poe before.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 11:37 AM
I could be wrong on that above. Might have been that way in the past but now...
More here
Posted by: Sir | November 9, 2008 11:37 AM
I agree: Never let the the churches lose their tax exemption, because as the good Rev BDC says, this would lead to a demand for representation in government, one of the first steps towards a theocracy (like we aren't already headed in that direction).
I say fine the f*ck out of them, like what may happen to those asshole pastors who violated tax exemption law when they ordered their sheeple to vote for McSame. (Question for those sheeple: How did that work out, by the way? Why didn't "God" throw you losers a bone on this one?)
Posted by: Burning Umbrella | November 9, 2008 11:37 AM
Hmm, if I was to find a fault in #54, it might lack some misogyny. I'll get that the next time.
Posted by: Jeeves | November 9, 2008 11:38 AM
#60,
I've looked through some of his posts from previous entries and I see what you mean. Regardless, there was a reason why Borat was released in the theaters and not through the medium of print.
Posted by: Ka | November 9, 2008 11:39 AM
# 40:
And yes, there is a Moron in the Book of Mormon (Ether 1:7).
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 11:39 AM
#55: Yes! Let's mobilize the awesome collective political power of our nation's massed Botanists and Mycologists to smash the System! Clenched-fist-salute of nonanimal multicellular eukaryotic solidarity, baby!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 11:39 AM
Do the magic underpants enable you to fly? If so, do you have to wear them as outer garments, like Superman?
Posted by: David Beach | November 9, 2008 11:41 AM
I've got a few more words that should have their 'traditional' meaning protected. As others have mentioned as well, here's a partial list. Feel free to add.
'Human' now only refers to white people.
'Person' now refers only to males.
'Marriage' must refer back to its original meaning - a white male and a white female.
'Baby' is the thing that falls out of the woman during birth. The study of embryogenesis is irrelevant.
'Government' now is back to meaning 'monarchy'.
'President' now must revert to 'King'.
What a great world awaits us. You know what they say: 2 steps forward, 97 steps backwards.
Posted by: Ken | November 9, 2008 11:42 AM
be careful PZ, the only nations I know of that don't financially support (directly or indirectly through tax exemptions) are the communist nations. That was one of the things that Pope John Paul II tried, unsuccessfully, to change when he visited Cuba.
Posted by: RevRight | November 9, 2008 11:42 AM
It so happens that I agree with you, a self-proclaimed godless liberal, about this quasi-Christian cult. Their own record on one man/one woman marriage is spotty, at best, and they would seek to add their own "scriptures" to God's Holy Word. Otherwise, I think you're more or less full of it.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 11:43 AM
Ether 1:7 - Ka
So, are the books named after the psychotropics Joe Smith was on when he composed them? I'm told ether can be a great laugh if the amount is carefully calibrated, a bit like getting falling-down drunk in ten seconds, then sober again within a few minutes!
Posted by: MoxieHart | November 9, 2008 11:44 AM
Don't you get your own planet when you die, according to Mormonism? Do you get oxygen to breathe on that planet as well?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 11:45 AM
Otherwise, I think you're more or less full of it. - RevRight
And we should give a wombat's testicles about that because...?
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 11:47 AM
And I loved this little tidbit on the Book Of
MoronMormon:Posted by: Jeeves | November 9, 2008 11:47 AM
My apologies, Burning Umbrella.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 11:47 AM
I can not think of a better example of Poe than your site Rev. Right
Posted by: epsilon | November 9, 2008 11:47 AM
"It so happens that I agree with you, a self-proclaimed godless liberal, about this quasi-Christian cult. Their own record on one man/one woman marriage is spotty, at best, and they would seek to add their own "scriptures" to God's Holy Word. Otherwise, I think you're more or less full of it."
It so happens that I agree with you, a self-proclaimed fundie retard, about this quasi-Christian cult. Their own record on one man/one woman marriage is spotty, at best, and they would seek to add their own "scriptures" to
God's Holy Worda bunch of other bullshit. Otherwise, I think you're more or less full of it.Posted by: No Thanks | November 9, 2008 11:49 AM
If going to Heaven means spending the rest of my life with these hateful, so-called "righteous" people, I'm not so sure that's where I want to end up!
Posted by: epsilon | November 9, 2008 11:50 AM
Re #84 - So, "you may use HTML tags for style," but apparently my strike tags didn't work on "God's Holy Word".
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 11:51 AM
I think this is something that all of us--godless and devout, liberal and conservative, Christian and Jew and Muslim, atheist and agnostic, Catholic and Protestant, militant and appeaser, Shiite and Sunni, Democrat and Republican, Rastafarian and Pastafarian, Beatle and Rolling Stone, Buddhist and Shintoist, libertarian and interesting--can agree on:
Those fucking Mormons are batshit crazy!
Now the task is to find a way to use this single point of agreement as a fulcrum of unity, by which the people, united against the crazy fucking idiot Mormons, can accomplish some of the hard tasks that face us in the near future. Ideas?
Like, maybe, we could agree to store the high-level nucular waste from all our new too-cheap-to-meter power plants in their decommisioned Temples and treasure caches?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 11:53 AM
HuhWhat?Posted by: raven | November 9, 2008 11:53 AM
Well, if you're dead, why do you need oxygen? And if you become a god, presumably you can make your own.
Since anyone can (potentially) become a god or baby making goddess, the corollary is that there must be a huge number of gods. I asked a Mormon about this once, she said that Mormonism wasn't polytheistic because the other gods weren't "our god". Whatever.
Posted by: Jeremy Putnam | November 9, 2008 11:53 AM
PZ,
There was a massive protest in Salt Lake, between 3000 and 5000 people showed up. Member, non-member, ex-member (myself), young, old, gay, straight, it was an incredible crowd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdWsJcteW4Q
Not all of Utah agrees with the politics of the church. Salt Lake City proper as well as Park City are both extremely gay friendly places.
One way you can help is by getting the word out that we're organizing a mass resignation of membership from the church. This is the final straw for many people and they're ready to call it quits. The site people can head to for information on this mass resignation is http://signingforsomething.org
Help us get the word out.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 9, 2008 11:53 AM
Baptism of the dead. Yes you to can become a mormon....after you are dead
Should it turn out that there is an afterlife, and any descendant of mine does such a thing to me, I will haunt the little putz.
Incidentally, I am absolutely opposed to the idea of using the IRS as a behavior modification tool.
-jcr
Posted by: Bad Albert | November 9, 2008 11:53 AM
"...I asked Barry Lynn directly what kind of legal recourse we had, and he regretfully pointed out that what the Mormon church did was entirely legal."
So what part of 'must not get involved with politics to be tax-exempt' don't I understand?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 9, 2008 11:53 AM
epsilon @#86,
See my Formatting comments in movable type for that.
Posted by: Walton | November 9, 2008 11:54 AM
Re RevRight at #77: I clicked on the link to his blog, and I think it's a satire of some kind. Content includes:
Suppose you have potential leader #1, who is clearly educated, smart, and well-spoken, but has no genuine relationship with God. How does such a candidate stack up against leader #2, who, while possessing a sketchy academic record and seeming a bit dense, has an intimate relationship with the all-knowing God of the universe? I don't know about you, but I'll take the mind of God over human "intelligence" any day of the week!
Therefore, since Sarah Palin has self-identified as a conservative Christian and is close enough to God to understand His will regarding an oil pipeline, I am confident that she will be able to draw on the infinite wisdom of our Lord as it pertains to other matters of national interest.
I'm 95% certain this is a parody intended to take the piss out of Palin supporters. Or at least, that's how it reads to me.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 11:54 AM
epsilon, the strikeout tag here is a single's'. I don't know why.
Posted by: k | November 9, 2008 11:55 AM
"Hey, does anyone know what a Mormon would find heretical? Send me something they find sacred."
The worst of the worst? Pictures of their sacred underwear-preferably if a non-morg is wearing them in the picture. And the morg are horrified if their secret temple rituals are publicized because they like to rub it in the young adult non-marrieds and those who haven't been on a mission that they ain't nuthin' until they've earned their sacred underwear and heard the super secret rituals.
Of course, all of this is already online (praise to the internet) but it's still the worst thing you can do is flaunt the sacred underwear and secret temple rituals.
And believe me, you ain't seen NUTHIN' until you've seen what those temple rituals are like. At least they took out the slashing of the throat if you told their secrets ritual.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 11:56 AM
RevRight,
Ha, ha, ha, your moron candidates got well and truly whupped. Your lies about the election being stolen are noted, you pathetic piece of crud. Please continue your campaign for "Palin 2012" - that will ensure the Theothuglicans are unelectable for a generation.
Posted by: AntonGarou | November 9, 2008 11:56 AM
@PYRETTE: I'd say simply soak them in cheap wine/alcohol, and maybe some coffee dregs.
Also, people may like to know that if they donate 5$ or more to the effort to invalidate Prop 8. through the LA Gay&Lesbian center, in the name of President Monson, the Center will send him a(snarky) postcard informing him thanking him for the donation made in his name.Thanks go to John Scalzi for sowing this information on the internet winds.
Posted by: Walton | November 9, 2008 11:57 AM
And see his page on evolution. He's got a table, with on one side a detailed catalogue of scientific evidence for evolution, and on the other side a massive picture of the Bible.
I am now 98% certain his blog is a satire.
http://revright.wordpress.com/evolution/
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 11:59 AM
epsilon@86: you need to just use "s" and "/s" - between angle brackets of course.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 11:59 AM
It appears ScienceBlogs uses a older form of tags. Supposedly the 's' is superseded by something else on the latest tags.
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 11:59 AM
And thus, the "downlow" or "DL" culture thrives in the shadows. The only thing worse than being gay in African American Culture is to be an atheist (Hmmm, sounds familiar...). I find the christianization of a majority of African Americans bitterly ironic - free them from physical chains but tether their minds to a religion where they could be controlled ideologically through faith in "Jeeeeesus". It's why every conservative was so freaked out by Jeremiah Wright - he went off script.Posted by: Ka | November 9, 2008 11:59 AM
Nick Gotts # 78:
Oh no, Joseph Smith probably got high on ziff.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 9, 2008 11:59 AM
will be wiped from the face of the earth as soon as SCOTUS is forced to rule on them.
Tony,
Your faith in the Supreme Court is misplaced. They only upheld our right to self-defense by one vote, and they allowed local governments to rob people of their land and hand it over to anyone who will pay more in taxes. Putting an equal protection case in their hands is rolling the dice with very poor odds.
-jcr
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 9, 2008 12:00 PM
Posted by: RevRight | November 9, 2008 12:00 PM
RevBigDumbChimp - I am unfamiliar with your "Poe" reference, though I hope you were duly edified by your visit to my site.
walton - I assure that my remarks are in earnest. Dismissing me as some sort of "satire" is, frankly, hurtful. If you are able to refute the truths I present, well, do your darndest!
Posted by: AntonGarou | November 9, 2008 12:00 PM
Since the links seem to have malfunctioned, here are the addresses:
the LA Gay&Lesbian center donation page: https://secure2.convio.net/laglc/site/Donation2?idb=1227248265&df_id=1900&1900.donation=form1&JServSessionIdr001=kcao68iry3.app2b
Scalzi's post: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2008/11/07/fighting-bigotry-with-snark/
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 12:01 PM
"There is nothing more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge."Hunter S. Thompson
Posted by: epsilon | November 9, 2008 12:02 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp - It must have been a miracle from god!
Emmett and Sven - Thanks.
Posted by: bipolar2 | November 9, 2008 12:03 PM
** and good English has went to Utah **
• "They sunk (sic!) sank tens of millions of dollars into the campaign." The absolute past of 'to sink' is 'sank' not 'sunk.' 'Sunk' is its past participle. You need an editor who knows grammar --
Amending (or is that amen-ing) our state constitution is too easy. Amendments to the US constitution require 3/4 of the states to approve. Maybe we shoot for at least a 2/3 vote to amend the constitution of CA. The state standard for raising taxes is a 2/3 majority --
Well, we can vote to annul the damn thing. It still might be unconstitutional under an equal protection argument.
I'm convinced however that God couldn't care about so mundane a matter. Being caretaker of the cosmos and all.
bipolar2 terra linda, ca
Posted by: Duff | November 9, 2008 12:03 PM
Desecrating the mormon's "temple garments" is not particularly effective in their eyes since they believe the garments are only "sacred" as long as the wearer holds them to be sacred. If a non-believer gets hold of them they magically lose their sacredness. Ergo, you're just ridiculing a pair of strange underwear.
As a former LDS type person, I would have to say the most sensitive thing in Mormondom is the undeniable fact that they have had to change some of their doctrines which they formerly held as direct from god and therefore un-changeable. Polygamy was considered a "higher law", eternal and not to be trifled with. We know how that turned out.
Blacks in the priesthood was considered impossible until all the world had had a chance to hear and accept the gospel. Only then would blacks be accepted (because of the curse of Cain, of course).
It pains the old mormons to consider these and other changes.
If those nice young people come to your door, just tell them religion, in all its manifestations, is ridiculous and they should grow up. They've been yelled at so many times, its not going to effect them much.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 12:05 PM
Anybody know where I could get a lid of decent ziff?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 12:05 PM
epsilon@86: you need to just use "s" and "/s" - between angle brackets of course.
Walton@94,
On a second look at the site, I think you're right! The page on evolution is the giveaway: the guy actually appears to know something about it! But, Rev. Right, if you're still there, how were we supposed to tell from your contribution here?Believe me, it was well down in the battiness league among the stuff that gets posted here by creobots!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 12:05 PM
I do not think that is how it is worded.
The 501c3 code on politics
IANAL but that appears to be only concerned with Candidates and does not deal with propositions and other similar ballot initiatives.
Posted by: deang | November 9, 2008 12:07 PM
There was that impromptu Russell Brand quip about Mormons when he was being interviewed by Craig Ferguson. Ferguson had just told him that the only person to turn up at a gig of his was a lone woman. Brand replied: "That'll do! That's enough for a marriage! Unless you're in Salt Lake City; then it's a start."
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 12:09 PM
Later that night, in his Magic Mormon Underpants...
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 12:09 PM
Wait a minute!
My people were a lost tribe of jews AND sold Manhattan for 24 dollars?
Well that obviously doesn't add up.
That's got to be well below retail.
Posted by: epsilon | November 9, 2008 12:09 PM
Thanks also to Nick and Nerd of Redhead. Who would have thought that godless and immoral atheists would be so helpful?
Posted by: Ken | November 9, 2008 12:10 PM
@ Matt Heath,
the downside of the internet is how hard it is to express irony. You unintentionally found more meaning in my post than I considered possible.
: )
Posted by: The Chemist | November 9, 2008 12:10 PM
I don't understand why you would want to take away their tax exemption status. These same exemptions permit other groups to oppose them tax free as well. Whatever happened to good old fashioned, "Good for us when we're powerless, so good for us when we're powerful."
Posted by: NatVision | November 9, 2008 12:11 PM
I've been here (Utah) a little over a year and a half but, fortunately, live in one of the parks and somewhat isolated for the most part. It helps that 2 of the 4 people I work with on a daily basis are like-minded on matters of religion (though the bulk of the staff are "locals" and, of course, LDS).
There is some hope for the state at large as I have heard numbers similar to those posted by raven @#61. I've also heard that if you remove those who have left the church, but remain on the rolls, that membership in the state is actually barely above 50%. Among the few positives, not long after moving here I did look into their standards for science education and was pleasantly surprised to see that they are way ahead of quite a few states (Texas, for one, could learn a thing or two from them) in that regard.
And, hell, Obama actually carried a couple of counties - Salt Lake County was within a point but it was, surprisingly, two rural counties that he carried - and Utah has now relinquished its status as "reddest state in the country" (Oklahoma and Wyoming had higher percentages of the vote for McLame).
Not all that pertinent to the discussion but, prior to the election, one of the things particularly amusing for me was seeing some of those "Obama's a socialist" rants a few were sending around. With all that tithing going on and everybody supposed to chip in and help each other out (the latter being a good thing, but the former, well, not so much), the LDS are probably closer to being socialists than any other friggin' group in the country . . .
Posted by: meadowrue | November 9, 2008 12:11 PM
I would urge any former LDS here that haven't already to resign their membership to the church. Let them know they are going to lose numbers over this. Also if you haven't seen this YouTube video yet you should. I know that several mormon blogs have and they are very offended by it. Mormons love their squeaky clean image and hate to see it tarnished.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | November 9, 2008 12:13 PM
With California hurting for cash to pay to the unions, there is great power in all gay and friend of gays sending in a "pink slip" in lieu of next April's state taxes.
Rather than a check, a pink slip with the amount owed is sent with the words "withheld for right's violations" written across the paper.
Rather than stand in the streets in a mob and get beat up by cops, those who wish to declare others "not quite equal citizens" can find out just how much contribution gay men and women make to California's economy.
I don't want to generalize too much here, but gay men just seem to have a knack for being talented at something, and from where I'm from (The Bay Area) are ubiquitous high middle class citizens...
Losing that substrata when the economy is tanking will wake up and shake the masses more than mob chanting and being beaten by cops...
Once again I'll mention this, since it seems so obvious and yet is rarely mentioned-- When you grant the state the power to control activities and moral decisions, you grant the possibility of a slim majority telling YOU what you can and cannot do.
The government has no business being in the marriage validation business. Especially if it is a business claimed by the religious as their own purview.
Mormon churches should all be adorned with this symbol BIG8TS
Non gay Californians need to step up and stand up for the rights of their brothers and sisters...
Posted by: marcia | November 9, 2008 12:14 PM
Sign the petition:
(70K signatures already)
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/
Posted by: Dee | November 9, 2008 12:15 PM
Daivd Roberts #21
I cliked on your name and...wow. Not only are you a non-Mormon business owner in Utah, you are doing it in a very rural, very Mormon part of the state. It's not that big a deal to be non-Mormon in SLC, but it takes real persistence to not be a member of the ward in that part of the state.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 9, 2008 12:15 PM
@Ken. heh I'm feeling vaguely foolish now. O well, that's what I get for taking myself to seriously and not closing blockquote tags correctly.
Posted by: Tracy Hall Jr | November 9, 2008 12:15 PM
In Post #40 Hank Fox, conveniently omits the paragraph in Wikipedia that follows his excerpt:
"Latter-day Saint apologists have reasoned that this line of argument commits the logical error of appeal to probability; they also point out that it is unlikely that Smith had access to material which would have referred to the then-small settlement of Moroni."[reference 8]
[8]"Prior to 1830, most maps and gazetteers referred to the Comoros as 'Comora' (but notably do not contain any mention of the name Moroni). The 1830 first edition of the Book of Mormon printed the name 'Cumorah' as 'Camorah'.
From a document linked in the article:
"Advocacy of the Comoros/Moroni link seems an act of desperation. It has not been proved that Joseph saw the names, or that any source available to him linked them. Furthermore, latching on to two names in an obscure reference work does nothing to explain the incredible complexity and internal consistency of the Book of Mormon."
http://en.fairmormon.org/Comoros_Islands_and_Moroni
To PZ Myers: If you really want to put your scientific and analytical skills to work against Mormonism, I invite you to take on the Book of Mormon.
Be forewarned, that in contrast to most religions, indicators of religious faith among Mormons increase with increased level of education. You are not going up against a bunch of "dumb-asses."
"The reason for this [positive correlation], I suggest, is to be found in the LDS view of education. LDS theology, while it places a strong emphasis upon education, places education into a larger religious perspective. This tends to galvanize Mormons against whatever religiously corrosive influences higher education might generate. In short, Latter-day Saint theology appears to negate the secularizing impact of education by sacralizing it and incorporating it into the total religious milieu."
http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/24.1Stott.pdf
If you maintain intellectual honesty in your analysis of the Book of Mormon, you will either become a Mormon or be forced to respectfully admit that in 1830, neither a 25-year-old farm laborer named Joseph Smith nor a committee of the top religious scholars of the day could have fabricated the Book of Mormon.
For a preliminary taste of the intellectual feast that awaits you, I suggest a web search on [Book of Mormon chiasmus].
Tracy Hall Jr
hthalljr'gmail'com
Posted by: RevRight | November 9, 2008 12:18 PM
Nick Gott - I am indeed still here, ready to be dismissed as "batty" yet return love for hate. And I do know a bit about evolution, as you duly noted, having devoured Hank Hannegraff's "The FACE that Demonstrate the Farce of Evolution." I cannot recommend this work highly enough.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 12:20 PM
Gee, we've got a live one !
RevRight thinks we should thank his imaginary friend for the result on proposition 8, it's because of the time spent in prayers.
Hey RevRight, how does it work exactly, when you pray and the outcome is the one you hoped for, you thank God for intervening in your favour, but when it's not, what do you say ?
So should we also thank God for Obama's victory ?
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 12:21 PM
#127
Comedy gold.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 12:21 PM
Why don't you tell us why. Could it be the thousands of edits since he made it all up?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 12:23 PM
Poe people...Poe.
subtle, but still poe
Posted by: epsilon | November 9, 2008 12:24 PM
So, Tracy, though it's not contained in the Book of Mormon, how do you explain the fact that you think the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, yet there are overwhelming amounts of evidence that show humanity originated in Africa. If you maintain intellectual honesty in your analysis of this evidence, you will either stop being Mormon or be forced to respectfully admit that your beliefs are bullshit.
Posted by: Sean | November 9, 2008 12:24 PM
How can what the Mormons did possibly be legal? I just can't understand it. No taxpayer should have to be underwriting their campaign of hatred and intolerance.
The problem with only ridiculing the Mormons is that they absolutely relish in playing the part of the victim. You can already hear them shrieking about how they are being singled out for persecution. The sick irony of that is utterly lost on them.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 9, 2008 12:26 PM
RevRight
You mean you were serious about that nonsense? Honest to goodness, 100% no foolin', you kid us not, you actually mean it, truthfully earnest? So what you're saying is you'd rather people think you're an ignorant moron than a satirist.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 12:27 PM
Again, IANAL but see post #114
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 12:27 PM
The Big Chimp is right, "Rev. Right" is poein' fer sure...and well done.
Tracy Hall Jr., on the other hand, appears to be sincerely batshit crazy. "Internal consistency"? Chiasmus? Seriously?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 12:27 PM
RevRight@128,
Nah, don't believe you! Tell you what, post a few links from other creobot fruitcakes to your site! Then I might start to take you seriously.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 9, 2008 12:28 PM
Rev,BDC,KoT,OM: RevRight is a Poe or the Mormon lady?
I'm pretty sure the former is.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 9, 2008 12:28 PM
Given their history as a racist, misogynist, and homophobic organisation, maybe they should just change their name to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Bigots so that everyone knows what they stand for.
Posted by: Maria Sanchez | November 9, 2008 12:28 PM
A big hearty thank you to all those who supported Prop 8. It took courage to stand up the fear tactics the no on 8 crowd used but we won. We'll probably need to do this a few more times.
By the way, please keep up the protests at the various churches, it's helping the decent folks take a stronger stand.
Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 12:29 PM
For those who would like a pretty definitive list of the Mormon church's most weird beliefs, I've got a page for you:
http://www.exmormon.org/tract2.htm
As a Utahn and lapsed Mormon living in Salt Lake, I can tell you that a LOT of people here are angry at the Morg's support of this proposition. I was at the protest march on Friday night and I'd say the police's estimate of 2000 people is low. iirc, the police estimated 2000-5000 people and the news sources repeated the low end of that figure. Either way this was the largest civil rights march _ever_ in SLC, and it made an impression. Yes, Californians managed greater turnout, but that won't stop me from being proud of my fellow SLCers.
Posted by: Mike W | November 9, 2008 12:29 PM
If you maintain intellectual honesty in your analysis of the Book of Mormon, you will either become a Mormon or be forced to respectfully admit that in 1830, neither a 25-year-old farm laborer named Joseph Smith nor a committee of the top religious scholars of the day could have fabricated the Book of Mormon.
of course, magic plates, white indians, magic crystals, white jesus in america..
how could that be made up?
FUCK mormoms
it was interesting to see that 70% of all black voters voted yes on prop 8 as well,
why would people that have gone through so much bigotry and hatred in the recent past, turn around and do the same thing?
religion
FUCK religion
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 12:30 PM
Bite me; and shove your "courage."Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 12:30 PM
Rev. Right.... or at least I'm pretty sure he is. His site is subtle but check out the page on evolution.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 12:31 PM
forced to respectfully admit that in 1830, neither a 25-year-old
farm laborerprofessional conman named Joseph Smith - Some Mormon moronFixed that for you! No thanks necessary.
Posted by: epsilon | November 9, 2008 12:34 PM
The problem with the Mormons' arguments is that they seem to work well when you're in a group of Mormons. "Look at the Book of Mormon, how could a poor farmer have written that on his own?" works pretty well when you're presenting to a crowd who already accepts that it's from god, but anyone else just says "Who cares how? It's still wrong."
Posted by: Norman Doering | November 9, 2008 12:34 PM
Every religion with a holy book makes that bogus claim.
http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/1_20/pages/mormons.html
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 12:35 PM
Courage to deny a minority their rights? I think David Duke and Tom Metzger would also share your definition of courage.
I wonder if you'd be so quick to cheer if this was directed at say hispanic couples, Mrs. Sanchez.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 9, 2008 12:35 PM
And the way he uses the "fleeing the light" graphic under "apologetics". If it's not parody it deserves to be treated as though it were.Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 12:35 PM
they should just change their name to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Bigots so that everyone knows what they stand for. - Emmet Caulfield
But how would this distinguish them from hundreds of other churches?
Posted by: Burning Umbrella | November 9, 2008 12:39 PM
I feel truly humbled. The evident faith of Rev. Right really touched my soul, but even he is put to shade by Tracy Hall Jr.
I must bow my head, pray, and locate the closest mormon missionary at once.
Imagine how I'll feel after I've glanced the Holy Truth of the Book of Mormons...
Posted by: Facehammer | November 9, 2008 12:40 PM
Dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-duuuumb.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 12:43 PM
"Look at the Book of Mormon, how could a poor farmer have written that on his own?"
And how could he have translated the golden plates without a Mark Super VII Quantum E-meter at his disposal?
Posted by: Onkel Bob | November 9, 2008 12:43 PM
Havoc @37 wrote
He had a chance to do this and he deferred. He could have said said 4 little words: "Vote No on 8," and being the squirmy and slippery politician that he is, he didn't. He cared more about his goal than he cares about integrity. For those fearing this will be another Carter presidency, fear not. Carter's problems stemmed from his belief that he could help everyone and he put those goals first and foremost. That behavior infuriated the 8th graders then inhabiting Congress. President-elect Obama cares about himself first and foremost, you're a distant second. He'll make sure the 6th graders currently in Congress will elect him class president by making sure their playground is expanded. You on the other hand, will be ignored, perhaps given a scrap or two from the table. Isn't oligarchy wonderful?
Posted by: BobC | November 9, 2008 12:44 PM
It's bizarre that a religion known for being out of step with the rest of the country on the issue of marriage, a place populated with polygamists and young girls treated as chattel and coaxed into child marriages, now wants to "preserve the sacred institution of marriage".
Is this marriage thing really necessary for anyone? I noticed the other ape species don't bother with it.
Posted by: raven | November 9, 2008 12:45 PM
No, of course not. That is just plain silly. God didn't like Obama. He really disliked Sarah Palin more. Heaven has always had problems with quality control and defectives slip past all the time.
Posted by: John The Unbaptist | November 9, 2008 12:45 PM
Mormons believe in conversions after death, on the grounds that all deserving people should get to heaven, but non-mormons can't get into heaven, which isn't fair for ancestors who died before John Smith wrote his bible and foreigners who haven't had a chance to hear about Mormonism. This explains their interest in geneaological records (to find ancestors so that you can hold a temple ceremony to induct them into the church, so that they can join you in heaven), and in going on missions.
So perhaps we should devise some religious ceremonies to convert living and dead mormons to some other religion. Perhaps something that worked semi-automatically, like Buddhist wind-driven prayer wheels.
Posted by: Dee | November 9, 2008 12:48 PM
It is true that the LDS church outlawed plural marriage a long time ago, and it's one of the several certain ways to get excommunicated. However, there is a very strong reluctance on the part of the church or the state government to challenge or condemn plural marriage in this state. And that's even when there is clear evidence of child abuse and welfare fraud (groups like the FLDS call their version of welfare fraud 'bleeding the beast'). Some of that reluctance is historical; the last time the state tried to move against polygamists it was an unmitigated disaster. There is more to it than that however, and I'm not sure I understand it fully. It's almost like people don't want anyone to take offical action in case the practice really is god's will. In the rare cases where the state does do something, they focus on the child abuse/welfare fraud actions (which I think is more appropriate, personally), and the prosecuter who takes on the case is risking his career - think Tom Green and Leavitt. John Krakauer wrote an excellent book on polygamy in Utah called "Under the Banner of Heaven", that I highly recommend, if you are interested in this topic.
As far as science standards in the state are concerned, it is true that they are refreshingly free of anti-evolution nonsense, but it is also true that the more militant-mainstream-Mormons who run the state legistlature periodically try to change those standards. So far they have been unsuccessful, and one of them lost his job this elelction (hot damn!!), but the impulse to meddle is still there.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 12:49 PM
Did you know that according to RevRight, most people become atheists, not because of a lack of evidence for God, but in order to watch Desperate Housewives ?
Poe or not Poe, that is the question...
Posted by: tomh | November 9, 2008 12:50 PM
On the bright side, here in Oregon we tossed a card-carrying Mormon, Gordon Smith, out of the US Senate.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 12:51 PM
#155
From the July 1 Sacramento Bee:
The mass mailer California's received quoted Obama and Biden out of context, featuring his picture and making it appear as if he had endorsed their position. The promoters of prop 8 were, of course, lying sacks of crap.
Posted by: Jessica | November 9, 2008 12:52 PM
The Mormon PAC calling itself a picked-on church, good grief! More like a church with so much money it overpaid a LOT for this deal in arizona... why? To hide giving money to someone for, what, a ballot issue? Or...???
http://www.azcentral.com/community/pinal/articles/2008/11/02/20081102biz-mormonland1102.html
Mormons don't even do "one man + one woman" - they DO polygamy in their temples all the time, and support polygamy throughout Utah to this day!! Who are they to tell anyone else how to marry??
Posted by: Kathy | November 9, 2008 12:53 PM
Wow. Mr. Hall, you have so misunderestimated the pull of the Book of Mormon.
While at Berkeley, I did a paper on the institution of polygamy in the Mormon church (as Joseph Smith "revealed" it). To do so, I had to go back to the far history of the church and Mr. Smith, including his early days as a "Gold prospector" in the hills of New York State. (As in, his early money-making schemes included having poor farmers pay him to search for gold with divining rods on their properties.)
If I ever needed a clue that he was a charlatan from his early days, that was it. The "revelation" of polygamy just cemented it. The only intelligence that Mr. Smith had was in the same realization that L. Ron Hubbard came to a century later: if you want to make money, start a religion.
So, it is, indeed, possible to review the Book of Mormon, and find that it is so full of deceit and lies that it is amazing that he ever found one single person to follow him into the desert, let alone whole crowds of them.
Posted by: Miko | November 9, 2008 12:53 PM
I've been assuming that they're just voting on gay marriage customs as a way to get revenge on everyone for voting on their marriage customs (polygamy). But of course the Mormons were completely wrong in attempting to redefine marriage to exclude gays whereas everyone else was completely right in attempting to redefine marriage to exclude polygamists, right?
Posted by: George Atkinson | November 9, 2008 12:53 PM
Yet unmentioned is the role of the Mormon church in making the Boy Scouts of America safe for pedophiles. The LDS infiltrated the BSA administration, gradually strengthening the (previously unwritten) policy of ejecting gay and atheist boys.
Under suit for this discrimination (the federal charter granted to the organization was based on its being open to "all boys"), BSA lawyers appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which agreed that BSA was a private religious organization with full right to discriminate.
And now, godly scoutmasters, like godly priests, need no vetting, or supervision.
[Note: In the U.S., Girl Scouts are not connected with BSA, and do not discriminate.]
Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 12:56 PM
Also, if we're going to talk about consistency in the Book of Mormon, let's talk about its consistency with the actual, observable world.
The BoM says that American Indians are actually descended from the Jews. One family of them sailed from Jerusalem to the American continent, to avoid the total destruction of Jerusalem. (Where's the evidence of this destruction, by the way?) Some of their descendants, the bad lot in fact, became the American Indians as seen in Joseph Smith's day.
If the Book of Mormon is taken to be literally true, which is what all conforming Mormons must believe, what do you make of the fact that DNA analysis places their ancestry in Asia instead of the Mideast? Evidence from several other scientific fields has been saying this for a long time, but the DNA evidence is conclusive. Are you among those who prefer to ignore this, or do you side with the apologists who claim that god changed their DNA just to fool us?
Posted by: Jeanette | November 9, 2008 1:04 PM
Nick Gotts @78:
Yeah, the whole religion sounds like it was made up as a parody, doesn't it? The book of "Ether," the angel "Moroni." A prophet named Joe Smith, his tale of the vanishing golden tablets, the babies' souls floating around in heaven waiting to jump into women's wombs...
People have to be "Moronis" to buy into any of that.
Posted by: raven | November 9, 2008 1:08 PM
Religions commonly serve as conduits for bigotry of one sort.
The Puritans were driven out of England to America. Their crowning achievement was to hang 25 alleged witches and a few Quakers and Unitarians during a short lived theocracy.
The LDS were driven out of the midwest with J. Smith being lynched, among others. They turned around and massacred some heathens at Mountain Meadows as payback. These days, discrimination against pagans (anyone nonMormon in Utah) is ubiquitous and unremarked. And they have apparently targeted the gays as the all purpose outgroup.
I guess many or most people need someone to hate. The all time record must be the fundie Rapture Monkeys. They are all hoping god shows up and kills everyone, 6.7 billion people and destroys the earth. The body count could only get higher if we discover UFO type aliens. Then god can kill those too. And BTW, jesus loves us.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 1:08 PM
#162 revised: California's voters received
Posted by: lsd saint | November 9, 2008 1:09 PM
When mormon missionaries come to your door or approach you, politely tell them that you do not speak with representatives from hate groups, and then shut the door or walk away. Do not argue, etc just shut the door, the rebranding will drive them crazy.
A far as crazy things they do. How about the marriage ceremony in mormon temples. The participants wear a nutty outfit that resembles a bakers hat and white robes, topped off with a green apron around their waist. The kneel over an alter and grasp hands in a secret handshake as the sealer marries them.
Here is a link to mormon temple clothing. Give their local temple a call and ask them if they really dress like this and if this should be voted on. http://xmo.lege.net/packham/m1-sign.jpg
Posted by: DMS | November 9, 2008 1:16 PM
@Tracy (#127):
Doesn't the Book of Mormon have horses in the story, despite the fact horses weren't in the Americas until Euros brought them here? As I recall, the story also mentions steel (!) though it's supposed to take place a couple thousand years ago.
Recommended reading for you, Tracy: Under the Banner of Heaven, by Jon Krakauer
Posted by: Gustaf | November 9, 2008 1:19 PM
The first thing to understand is that 'marriage' is both a religious and a legal term. From the beginning, they were one and the same, but ever since church and state became separate we've had a single ceremony that has both religious and legal implications. This has become increasingly incompatible with things such as the sexual revolution, the gay movement, feminism, today's divorce rates and so on.
The best solution is to start using another term for legal marriages, and let the religous people keep using 'marriage' in the sense they prefer. If state and church is separate, the state has no say in church matters, except to enforce human rights. The term one adopts for legal marriages should of course be religious and gender free. That means, to marry legally, you go sign some papers. To marry religiously, you go to the church.
Posted by: Muhamad | November 9, 2008 1:21 PM
Child marriage? Well, in that case, they aren't that different from Muslims.
Posted by: DMS | November 9, 2008 1:24 PM
I'd say that's about right, Gustaf @ 173. I thought it was a tactical error back in 2004 or so when people simply rejected the "civil unions" idea even if it was (for all intents and purposes) the same as marriage. Why not let the state call it a civil union, and call it a marriage yourself? What diff does it make what the state calls it?
As I recall, back in 2004 polls indicated that most people in the US would have accepted "civil unions."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 1:30 PM
Jesus brought them over. Duh
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 1:31 PM
The best solution is to start using another term for legal marriages, and let the religous people keep using 'marriage' in the sense they prefer.
I've advocated this position in the past, but it's a non-starter. There are entirely too many statutes on the books using the word marriage, so marriage it is. Civil unions are separate but equal; Jim Crow. This is a simple civil rights issue, and has been settled that way by the Court. This ACLU press release is a good primer on why the courts will declare 8 to be invalid. An excerpt:
Posted by: pixelfish | November 9, 2008 1:33 PM
I resigned my membership three years back--mostly because I didn't want my future children's names on the rolls of the church, but also because of their shitty stance historically on women's and minority rights. The LDS church took ten years after the civil rights movement to let blacks hold the priesthood--1978--one year after I was born. They also pulled similar shenanigans back in the day trying to get ERA bounced, and it worked then too. The leaders would tell the Relief Society (the women's auxiliary) to organise protests on the steps of various state capitals. They were very involved in making sure the ERA didn't pass, and for a long time, when I was little, I thought that the ERA must be something really heinous. Imagine my surprise as a young adult, when I investigated it and found that it was merely granting equality to everybody regardless of gender. Shocking for a wee Mormon kid.
While I generally agree with most of what I've read in this thread, and I think the LDS church's behaviour has been shameful, a few things have been said in thread which need clarifying:
Norman Doering said that LDS marriages were more about children and less about romantic love. Tsk, tsk, Norman. LDS marriages are REALLY about the chance to boink the only person you will ever be sanctioned to boink. ;) What else do you think would happen if you told people they can't have sex outside of marriage? They will get married to the first person who comes along who says yes. (I jest, but that's still partly true. By the time I was 22, a third of my graduating class in high school was married off.) In reality, most Mormons do marry for love and romance and all the same reason non-Mormons do.
Also, PZ's assertion about the polygamous marriages that happen in Utah conflates the FLDS church with the LDS, when in reality, the LDS has no control over the FLDS, and hasn't for over a century. The FLDS and their ilk broke off from the main branch of the church pretty much because the LDS rejected polygamy. It's a minor point, because historically the church was persecuted for their non-traditional marriages--incidentally, the other major cause of friction between early Mormons and the rest of the US was that the Mormons kept bloc-voting, as their Prophet told them too. Instead of learning one lesson--ie, don't try to tell your people to vote all one way--they ended up focusing on the persecution, as they no doubt will this go-round. The victim complex runs strong and deep, and they have a soft spot for people they view as martyrs to the cause. This makes them hard to engage rationally, because they are convinced that disagreement = persecution.
MoxieHart@79: Yes, there is a belief that if you are righteous, and sealed in a temple marriage, you will get to become like God and make planets. This actually relates to my own deconversion, since I was a rabid science fiction/fantasy nerd, and was all excited about the prospect of making planets. I planned my planet out, and was so excited that it spurred my interest in science. I reasons I would have to know a lot of science in order to create my planets, so in junior high and high school I took a lot of biology and geology courses with that in mind. I drew up pics of my continents, and monsters and creatures I wanted to populate my worlds with....and then one day I mentioned my world-building project to an ecclesiastical authority, who condescendingly laughed, patted me on the head, and said, "Oh, but you won't do that. Your husband will do that since he's the one with the Priesthood. You'll help him raise spirit children." Jaw drop. Sound of crickets. My brain screaming, "But! But! But! But!" So yeah....you get a planet. If you possess a penis.
Things Mormons hate:
+ The ACLU - because it keeps them from turning Utah into a complete theocracy
+ Planned Parenthood - because every spirit child needs an earthly body. (Nobody has been able to reconcile the idea that if God is up there sending down spirit children to bodies, why is he sending them to bodies where they are going to get aborted? And why would abortion be bad in that case, if he could just send the newly aborted soul back to another body??)
+ Environmentalism and Gun Control - because God gave us this world to be a steward over, and doncha know that being a steward means the right to shoot whatever you want. (Admittedly, the younger generations are much cooler about enviromentalism than the older generations.)
+ Feminism - Uppity women wanting to make their own planets instead of submitting to raising spirit children. What is this world coming to?
+ Democrats - Okay. There are some Mormon Dems. There were two in the entire congregation/ward I grew up in. And later, when they left the church, everybody said, "We should have known. He voted for Mondale." My mother thinks Hillary Clinton is practically akin to Adolph Hitler. (That is NOT an exaggeration.) It is nominally okay to be a Libertarian, but generally everybody in Utah County, where I grew up, leaned Republican.
+ Gay people, natch. Most Mormons will say shit like "Love the sinner, hate the sin," but those who do, probably don't know any gay people who are out to them. Or they will be like my dad, who worked with a few gay people, declared them to be among the nicest people he knew, and said it was a shame they couldn't give up their sin to be closer to God. I think the younger generation, once again, is a bit more chill about the gay movement than their parents were--I had a number of old classmates back in Utah who are still Mormon and who lobbied against 8--but sadly many still accept the prevailing church view, which is that homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage should be stopped.
Which brings us to today: Your mission, should you choose to accept it is to scan the list of Mormon donors to Prop 8 here: http://mormonsfor8.com/ and make a donation to the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the Utah Democratic Party, the HRC, or NOW in their name. This will make the veins on their heads throb and their eyeballs implode. (I'm donating to Planned Parenthood in Monson's name.)
The future of the Mormon church: The Mormon church has changed before, and they will change their beliefs again. They will adapt....eventually...to the zeitgeist as they perceive it, but probably about ten-to-twenty years after wider mainstream acceptance. In the meantime, their ranks will suffer minor attrition, as people who take a few minutes to think about it realise the doctrine is contradictory and full of shit. I wish the rate of attrition was a little higher, because they'd notice quicker, but in the meantime, they drive out gays, women, people with different political views, and anybody who schisms doctrinally with the church over various issues. I don't think they'll lose enough people to implode as an organisation, but the more they lose, the more they'll try to follow the mainstream. Which means that their current doctrine is doomed, I think. They just don't know it yet.
Oh, and here's some ammo for Mormons who insist that their prophet has a direct line to God: Three Prophets back, Ezra Taft Benson was the leader of the Mormon church. He thought a great deal of the John Birch society and preached that the Civil Rights movement was Communist-inspired and that MLK had been trained by communists. Benson ALSO wrote a forward to a nasty piece of racist literature called The Black Hammer. As far as I know, he never recanted his beliefs before taking the reins of the church.
Cover of the Black Hammer: http://www.affirmation.org/images/covers/the_black_hammer.gif
History of ETB's racism, as documented by his grandson: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon409.htm
When Mormons use the excuse that they are following the orders of their Prophet, ask them why God would allow a racist man to become head of their church. They will probably note that the prophet is still a man and occasionally makes mistakes. Ask them if the prophet then was mistaken, if it would be possible for the prophet now to be mistaken.
Posted by: epsilon | November 9, 2008 1:34 PM
@173 and 175 -
I still think civil unions are a 'separate but equal' issue. I like the south park episode that dealt with that, where they were going to call gay marriage 'butt buddies' instead of civil unions. The only point to having more than one namre for more marriage is to keep teh gays separate from straight people, and I don't think that fits with everyone being equal.
Posted by: Brad D | November 9, 2008 1:39 PM
Mormons seem to have one part of running a religion down pat: keep your people constantly under watch, don't let anyone have too much time to themselves to think things over on their own.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 1:42 PM
#127, For intellectual honesty in [an] analysis of the Book of Mormon, I defer to Mark Twain, from Roughing It - Chapter XVI.
Twain's introduction:
Posted by: Zar | November 9, 2008 1:43 PM
#123:
I would love to see California's gays and lesbians go on strike. Margaret Cho had a fantastic routine about all gay wedding planners/florists/caterers/beauticians refusing to work on those who oppose gay marriage. "If you can't get married, neither can I!"
Melissa Etheridge has stated that she will refuse to pay taxes until gay marriage is legalized. Good for her! If the government refuses to grant her the rights everyone else enjoys, then why should she pay the same taxes everyone else pays? I hope Ellen follows suit.
Posted by: DMS | November 9, 2008 1:45 PM
@179: I see your point. I'll have to reconsider my position on the whole civil-union idea.
@178: awesome list, epsilon.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 1:48 PM
Yeah, the whole religion sounds like it was made up as a parody, doesn't it?,/I> - Jeanette@168
Well, maybe it was! Smith was obviously a megalomaniac, so he may have enjoyed making his followers accept the most ludicrous tenets possible. In Russell Miller's biography of L. Ron Hubbard, Bare-Faced Messiah, there's an account of a lecture at which Hubbard told those in the audience wearing spectacles that they would no longer need them, and got hundreds of people to throw theirs away. According to the account, he found their credulity very amusing.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 1:54 PM
#172,
easy, they'll tell you that Joseph Smith chose words that meant something different in the New World than in the Old world, so that "horse" didn't refer to the species Equus caballus as we know it...
Don't worry, they have a ready made answer for everything, imagination has no limits !
So, they've got money, they'll always manage to try to cook something up, look they're now even trying to refute the claim about DNA studies that show that native Americans are descended from Asians :
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=28&num=1&id=544
New Series Launched with Book on DNA Research
Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2008
The more they try to find some evidence for their stupid book, the more ridiculous it becomes.
Posted by: Badger3k | November 9, 2008 1:54 PM
I had to skim towards the end, but I had a few comments from around the 50s - from an interview I heard from an ex-Mormon, the mainstream church does say polygamy is a no-no, but it is part of their "Doctrine and Covenants" (IIRC), and they do believe that once you have been "sealed" in marriage, even divorce and remarriage can't change that - after death, a serial divorcee is supposed to have all his wives in heaven - afterlife polygamy! Once you realize that the woman has no choice in this (even if she would rather spend her afterlife with her second husband, for example), it gets more disgusting than laughable. Even if it is a complete crock of shit, the misogyny is real. I did wonder what happened if the woman remarried another mormon - would she be split up in death, alternate who she serves, or what?
Regarding the actual number of individuals in the Mormon church, I had heard of their "conversion after death" plan, where they put someone's name in their books and consecrate them as Mormons after they have died (this is an issue with me since my brother is a Mormon, and if he thinks he'll sign me up after death as a loonie, he's mistaken - I know I'll be dead and beyond caring, but it's the principle of the thing), so they can say that the number of church members is higher than it actually is.
Posted by: Jeanette | November 9, 2008 1:56 PM
pixelfish @178:
That was an interesting post to read. Thank you.
I have to say I'm sorry that I said a while back that only morons could buy into that stuff. Having never been indoctrinated into religion (but was indoctrinated into conservative politics), I forget that it's different for people who were brain-washed into it from the time they were babies.
Although people who convert into that stuff as adults really do have to be morons.
(Oh, yeah, and in my last post I said it was gold tablets, when it was gold plates. Whatever.)
(And thanks to Emmett Caulfield for that formatting lesson.)
Posted by: Stark | November 9, 2008 1:59 PM
Something sacred to the Mormons? Grab a pair of Mormon underwear? :)
Or perhaps their Bible, translated from an "alien" language?
Posted by: Hank Fox | November 9, 2008 2:03 PM
Tracy Hall Jr #127: "In Post #40 Hank Fox, conveniently omits the paragraph in Wikipedia that follows his excerpt ..."
Yeah, Tracey, I also "conveniently" omitted the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica, the text of Thomas Hardy's "Tess of the d'Urbervilles," and a few trillion other words.
I posted something that caught my eye, that was all. Don't be all "gotcha" -- it makes you look like the America-hating, gay agenda, baby-killing liberal media.
Posted by: Martian Buddy | November 9, 2008 2:08 PM
From Tracy Hall, Jr.'s wall o' text:
I can top that, Ms. Hall; I can show you a seven-book series that is both complex and self-consistent. If you maintain intellectual honesty in your reading of the Harry Potter series, you'll be forced to either take up witchcraft or, at the minimum, acknowledge that there is no plausible way that J.K. Rowling could simply have invented the whole thing.
Or, you might come to realize that "complexity" and "self-consistency" don't bar a written work from also being fictional.
Posted by: AlexT | November 9, 2008 2:08 PM
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I voted YES on Prop 8. At my place of employment I work with many members of the LGBT community. I don't treat them any differently than anyone else. I don't consider them my enemies. They are my brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of God. When I voted for Prop 8 I voted to protect what I believe to be the divine institution of marriage, between a man and a woman. I didn't do it out of hatred nor coercion. I voted for what I believe to be right. Marriage does not belong to same-sex couples. It is not their right. We voted, it should be done.
Perhaps all of this energy and effort by the LGBT community and its supporters would be vastly more effective in broadening the rights of civil unions for same-sex couples rather than attempting to demonize and persecute the Church and its members. Or, is it just easier to single us out and start treating us as second class citizens? Maybe you should segregate us into ghettoes and tattoo a number on our bodies.
Say what you will, do what you will, my faith will not waver.
http://yes-on-prop8.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Richard | November 9, 2008 2:10 PM
As a Utahn and a former-Mormon, I think the Mormon Church has far too much power. I'll admit that I wasn't at the demonstration, and I regret it now. As for something to mock, I've always thought that the history of polygamy has been a well-kept secret by the Mormon Church. In my view, such historical facts as Joseph Smith's marrying other men's wives and his telling young girls that they wouldn't get to the highest heaven unless they married him need to be more widely-known. Also, Mormons have a particularly odious dogma about chastity (which, by the way, I think is a good ideal within reason), a dogma which has caused needless stress and pain to countless young people. This dogma is based on the following passage in the Book of Mormon:
To be fair, I haven't been active in the Mormon Church since the 1980s, and they may have lightened up since then, but I grew up hearing a lot of that kind of stuff.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 9, 2008 2:11 PM
You're welcome.
Posted by: Norman Doering | November 9, 2008 2:12 PM
Nick Gotts wrote:
That is online here:
http://www.nots.org/
Great insights into how religion works occasionally show up.
Posted by: Hank Fox | November 9, 2008 2:13 PM
DMS #172: "Doesn't the Book of Mormon have horses in the story, despite the fact horses weren't in the Americas until Euros brought them here?"
Horses originated in North America, according to scientists. So (gasp!) SCIENCE ACTUALLY PROVES THE BOOK OF MORMON!!!
I'm sure the next revision of the Book of Mormon will mention giant ground sloths, short-faced bears, and saber-toothed cats.
Posted by: Dan | November 9, 2008 2:17 PM
Wow. There is a whole lot of religious bigotry and intolerance being ejaculated onto the internet from people who claim to be above bigotry and intolerance. Imagine that! And they're spewing a bunch of lies! I guess when you're angry it's ok to be a hypocrite.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 2:17 PM
Cognitive dissonance at it's worst.
Posted by: Hank Fox | November 9, 2008 2:19 PM
AlexT #191
Funny, I thought making people second class citizens was YOUR job.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 2:20 PM
Maybe you should segregate us into ghettoes and tattoo a number on our bodies.,/I> some Mormon moron
Nah, we'll limit ourselves to trying to persuade you not to be so stupid, hateful and bigoted.
Posted by: Pixelfish | November 9, 2008 2:20 PM
Badger3k: To answer your question, there can be a cancellation of sealing for temple marriages, but they are particularly hard to obtain. Generally they will only be granted if the ex-spouse was excommunicated, or did something pretty heinous or criminal.
As you note, Mormon males will be able to be temple-sealed to their next spouse, while Mormon women will NOT be able to. In theory, if the husband died very young and there are no children, there is sometimes special dispensation for the woman to get sealed to a new husband, with the theory that God will sort it out in the next life.
I have a friend, btw, who is the biological daughter of her mother's second husband. He died young, so her mother married for a third time and my friend's stepfather raised her. But because her mother was never able to get a cancellation of sealing from her first husband, her children are sealed to him, and not their biological father or the man that raised them. I call that pretty f--ed up.
One of the things that drives me crazy about the Mormons trying to keep gays from getting married, is that they don't really recognise non-temple marriages. They sort of do, but they ALREADY think that anything other than a temple marriage is inferior. If a Mormon couple slips up before marriage, and for whatever reason, isn't "worthy" to enter the temple to get married--usually because they anticipated the wedding and boinked a few weeks/months early--then they get civilly married and the bishop or whoever performs that wedding reminds them that the non-temple wedding is for time only, and that they should go to the temple to get properly married as soon as they are able. (A year after their transgression, usually.) Mormons don't even think that STRAIGHT people's marriages count towards the afterlife unless you were sealed in the temple. You're only married for time (ie...until one of you drops dead) and not for eternity. So why it's so important for them to keep gays from getting married is a bit of a confusion for me, because those marriages wouldn't be equal to a temple marriage in the eyes of a Mormon. Trying to keep one class of people from having something you wouldn't participate in yourself...ie...non-temple marriage....is sour grapesy.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 9, 2008 2:20 PM
This is off topic and I apologize. But if neone is involved or knows someone who is involved with a 501(c)(3) that does any lobbying for progressive policies. Here's information on a grant that provides free access to a useful tool. Just trying to get it into the hands of someone who will use it.
http://100days.democracyinaction.org/
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 2:21 PM
Um, no. You fail.
Support that statement.
Posted by: theinquisitor | November 9, 2008 2:23 PM
"Marriage does not belong to same-sex couple"
Marriage does not belong to YOU or your religion! You twisted smiling nazi!
Posted by: Norman Doering | November 9, 2008 2:23 PM
Dan wrote:
Define bigotry and intolerance.
Point out some lies.
Your accusations seem to be empty of facts.
Posted by: Katie | November 9, 2008 2:24 PM
I am a born and raised Utahan. I am not and have never been Mormon, but I have had to deal with all of their bullshit for the last 23 years. My new plan if and when missionaries come to my house next. I am going to tell them that I will listen to their crap only if they "lick my cat's bum hole." Just thought i would share.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 2:24 PM
Or, is it just easier to single us out and start treating us as second class citizens?,/I> - AlexT, Mormon moron
The hypocrisy, it flabbergasts!
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 2:25 PM
AlexT,
this is quite unbelievable, now its the members of the religious communities, by far the majority in this country, who have denied basic rights to a minority purely based on their imaginary scriptures, who are whining about being persecuted ?
But have you not lost complete sense of decency ?
Posted by: Hank Fox | November 9, 2008 2:25 PM
I'm getting the feeling that The Word Has Gone Out in Mormonville, and the righteous defenders are beginning to show up.
Welcome Mormon brothers! Visit your righteous indignation upon us! We thirst for your counsel! We wander confused and bereft, and need your healing words to mend our broken spirits!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 2:26 PM
Translation: I'm a bigoted arrogantly ignorant person and no amount of evidence could ever convince me of anything I don't want it to.
*accompanied by the traditional fingers in ears yelling LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA
Posted by: Dale Husband | November 9, 2008 2:26 PM
Here's a ray of hope: that atheist girl on YouTube that P Z Myers has promoting was raised a Mormon. And she's in California.
http://www.youtube.com/user/gogreen18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn2cUR46400
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 2:27 PM
A round of heartfelt applause for Pixelfish! Wow. Congratulations on your escape from Earthly hell.
******
Did anyone catch DMS's trap over Smith's visions of horses in America years before the Europeans re-introduced them?
Any sciencey guys/gals want to tackle the history of Eohippus through Equus in North America and the many Native American legends about the return of the equines?
Posted by: Hank Fox | November 9, 2008 2:30 PM
Yahoo News:
Utah faces boycott after Mormon work for Prop 8
Posted by: Jeanette | November 9, 2008 2:31 PM
AlexT@191: Or, is it just easier to single us out and start treating us as second class citizens? Maybe you should segregate us into ghettoes and tattoo a number on our bodies.
You've got to be FUCKING KIDDING ME! Or is this blog full of pranksters today? In case you're actually serious:
You nuts are not the ones being singled out to be treated differently, you're the ones acting like Nazis who want to herd people into ghettos and tattoo numbers on them.
"It's not their right?" Our rights should be equal. If it's not their right, then that's an injustice should be corrected in our laws, not reinforced.
Posted by: park city | November 9, 2008 2:32 PM
Hey-- loved the article! Most people have no idea how truly strange and delusional the mormon religion is. Mormons work hard to appear pro-family and wholesome.
I was raised in this religion ("born in the covenant" is the term they use). I was forced to attended church, Sunday-School, Seminary and every other imaginable mind-f***ing program the church provided. Finally, despite my objections, my parents insisted that I marry in the Salt Lake LDS temple. This was back in the late '80's when the mormons still practiced their super creepy "washing and annointing" ceremony that involved a lot of naked touching and where women promised to be "obedient" and subservient to their "priesthood" holding hubby. (I've since gotten some therapy to recover). I understand that sometime in the early '90's god told the church to change these "eternal truths" to something a bit more mainstream, but I was long gone by then. While I was cognizant at the time that my mormon upbringing was twisted and bizarre, it wasn't until the temple ceremony that I figured out I had been raised in a cult. A big, well-financed cult, but a cult nonetheless.
The mormon/LDS church, since it was invented, has always been on the wrong side of history. Their current bigotry against gays is no different than their prior doctrinal and institutional bigotry against African-Americans. (For sh*ts and giggles check out the LDS church's original Journal of Discources It's a little tough to find as the LDS church has gone to great pains to deep 6 it. The crazy sh*t the earlier mormon profits [sic. pun intended] spued will curl your hair).
The LDS church is all about money and appearance. Only when they are hit financially or when they appear incredibly ridiculous will they get a "revelation" and make long overdue changes.
I was only 13 yrs. old, but can recall that 1978 was a big year for revelations from god. After decades of preaching that African Americans were "inferior" and from "the seed of Cain," and must have been "less valiant in the preexistence," and "must never mix their seed" with whites because it was punishable by "death," blah, blah, it was the threat that BYU athletics might not be included in the NCAA, among other financial threats, that prompted the good news from god. African Americans were now totally OK. Go figure.
I'm a straight, caucasian, middle-aged stay-at-home mom with two children. I have one brother who is gay. He and his husband have adpopted a wonderful little girl. They are a beautiful family. It breaks my heart that the church we were raised in is such a narrow-minded, bullying organization. Both my brother and I formally resigned from the LDS church many years ago but if I could resign again, I would, just to protest the LDS church's involvment in prop 8. The church that was founded on polygamy is the last organization in the country that should be whining about preserving "traditional" marriage. It makes me crazy!
It's too slow but I'm willing to wager big that within 2 decades from now, the LDS church will receive another "revelation" from their god that gay are suddenly OK too. To bad the mormon church is always lagging behind the times.
I do believe that this time, and despite their clever, and oh-so-careful exploitation of current tax code exemption provisions, the LDS church has gone too far. They have pissed off the wrong people. The backlash will be hard and nasty.
Hmmm... maybe the LDS church will "reap what they sow" just like they preach. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
Posted by: Walton | November 9, 2008 2:32 PM
Three Prophets back, Ezra Taft Benson was the leader of the Mormon church. He thought a great deal of the John Birch society and preached that the Civil Rights movement was Communist-inspired and that MLK had been trained by communists.
Interesting. I've read a pamphlet by Benson called The Proper Role of Government, written a few years after he served as Secretary of Agriculture, in which he expounded his economic views (which were laissez-faire capitalist, and very sensible on the whole). I knew he was very anti-communist. But reading the information by his grandson to which you linked, it really seems like his hostility to MLK and the civil rights movement was based on paranoia about communism, rather than dislike of African-Americans per se. And don't forget that he was the product of a much older generation, and probably had little, if any, first-hand contact during his life with African-American communities in the segregated parts of the country.
(Don't get me wrong. I am not a Mormon - having examined the LDS faith quite extensively, and concluded that there's little or no truth to it - and I'm not trying to argue that Benson's religious beliefs were right or inspired by God. But I would be hesitant to condemn him as a bad human being or a vile racist. He did have some sensible views on the role of government in the economy.)
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 9, 2008 2:32 PM
AlexT #191 -- a mealy-mouthed apologetic for your bigotry, rich in self-deception, devoid of basic fairness and decency.
Dan #196 -- word salad, devoid of meaningful content.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 2:33 PM
In this economy there are PLENTY of other places that would just love to have their money.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 2:37 PM
Shorter Walton@215,
OK, Benson opposed civil rights for blacks, favoured persecuting communists, and had insane religious beliefs, but he was a supporter of laissez-faire capitalism, so he's one of the good guys.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 2:37 PM
Yet you found one that you did?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 2:42 PM
Oh please. PLEASE don't turn this fucking thread into another Libertarian chamber pot.
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 2:43 PM
"YOU ARE PERSECUTING US FOR OUR BELIEFS YOU GODLESS MEANIES!" "YOU ARE RIDICULING US FOR BELIEVING IN WHAT IS PROVEN BY OUR HOLY TEXTS" "YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO JUDGE OUR INTOLERANCE YOU INTOLERANT HEATHENS!"
Oh, the irony of it all.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 2:46 PM
I'm afraid Walton has monomania. We keep trying to widen his horizons, but he just can't seem to get away from his mania. A few of the ladies were even chipping in to get him a hooker to broaden his outlook on life. He reminds me of radicals during my undergraduate days, minus the pot.
Posted by: Patricia | November 9, 2008 2:47 PM
Even shorter:
Shut the fuck up Walton!
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 2:48 PM
Poor, poor credulous Dan. What a Cretin... what? What do you mean I've pissed off people from Crete?!!
Posted by: Ka | November 9, 2008 2:48 PM
Walton.
Posted by: raven | November 9, 2008 2:48 PM
Typical of cults. God's plans as revealed by older men always seem to be the same. God wants old alpha males to have lots of sex with lots of teen age girls.
And oh yeah, I almost forgot. Make sure you send them lots of money along with your daughters.
Posted by: PixelFish | November 9, 2008 2:49 PM
Walton: When a man (Ezra Taft Benson) writes a forward praising a book called THE BLACK HAMMER: A STUDY OF BLACK POWER, RED INFLUENCE AND WHITE ALTERNATIVES, do you think it's a chicken-and-egg question as to whether it matters that his racism arose from his paranoia about communism? Does it matter that he was economically sound or accomplished in other areas? He WAS a member of the Council of the Twelve (the LDS church's highest ruling body) during the Civil Rights Era, and therefore instrumental in perpetuating racism inside the church. He used his position inside the church on a regular basis to promote his political beliefs. That's problematic enough, but my point was: Mormons REALLY believe that their prophet is nigh-infallible, and that he speaks for God. This is a guy that long claimed guidance from God....and was wrong wrong wrong about the blacks. With that kind of history, why would Mormons assume that Thomas S. Monson is speaking infallibly about gays and lesbians getting married? The Mormon God's (or realistically, that of his self-proclaimed mouthpieces) track record in civil rights is awfully suspect.
Also, you say you would hesitate to call him a vile racist. How 'bout plain ol' racist? Seriously, there were contemporaries of his, even inside the church, who had the SAME exposure to the black population, and rejected many of the notions that he espoused. The man was racist. End of story.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | November 9, 2008 2:51 PM
AlexT#191 sayd, "...I voted to protect what I believe to be the divine institution of marriage, between a man and a woman. I didn't do it out of hatred nor coercion. I voted for what I believe to be right. Marriage does not belong to same-sex couples. It is not their right."
You are an unconscionable equivocator. That vote of yours and your justification for it clearly indicates hatred. Yes, HATE: It's prejudicial, it's sanctimoniously exclusionary, it's ignorant, self-serving, intolerant, obnoxious, and the claim of virtuous conviction as a shield behind which you cower to avoid the name of hatred, cowardly.
You add, "Maybe you should segregate us into ghettoes and tattoo a number on our bodies. Say what you will, do what you will, my faith will not waver."
So what have you accomplished? All you have managed to do is act on your impulse to deny that same-sex couples cannot IN YOUR VIEW form a union under the grace of what you are pleased to identify as the source of all love. In your own way of thinking, you cannot even accomodate the possibility that you have ostracized a significant population with precisely the same charge you level against us.
I don't give a shit whether your faith, befouled as it is by mere tradition rather than any logical principle, will waver or not. All that indicates, buster, is that you have yet another strike against you: a pathological incapacity to change, which is the form and delight of every hater.
I don't suppose shame is at all possible in anybody who declares they will not waver from their faith. That's fixed, isn't it? No recourse for correction, none for humiliation, none for repentance.
Posted by: Walter Scott | November 9, 2008 2:52 PM
I am a Mormon, always have been, always will be. Why? Because I was born into the religion (and at the age of accountability, 8 years old, I "chose" to become a member of the church). I went through the "resignation" dance 2 years ago (as I felt a moral obligation to update their records to reflect my apostasy), but I'm still a Mormon. My name is still on their record books, ostensibly with the word "resigned" stamped on there somewhere.
Sadly, I find it difficult to have a sense of humor about this. Most of my family is still clinging to the idea that being a bigot will earn them the right to create their own planets some day, so I can't help but feel partially responsible for the church's gathering political momentum. Maybe I'll chronicle my days as a fundamentalist Christian and share them here.. If I get around to it. No matter how angry I become, it still doesn't seem to drive useful action.
Now that I've vented, I'll try to give you some assistance in the cause of enraging Mormons. Don't make fun of Joseph Smith or say that they worship him. They'll just laugh at you and this laughter will minimize the insult you cause them by whatever else you say. Instead, channel Socrates. If you can put up with the repeated loops around the "It's a matter of faith, it's how I feel, God says it, ..." circle, then your repeated insistence on consistency and evidence will earn you a punch in the face. I wish you luck in this most holy endeavor.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 9, 2008 2:53 PM
If you gave Walton a pot, he'd immediately fill it up with a pantload of libertarian diarrhoea.
Posted by: barry21 | November 9, 2008 2:53 PM
Those miserable pieces of shit are bitter because their myths were specific enough to be falsified. They were wrong on migration to the new world. They were wrong about genetics. They were wrong about the existence of "Reformed Egyptian". They were wrong on their original definition of marriage, yet we are supposed to give even a second's thought to their current conception of marriage?
Fuck that.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 2:56 PM
AlexT,
Last time I remember it was the large Christian Aryan majority who put the minorities (Jews, Roma, Homosexuals, ...) in those ghettos and who tatooed numbers on their body.
Oh but I foget, as all Mormons, you guys rewrite history at your convenience, so now in the USA the risk could be that it's the minorities (Atheists, Homosexuals, secular folks...) who will put the large Christian majority into ghettos and tatoo their bodies...
Just a question, do you actually use your brain when you write such fantastic nonsense, or do you just copy and paste it from somewhere ?
Posted by: randy | November 9, 2008 2:58 PM
I very much disagreed with the mormon church's approach to (and support for) prop 8.
that said, Prop 8 didn't pass because of mormon interference. It passed because of record voting by Blacks and Hispanic Americans. I can't remember the numbers for Hispanic voters, but blacks voted 80% in favor of Prop 8, so you can thank a popular demo presidential candidate (who of course did not speak out against prop 8 in any real meaningful way).
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 3:07 PM
What is laughable is that there are Catholics and Protestants who think that Mormonism is entirely ridiculous, just as Mormons think that Catholicism would be laughable if the Catholics hadn't instituted there own pogrom for Mormons in the mid 1800's. Evangelical Protestants think everyone else is deluded and that Mormonism is a silly cult. This sect hates that sect, this demonination refutes that denomination; teach as irrational and delusional as the other; but they all pretend to be in harmony against anyone who points out that religion is irrational and the existence of an intervening God is highly improbable.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 9, 2008 3:08 PM
Laissez-faire and sensible is an oxymoron.
Benson wasn't an anti-Communist, he was a far-right, white supremacist extremist. His support of the John Birch Society and his eagerness to run as George Wallace's vice-president are ample evidence of this.
Just as a note for non-Americans and those too young to remember the John Birch Society, in the late 1950s they claimed that Dwight Eisenhower was a "knowing tool of the Communists."
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 3:08 PM
Prop 8 didn't pass because of mormon interference. It passed because of record voting by Blacks and Hispanic Americans.
These communities did not vote the way they did because they were Black or Hispanic, but because these communities are readily persuaded by the religious communities which they comprise. Mormon interference came in the form of tens of millions of dollars, matched by Catholic Knights of Columbus, who flooded the airwaves as if nothing else mattered, in a deceptive ad that characterized the issue as preventing public schools from being forced by the state to teach your children to be gay, and would force all churches to marry gay couples.
Posted by: Patricia | November 9, 2008 3:10 PM
So does anyone actually know what the mormons hold sacred?
I feel safe to assume the book of mormon would be one thing. How about cursing their president? Ideas anyone?
Posted by: Joe the Wanderer | November 9, 2008 3:10 PM
Just south of Idaho Falls, Idaho there's a large billboard showing a male Mormon missionary ecstatic over saving money at missionarymall.org. No, no, no, you don't get to put "mall" and ".org" in the same URL, do you? The question of tax-free status should be more closely examined. It may be technically legal to fund Prop 8 propaganda, but what about the "mall" sales, the NPR station at BYUI that bumps NPR news shows to broadcast LDS conferences (not to mention "Devotionals" that even bumped 9/11 news)? Is it legal that the most basic cable TV package available always includes the Mormon channel, forcing all cable subscribers to support the broadcast? And what about the control by the LDS Church of public space in Salt Lake City? Money used to fund anti-gay legislation is just part of a much bigger picture.
Posted by: pixelfish | November 9, 2008 3:12 PM
Oh, forgot to mention: upthread somebody brought up the Boycott Utah plan proposed by John Aravasois (sp?) and I'd actually like to say that I think that's a strategic misstep. First of all, Utah =/= Mormon. Salt Lake City itself is leaning blue more and more, and the whole state has a fairly large non-Mormon minority. Of the 65-70 percent of Utah's population that is Mormon, only about half of that is active in the Church--the rest being lapsed, or Easter Mormons. (Jack Mormons is the popular phrase.) And even of all those Mormons, plenty (particularly among my generation) still opposed Prop 8. Furthermore, the first event and industries targeted by the Boycott Utah idea were Sundance Film Festival (run by Robert Redford--not a Mormon!) and the tourism industry (again a high incidence of non-Mormons working here). Temple Square is free, and the Mormon church makes no money directly off of the tourism to the main tourist attraction in downtown SLC (although they do make money off of the malls they own near that tourist attraction.) But if the GLBT groups and their supporters take their tourism dollars and vacate the state, they are A) removing their presence and further insulating Mormons from Real Live Gay People (which would actually be a desired outcome to Mormon minds) and B) harming the Utahns who didn't support prop 8--a proposition they couldn't vote against because they didn't actually live in the state which voted it in.
(Why not boycott California, the state that actually voted for this piece of crap? Because it would harm the gays and lesbians who already live there? Same logic holds true for Utah.)
What I DID LIKE was seeing the protests at the Mormon temple in LA and the wonderful 3000+ crowd in SLC. I think Mormons need to be exposed to more gay people, and see the broad spectrum of the people whose rights they are trying to take away. As a wee tyke, it was that broadening of experience that led me to reject the idea that homosexuality was a sin, but without people leading the way and exposing me to the world, I could have remained in that culture bubble a long time. Boycotting Utah won't puncture that culture bubble, I don't think. Instead it will merely make the Utah Mormons circle the wagons and become even more insular. I think it would be much more delicious to overwhelm Utah with GLBT folk. More practical in the long run, too.
If people still got the taste of boycott in their mouths, boycott individual businesses owned by Mormons. Start with the Marriot chain of hotels, and perhaps don't attend basketball games where the Utah Jazz play, since they are owned by Larry H. Miller, a prominent Mormon. (Larry H. Miller had Brokeback Mountain pulled from a chain of multiplexes he owned in Utah, incidentally.)
Posted by: travc | November 9, 2008 3:12 PM
A bit tangential... Crested Butte CO has very good skiing too. And is just a few miles south of the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL). So go there instead and mention that you heard about it because of RMBL.
Hell, go do field work a RMBL in the summer too. For you undergrads, there are always interesting projects there looking for volunteers.
Posted by: Pyroclasm | November 9, 2008 3:13 PM
Uh oh. Desecration 2.0, anyone?
Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 3:17 PM
Walter Scott @ #229:
"Age of accountability", my ass. This was a pretty large part of my deconversion. Seriously who, at age 8, can even pretend to be ready to decide on something as momentous as The Fate Of Their Everlasting Soul? I wasn't allowed to choose my own bedtime at that age.
The older I get, the more this particular practice bothers me.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 3:19 PM
Oh no I get it ! It's the Atheists and the homosexuals, and probably the socialists (I always seem to forget about THOSE ones, you know, the "leftists", the friends of terrorists, Palestinians and Baby Killers) who are gonna unite and put the Mormons in ghettos and tatoo their bodies. And maybe the blacks and the muslims might join them actually.
That's it, and of course the other fundie Evangelicals, cathos and Southern Baptists of all sorts will just keep nice and quiet and pray to God that nothing of the sort happens to them.
Yep, that seems like the kind of fantasy-world scenario Mormons might be thinking of for the future, and telling their children of course !
Posted by: pixelfish | November 9, 2008 3:22 PM
Patricia@237: You ask what Mormons hold sacred. Well, the temples are considered sacred. (Although I don't advocate doing anything to them, as they are private property. I actually like some of the early temples, such as the Cardston Alberta temple for its an art deco architectural style, and the Manti Utah temple for its nifty unsupported spiral staircases and the murals that were painted by my Mormon ancestor.) The Book of Mormon is also considered pretty sacred, and that's more fair game, because anybody can purchase or be given a copy. Trent Reznor once destroyed a Book of Mormon onstage at a concert--or so the legend in Utah goes--and became the topic of many a church denunciation about the evils of modern music. (I felt so guilty for liking Nine Inch Nails at the time.)
Mormons really love Joseph Smith and hate it when people denigrate him. (But as Walter Scott, I think it was, noted above: if you say that Mormons worship him, they will laugh at you. In fact, Mormons are inured to a lot of the weird old slanders. My siblings and I used to joke about our Mormon horns.)
You don't really need to attack any of the Mormon sacred symbols to get a rise out of them though, if that's what you're looking for. You can piss them off merely by telling them about how Joseph Smith started boinking Fanny Alger BEFORE Emma gave her go ahead, or how he probably deserved to be in jail because he had a printing press destroyed. Or you can ask about the number of changes to the Book of Mormon. Or point out that before Brigham Young became president, Joe baptised black people and let Eliza R. Snow preach. Mostly though, you can look them straight in the eye and say, "I believe that everybody should be equal under the law and gays should be allowed to get married." Obviously, it makes the non-compassionate or non-thoughtful Mormons implode.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | November 9, 2008 3:23 PM
If you maintain intellectual honesty in your analysis of the Book of Mormon, you will either become a Mormon or be forced to respectfully admit that in 1830, neither a 25-year-old farm laborer named Joseph Smith nor a committee of the top religious scholars of the day could have fabricated the Book of Mormon.
Anyone who was familiar with the King James Bible could have made it up. Same flow of language, same kinds of stories.
Today's topic: Joseph Smith invented fanfiction. Discuss.
Posted by: Albatross | November 9, 2008 3:26 PM
Here's the thing about Mormons (and all fundamentalists) - no matter what anyone does, they'll still think they're right. (Of course, everybody here already knows that, I just thought it bore repeating.)
Protest, boycott - it's all only further proof of their elite position among God's children. (And protests, by the way, are a sign of immaturity, and they're just wasting their time standing up against injustice.) Go to the Deseret News website and read the comments on some of the Prop. 8 protest stories. Many of the LDS commentators say things like "God told us his people would be persecuted" and "it looks like Satan really hates our righteousness" and, my favorite: "If Prop. 8 had passed, do you think Mormons would be out protesting? - I think not!" And other wonderful things like that. There's no winning.
Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 3:31 PM
pixelfish @ #239 is exactly right: The largest concentration of non-Mormons you'll find in Utah will be at the ski resorts and other tourist areas where they'll be doing things like (gasp) serving drinks.
A humorous aside:
Many restaurants in Provo are staffed by church members who rarely, if ever, find themselves serving alcoholic drinks. My brother once had his beer served in a mug full of ice.
Posted by: natural cynic | November 9, 2008 3:35 PM
@117
Yeah, but it wasn't theirs to sell in the first place.
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 3:53 PM
Natural Cynic
"Yeah, but it wasn't theirs to sell in the first place."
Careful there cowboy.
Now that the mormons have told me I'm a jew, the last thing you want is another dispute over what lands we have a right to.
Would a mormon boss give me all the jewish hollidays off?
I can prove a pretty substantial cherokee heritage.
Oh my goodness!! I'm also german. This opens doors to a whole new level of self loathing.
Posted by: Erica | November 9, 2008 3:55 PM
I really hate to jump the the defense of religion but what is wrong with polygamy so long as everyone involved is a consenting adult? And the bit about young girls treated as chattel and coaxed into child marriages is a very small fundamentalist group that is denounced by the regular Mormon church.
Anyway something that is sacred is family trees. Mormons believe that ancestors cannot go to heaven until their name has been recorded in a family tree. Ancestry.com is run by the Mormon church.
Posted by: Eric Atkinson | November 9, 2008 3:55 PM
"Oh no I get it ! It's the Atheists and the homosexuals, and probably the socialists (I always seem to forget about THOSE ones, you know, the "leftists", the friends of terrorists, Palestinians and Baby Killers) who are gonna unite and put the Mormons in ghettos and tatoo their bodies"
Which is about what half the people here would like to happen.
Me, I would rather all Churches and cults have their tax exempt status revoked.
Not going to happen.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 9, 2008 3:57 PM
Triglav save us, no Hank! So far we've had to wade through onslaughts of stupid from pathological Protestants, berzerk Baptists, crazed Catholics, and now you welcome throngs of maniacal Mormons*? Oh, won't somebody somewhere think of the children!
In the interest of brevity, let me save them the time by presenting the only arguments that are generally ever made by theists coming here to defend their faith:
1. A selective sampling of minutiae from my Sacred Holy Text™ shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's the actual Word of God, unlike all the other Sacred Holy Texts™ ostensibly authored by the same God held by those of different faiths who can make the same case using selective samples of minutiae from their books;
2. Selective samples of minutiae that conflict with my claim in 1. are: metaphors/redactions/later edits/misinterpretations due to lack of faith/Shut up! and your provision of them merely shows how little you understand of the mysterious and completely scientific art of apologetics/snake oil salesmanship;
3. We're holier than everyone else (but please don't investigate the activities of our leaders or laypeople which will show that, by and large, they're no better or worse than anyone else. This is because: God gave us free will/Satan still has the power to dupe us/they aren't True Followers™/Shut up! Arguments against atheism using the strawmen of Hitler and Stalin still hold though.);
4. The vast majority of people believe in some sort of God, therefore atheists are the only stupid ones and incidentally, all those religious people are wrong unless they share my faith, but I'll use them for now as they're needed to make my point;
5. HITLER + STALIN!!!
6. Atheists just want to lock us up because: they can't abide our superior morality/are mad at their dads & God/love abortion/are in league with Satan/are probably witches and pagans/are going to burn in hell!/are being used, like Judas, as God's fall guys to fulfill the prophesy of persecution† (see 7.);
7. God told us we'd be tested like this therefore your persecution of us only proves we're right‡;
8. Atheists are sad and have no morals, and all us religious people agree that if they'd just go away and leave all of us God-fearing fellow-man-loving faithful alone we could go back to the business of killing each other based on the aforementioned minutiae;
9. Did I mention HITLER + STALIN!!!?
10. You're just lucky that we're not Muslim. Ooh, then you wouldn't be saying such nasty things. Then again, I guess that's just the price one pays for being tolerant of heathens and heretics, thanks to this nation's ancient widespread Christian ideals of free speech (note: please do not actually seek out and fail to find examples of ancient widespread Christian support of free speech. That would be rude);
11. This country is founded on Christian principles (see note about rudeness in 8.), so if you're not one, get out! Alternatively, separation of church and state implies freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, so pick a god and start prayin'. (The FSM doesn't count. It has to be a real religion, indicated by some Sacred Holy Text™ minutiae that justifies our disenfranchisement of one or more groups. Women and darkies§ would be a good start);
12. Ladies and Gentlemen, once again I present HITLER + STALIN!!!
I apologise if I missed the argument that definitively proves your religion and thus invalidates all others, but there's only so much time on a Sunday and I've got my family, friends, and other members of my community to interact in positive and meaningful ways with.
*Oddly enough, though PZ hasn't been shy on the subject, we haven't yet been inundated by maddened Muslims seeking to defend their faith. Could it be they're cooking up something even worse than trolling? Just in case: To arms, Christen Brethren!
† This makes God mysterious, not merely a sadistic asshole.
‡ This demonstrates God's only bit of prescience so far: why bother authoritatively authoring a holy book impervious to forgery by charlatans when you can encourage your followers to act like douchebags in every conceivable way 'predicting' that they'll be disliked for it? Gee, thanks Magic 8-Ball!
§ This is for the benefit of any Hindus present, whose religious entrenchment of the caste system has discriminated against the darker descendants of the Indus Valley inhabitants to the benefit of the lighter Aryan descendants.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 3:59 PM
Nothing. But if you look at the FLDS polygamists, they are rife with abuse and incest among other things.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 4:01 PM
That's ridiculous and you know it.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 9, 2008 4:01 PM
fact horses weren't in the Americas until Euros brought them here?
IIRC, there were horses in North America long before that, but they had been extinct for some ten thousand years or so before the Spanish re-introduced them.
-jcr
Posted by: pharynguphile | November 9, 2008 4:04 PM
Wait. Didn't you just say in an earlier post that atheists are more patient and polite?
Or were you being ironic?
Posted by: Dale Husband | November 9, 2008 4:04 PM
What are you, suicidal? Even intelligent people can be idiotic about at least one thing, including religion, if they are brainwashed enough. If you are going to outright lie, try to do it about something not so blatantly obvious!Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 4:05 PM
For what it's worth, my personal experience of succesful religious fundie deconversion (and I'm proud to have deconverted a few of them amongst some close friends and relatives), is that whatever the religion, it makes no sense to start by attacking their myths, sacred scriptures, ridiculous traditions, miracles and other fairy tales.
What's valid for Mormons is valid for Cathos, and Baptists and Muslims etc...
The only way that works, IMHO, if one has the patience and the time, and provided the people one is trying to deconvert have a minimum of trust in you, is the hard way, the scientific way.
It's only once they understand that one can explain the complexity of nature without the need for God, and that we observe is what is to be expected from a universe without a God, and most importantly why God cannot be the answer of the question how could something come from nothing It's only once people have understood why some of their most basic intuitions about nature and what is natural are actually wrong and why they correspond to the same wrong basic intuitions that were vehicled by the primitive thinkers that were the writers of the sacred scriptures, then only it becomes easy to attack the myths and the fairy tales. Sometimes it's not even necessary, the rest just comes crumbling down all by itself.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 4:05 PM
IF THERE ARE HORSES WHY ARE THERE STILL MORMONS
or something like that
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 9, 2008 4:06 PM
Last time I remember it was the large Christian Aryan majority who put the minorities (Jews, Roma, Homosexuals, ...) in those ghettos and who tatooed numbers on their body.
The nazis thought they were Aryans, but they were mistaken. Aryans mostly live in Iran, Pakistan, and India.
-jcr
Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 4:07 PM
Many of the FLDS girls involved in these marriages could barely be considered consenting and definitely aren't adults. One of the examples to come out of the whole mess in Texas was an arranged marriage between a 54 year old man and a 14 year old girl.
Posted by: Measure | November 9, 2008 4:07 PM
You want something Heretical? Name the secret tokens and signs in the temple ceremony. Get some of their "Secret Underwear" and threaten to dispose of it without cutting out the "Holy Marks". There's four of them, three on the garment top, on one the garment bottom. Show all the marks on your website.
You want to read lots of excellent posts against the practices and beliefs of the church? Click on my name, check out my blog.
I was an active mormon until 2007, and have now become thoroughly disillusioned with mormonism and spirituality in general. I proudly wear an atheist "A" on my hat everywhere I go.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 9, 2008 4:10 PM
They could probably argue that you had to have a unbroken maternal line.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 4:14 PM
Could you once have a post where you don't come off like a total moron?
There is a time for patience and politeness and a time for calling a spade a spade.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | November 9, 2008 4:15 PM
Joe the Wanderer #238. All those things you cite are directly attributable to junior's "Faith-Based Initiative".
Not only did that imbecile's handlers and the Religiously Righteous Republicans sneer at the Constitutional Ammendment on the separation of church and state, they shamelessly handed them even broader powers and influence over the government by distributing to petitioners government money acquired from taxpayers.
Where do you suppose the extra cost of "spreading the word" in the ways you describe came from?
Posted by: Walton | November 9, 2008 4:16 PM
Benson wasn't an anti-Communist, he was a far-right, white supremacist extremist. His support of the John Birch Society and his eagerness to run as George Wallace's vice-president are ample evidence of this.
Just as a note for non-Americans and those too young to remember the John Birch Society, in the late 1950s they claimed that Dwight Eisenhower was a "knowing tool of the Communists."
But Benson served as Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture (in fact, he was Eisenhower's longest-serving cabinet member, IIRC).
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 4:22 PM
See, I told you so. Bet you there's at least 100 million fundies in America like Eric Atkinson or AlexT who actually BELIEVE in the kind of fantasy story #243.
Atheists, Homosexuals and Socialists Unite ! We have nothing to lose by trying to put fundies in ghettos !
Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 4:22 PM
About the whole horses thing: Some of the apologists suggest that instead of "Horse" they meant "Tapir", I shit you not. It seems that all of apologetics can boil down to: "If we define every word to mean something else entirely, this can be read literally."
Somehow the stories of armies riding into battle on battle-tapirs or Moroni fleeing the Lamanites on his trusty tapir don't have quite the same ring to them.
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 4:25 PM
Since my skin gets darker in the summer and lighter in the winter, does that mean mormons would say that I'm more sinful in the summer?
I certainly take the lords name in vain more often in the winter.
examples:
"God damn it's fucking cold out here!"
"Jesus Christ! What's with all this God damned ice on my windsheild?"
Posted by: Eric Atkinson | November 9, 2008 4:27 PM
Tunnels:
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1888073
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | November 9, 2008 4:27 PM
You should all read this, if you're currently convinced that black turnout is responsible for the prop 8 win for the bigots.
Quick version: exit polls statistically very screwed up; not enough blacks in Cali anyway; easy racist answer to complex question.
Posted by: sara | November 9, 2008 4:28 PM
I could not understand why the Mormons pumped funding into Prop. 8 rather than Prop. 4 (which has been on the ballot three times now). Maybe postponing a marginal percentage of the "murders" is just not as good as banning all same-sex marriages, but I would argue differently, if I were so certain about when life begins. Some of them picketed on the corner near our university, so I had a chance to ask them. They did not offer any good answers.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 4:32 PM
Just as a note for non-Americans and those too young to remember the John Birch Society, in the late 1950s they claimed that Dwight Eisenhower was a "knowing tool of the Communists." 'Tis Himself
Well of course he was! Why else would he have dissed the military -industrial complex?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 9, 2008 4:39 PM
Walton,
If I were polite, I'd ask "and your point is?" But since I'm feeling snarky towards you, I'll respond: "So fucking what?"
I know you at least glanced at Steve Benson's discussion of his grandfather. Steve described his grandfather as both a radical right-winger and a racist and gave examples to support both contentions. Especially since Steve knew Ezra Taft, I'm willing to believe that Steve knows what he's talking about.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | November 9, 2008 4:42 PM
Patricia #237: "So does anyone actually know what the mormons hold sacred? I feel safe to assume the book of mormon would be one thing. How about cursing their president? Ideas anyone?"
You aren't looking nearly deeply enough. Mormons hold nothing whatsoever sacred but Mormons. This is the essential and fully-sufficient case with adherents of any religion: they are all traditions built first and foremost around personal salvation, personal interests, and personal gratification, and all the selfishness that implies.
For some strange reason we tend to think seminars on self-improvement are a new phenomenon, barely a generation old. Rubbish! It's the oldest and worst joke in the history of civilization.
Posted by: Ken | November 9, 2008 4:46 PM
I have to say, this has been one of the funniest threads I have read in a while.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 9, 2008 4:48 PM
Since my skin gets darker in the summer and lighter in the winter, does that mean mormons would say that I'm more sinful in the summer?
Isn't everybody? I mean, girls in bikinis are a powerful inducement, I must say.
-jcr
Posted by: Eric Atkinson | November 9, 2008 4:49 PM
"See, I told you so. Bet you there's at least 100 million fundies in America like Eric Atkinson or AlexT who actually BELIEVE in the kind of fantasy story #243."
Man. Talk about missing the point.
Or intellectual dishonesty.
BTW Eric is not a fundie.
Posted by: writzer | November 9, 2008 4:57 PM
This is off-topic but interesting, I think.
Billy Graham, that wizened shamen to five presidents at least, has said that he won't be counseling our new president because Obama's views on abortion aren't in line with Xian teachings.
Billy, Billy, Billy. Isn't the whole intent of your "counsel" to steer the wayward onto the path of truth and righteousness? Aren't you shirking your Xian duty by not at least trying to show Obama the error of his beliefs? Does this mean that those many hours you spent on long walks with presidents from Eisenhower on down were wasted time since their views were already in accord with yours?
Preaching to the choir may be good for the ego but it sure in hell doesn't change any minds now does it?
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 4:59 PM
What was your point then ?
He sure does write like one.
Posted by: Marzipan | November 9, 2008 5:02 PM
I am sooo sending some garmies (never worn) and my full temple garb. I hope PZ was serious about the desecration. It needs some wider publicity among the general population. Mormons have been trying to mainstream their public image for years, but the fact is that temple stuff is downright bizarre.
Posted by: Marc Abian | November 9, 2008 5:04 PM
I'll try to mock the mormons more but I'm concentrating a lot on Scientology right now.
I'd send you what they consider sacred, but there's no point desecrating perfectly good money.
Also, extreme mormon trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXOh4g_FLIM&feature=related is worth a watch.
Posted by: Bill | November 9, 2008 5:05 PM
Well, as en ex-Mormon I know that they are especially touchy about the Book of Mormon, which purports to be a history of the pre-Colombian peoples of the Americas, who supposedly arrived by boat from the the Holy Land around 600BC. The dominant tribe was called the Lamanites and leaders of the chirch refer to the Native Americans, indigenous tribes of South and Central American and Polynesians as Lamanites. In other words, all of these people are descended from Hebrew tribes, right? Wrong - of course. Extensive DNA testing of thousands of native Americans (in North, Central and South American, as well as in the Polynesian islands) has established that none of them are of Middle Eastern origin. Instead, they came across the Bering Strait or from what is now known as Taiwan.
Case closed. Plus, there is absolutely no archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon.
Posted by: mandrake | November 9, 2008 5:06 PM
My favorite bit about the Mormon church seems to be rarely brought up, I don't know why. It's Joseph Smith's "I can translate Ancient Egyptian, really" story.
Synopsis: Actually authentic papyri bought by Joseph Smith, who claims he can translate them - before scholars had deciphered hieroglyphics. Translates them as "The Book of Abraham." Scrolls assumed lost in fire. Scrolls show up in 1966, Mormons rejoice to have proof that their prophet Joe had divine powers, until the actual translation showed no correlation between what Joseph Smith "translate" and what they actually said. Pretty good article here.
Though I note that, entertainingly, it seems to be on a Xtian apologetics site showing how Mormonism can be shown to be false, unlike Christianity, which is based on reality. I am not to be held responsible for the breakage of irony meters when reading the first two paragraphs on the page to which this link connects.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 5:09 PM
Man. Talk about missing the point. Or intellectual dishonesty. - Eric Atkinson
Why would we, when we have a world-class practitioner of both - yourself - to do it?
Posted by: Robin | November 9, 2008 5:12 PM
Best Mormon ridicule ever:
Start posting pictures of magical Mormon underwear with skidmarks.
Pretty much says it all.
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 5:13 PM
PZed!
Great idea for the fundie undies.
Ware them not stop for a month without washing them.
Throw in a diet of mexican food with lots of peppers and refried beans. Perhaps some long tequila nights that end in a puddle of your own sick.
The beauty is that you are not only desecrating them in a foul way, but that you're using the food and liquor of brown people.
I think that I'm officially a genius!!
What the hell is so wrong...I mean right with my brain?
Posted by: mandrake | November 9, 2008 5:14 PM
I never can get that right.
http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 5:16 PM
um
whoa
too much
Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 5:23 PM
Forget that ski vacation in Park City; Colorado has great snow, too. Be even ruder to the next pair of white-shirted Mormon missionaries who come to your door.
maybe i'm a minority but i've never met a mormon i didn't like. I have close friends who are mormons and i doubt they had anything to do with this.
its like saying well george bush started the war in iraq and therefore all americans are responsible, even the ones who said they didn't vote for him ( which i think is 80% of the population right now)
so going out and treating people like shit is the solution?
this blog has devolved into a feeding frenzy on those we deem not like us. I guess that's just human nature. looks like intelligence doesn't innoculate you against it.
oh yeah.
release the hounds!
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 5:24 PM
Rev
Like all great artists, I'll only be truly appreciated after I'm dead.
Should be any day now with my current lifestyle.
Get ready to love me.
Posted by: mandrake | November 9, 2008 5:29 PM
Wait... wouldn't they have to? Wouldn't any money spent by the Mormon church come from the required tithing?
Posted by: Bot | November 9, 2008 5:33 PM
The anti-Prop 8, pro gay marriage crowd ran ads charging this whole idea that public schools will teach gay marriage is just a "lie."
However, the same groups who said it's a lie - "public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not" -- were in court in Massachusetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don't have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
", it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents." [p 5]
From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
"(parents have) no right to remove the books now in issue - or to impose an opt-out system." [pp1-2]
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
" parents do not have a constitutional right to override pedagogical judgment of the school ...King and King." [p 9]
Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims?
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | November 9, 2008 5:33 PM
A Mormon loftily self-emplaced
on the highest spot in the realm,
self-congratulatorily graced...
were it not for that second "m"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 5:34 PM
What mandrake said.
But also condemning the mormon church and beliefs is not the same as saying all mormons as individuals are hateful bastards. However if they continue to subscribe to that belief system they are supporting it.
I lived in WY for almost 10 years and knew plenty of mormons. Nice people. But still held insane beliefs.
I know people who are racists. Nice people to me being a white male. Until we've had a few drinks and the "Have you heard this joke before" starts coming out or a black man walks into the bar with a white woman.
I don't hang out with them after that comes out, but I wouldn't have guessed it just from the typical office banter.
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 5:34 PM
gypsytag
I think you make some reasonably valid points.
I have met some wonderful mormons too, but when I try to talk to them about my "beliefs" they don't take it too well.
There is not a chance of me taking a ski vacation anywhere in the near future, but I have no problem being a little smarmy to otherwise polite bigots.
I always fire a warning shot over the bow first, so it's up to them how we proceed. If they don't appear to be stereotypical mormons maybe it just turns into an interesting conversation.
I generally prefer distasteful jokes anyway.
Equal opportunity offender.
Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 5:39 PM
mandrake,
Wait... wouldn't they have to? Wouldn't any money spent by the Mormon church come from the required tithing?
yes and don't the required income taxes you pay kill innocent iraqis?
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 5:40 PM
gypsytag
So far, seems the hounds are a little more reasonable than the credit you gave.
In the minds of many here, a serious injustice was done on tuesday. Let us blow off a little steam.
Hold your judgement a little longer.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 5:41 PM
Terrible analogy. Being a citizen of a country and being a member of a church are not equal.
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 5:43 PM
Arnosium
That was brilliant!
Thank you.
Posted by: Zach | November 9, 2008 5:45 PM
gypsytag we are required to pay taxes.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2008 5:45 PM
Perhaps I should procure some magic underwear some day, and wear it outside my clothing to a protest. Maybe draw a Superman-style logo on the front.
"Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims?"
I don't know. Why do you have a problem with kids being taught about the existence of gay people and how they'd like to get married?
"Today's topic: Joseph Smith invented fanfiction. Discuss."
Actually, Paul invented fan fiction. Nah, you could probably trace it back even further.
Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 5:47 PM
ggab,
i don't have a problem with distasteful jokes. i don't even have a problem with people bashing the mormon beliefs. Yeah they're totally batshit insane.
My issue was with the call to arms to treat every mormon like a piece of garbage. yeah even those young kids that show up at your door. Be just a little more hateful to them. that'll learn 'em.
I know this blog is a magnet for the self-righteous knowitalls, me being one of them, but for some reason, that one crossed the line for me.
and yes, of course, i've fallen off script, i'm not agreeing with the great PZ so release the hounds.
Posted by: Paul | November 9, 2008 5:48 PM
You use such a scientifically eloquent term as the last sentence to cap off your hateful speech, sir. I would suggest you find less ignorant ways to comment on this. I really marvel at the fact that you would create a blog with such jaded and vitriolic content aimed solely at discrediting religion...
Why would you want to make fun of things that LDS church members find sacred? Is that the only way you know how to handle a situation? Try to bully other and insult faith because you obviously don't have the capacity to show faith for anything but what your eyes can see?
Might I remind you that the people of California voted not once, but twice on this issue? The family code was updated in 2000 to make same-sex marriage illegal. Then this year, a handful of judges decided to overturn what the people voted for. Can you think of anything more undemocratic than that?
And now we have people calling us bigots and hateful. Can anyone here understand the definitions of those words? We have never endorsed nor undertaken violence against gays. We are taught to love and care for all of God's children. There is no hate involved in our message. Saying that gays cannot marry does not constitute hate. It is an opinion on the matter to defend rightful marriage.
I see the opposite side spewing hate towards us now, saying all manner of disgusting insults and justifying it by saying that we have demonstrated hate by this just vote.
Although I respect gays as people, their practice is sin, as clearly defined in scripture. As I understand that most people here are atheist, I will still argue that the practice is totally against nature - to an extreme, if everyone were gay, there would be no survival of the species. And yet you want us to accept these marriages as valid?
I would especially now hope that the current and former members of the Church that are speaking against the Church would repent and come to their sense. How could you deny the Spirit you once felt? How could you spit at the face of the Savior and his called Prophet?
I say to all here, that if you do not speedily repent, our Father in Heaven will hold you accountable at the Last Day when you face Him. You will not be able to look upon His face for the shame and guilt you will feel at these horrible words.
To the owner of this blog - the Lord will come before we know it. And even you sir, will have to bow down at his feet and acknowledge Him as your Savior and Lord of all. You will reap the consequences at that day of these attacks against Him if you do not repent.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 5:50 PM
As absurd as Mormonism is, it is a fact that Mormons were in San Francisco long before the gays ruined it. So, all the chants about Mormons going back to Utah need to be countered by chants encouraging bellyaching gays to go back to their places of origin (e.g., a hole under a rock).
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 5:51 PM
So where are all the outraged CookieGate™ Catholic trolls?
I have a hunch they're taking notes from Bill & Pixelfish: "How to enrage a Mormon".
It does no good to put a rusty nail through the Book Of Mormon or the "garments" to offend them like the cracker fetishists. I'm in favor of sending a few Watchtower wielding JW's to Utah, oh hell... send 'em all and let 'em fight it out.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 5:51 PM
You must not have been here long. One of the favorite pastimes of readers of this blog is disagreeing with PZ.
I'm not sure being hateful to them will do anything. But calmly explaining the insanity of their beliefs and the actions of their church, the church they are dedicated to, should be sufficient to get the point across.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 5:51 PM
Paul, call down the wrath of your imaginary god upon us. We will still be here tomorrow, because your alleged god does not exist. Absolutely no evidence for any god. So take your delusions back to your church. Just don't leave them here. And don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 5:52 PM
run paul run.
they're going to give you a 10 second head start.
:-)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 5:53 PM
Gays ruined San Fran.
That's cute. In an ignorantly bigoted way.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 5:54 PM
Seems you've got it the other way round. Those we deem not like us was actually started by Christians towards Atheists, Homosexuals and other "unworthy" minorities. How else can you explain their insistance on the notion of Christian Nation (Atheists shouldn't be allowed to be citizens) and on denying equal rights to homosexuals ?
Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 5:55 PM
Rev,
I'm not sure being hateful to them will do anything. But calmly explaining the insanity of their beliefs and the actions of their church, the church they are dedicated to, should be sufficient to get the point across.
that's not what PZ advocated. He said be a little more ruder to them.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 5:56 PM
Why don't you cite the specific language of the amendment. (Or, have the nearest literate adult cite it at any rate.)
Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2008 5:56 PM
1. Depending on orthodoxy, some say it's "hot drinks" and that would include tea. Other's say it's caffeinated drinks so you can drink herbal tea, decaf coffee, but not caffeinated soda.
2. The conversion rate is fairly high. The replacement rate is fairly high. However, the drop-out rate exceeds both substantially.
3. They also routinely excommunicate members and retaliate against their relatives if they don't shun them.
4. They are routinely hypocritical. The Marriott Hotels is one of the largest distributors of porn in the world. Yet they do nothing to Romney, et. al. Yet they recently ex-communicated a man for publishing a calendar of shirtless missionaries. Another Bishop is being ex-communicated because he supported the "No on 8" campaign yet, despite official denials, there are many, many polygamous families EVEN WITHIN THE MAINSTREAM CHURCH and they are not sanctioned.
5. The Mormon church is more business than church. They just built a $2 billion mall in Salt Lake. Which is more than they have provided in relief and aid for the LAST TWENTY-TWO YEARS. They also own about 30 radio stations, Beneficial Financial and a whole host of other commercial endeavors.
They're also whiny arsed titty-babies and have rightfully earned our contempt and scorn.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 5:57 PM
What a fantastically stupid point.
So only when you are violent it counts as hate or bigotry?
Defend marriage from what?
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 5:58 PM
gypsytag
Your hounds have arrived, but they're mormons.
Okay, it's not bigotry because it's in the scriptures.
What do your scriptures justify about treatments of brown and black people?
What does it say about my Native American ancestors?
PeregANUS
On that subject, I was here first. Go the fuck back where you came from.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 6:00 PM
Who said I was PZ?
Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 6:02 PM
negentropyeater,
the only way i can expalin it, is that they are assholes. I'm not arguing for the mormons, i'm not defending christianity. religion is an abomination.
All i was trying to say is that these kids that come to your door are human beings and advocating treating them like garbage, just struck me as being wrong, and we're doing exactly what has been done to atheists, and minorities, etc.
if you feel the need to treat these individuals in a hostile manner, then go ahead. i don't.
Posted by: Chris Davis | November 9, 2008 6:04 PM
I'd urge anyone in two minds about whether the Mormons should be left alone to examine the origins of this 'church', and its founder, a convicted 'money digger' con-man of the worst kind.
Christianity's origins seem positively sane by comparison with the craziness of LDS. Hell, *Scientology* seems rational next to this abject con-game gone horribly wrong.
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 6:06 PM
It's okay to vent on a thread(within reason; finding that line and not crossing it requires more judgment {Eric A} than some of the posters possess), but treating someone as you would have them treat you face to face is prudent, humane and isn't in the sole domain of the Xians.
That being said, the "turn the other cheek" homily needs to be taken with a grain of salt. If they keep pushing to talk to you after you've said no thank you, then being more assertive without going full-goose-bozo will allow you to keep your self respect. Just like a date, no means no. If they push you -walk away/show them the door. A screaming match just makes you look like that Crazy Christian Lady on "Wife Swap".
And never be afraid to say "I disagree, the concept of god is a human construct and you and I will never agree on this matter. I don't care to debate it any longer, and no I don't want any of your literature. Thanks. Buh-bye"
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 6:06 PM
That is far more common among the JWs than Mormons, but I realize that, as a vapid atheist (redundant, I know), you need not actually know what you are talking about but need only pretend to know.
Posted by: Herk | November 9, 2008 6:07 PM
There is a connection between the whalers in New York and the city of Moroni and the Isle of Grand Comoro - names Mr. Smith used in his fairy-tale book. Haven't read all the comments yet, so I hope I'm the first to post this and win the prize.
Moroni
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2008 6:07 PM
Paul the gay-hater:
"Why would you want to make fun of things that LDS church members find sacred?"
Because they're ridiculous, that's reason enough.
"Is that the only way you know how to handle a situation?"
Not the only way, but it's a nice way to blow off some steam and maybe influence some outsiders.
"Can you think of anything more undemocratic than that?"
Not protecting the rights of minorities comes to mind.
"And now we have people calling us bigots and hateful."
You reap what you sow.
"We are taught to love and care for all of God's children."
Unless they do the wrong thing with their private parts, of course.
"Saying that gays cannot marry does not constitute hate."
Sure it does.
"It is an opinion on the matter to defend rightful marriage."
Meaningless.
"Although I respect gays as people, their practice is sin, as clearly defined in scripture."
Scripture is bollocks. Do you have any reality-based reasons to hate gays?
"I will still argue that the practice is totally against nature"
Lots of animals do it, so you're wrong there. Big surprise.
"to an extreme, if everyone were gay, there would be no survival of the species."
And if everyone ate nothing but chocolate cake, we'd all die. Weaksauce.
"How could you deny the Spirit you once felt? How could you spit at the face of the Savior and his called Prophet?"
I'm sure they have some choice words for you. I'm looking forward to reading them.
"You will reap the consequences at that day of these attacks against Him if you do not repent."
Yeah yeah, the usual "loving god who will nevertheless fuck you up good if you don't toe the line" language. Please, we're grownups here.
Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 6:08 PM
ggab,
Your hounds have arrived, but they're mormons.
i know and they've brought a whole bunch of crazy with them.
Again, i have no problem with the bashing of religion.
My beef is how we treat people as individuals.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 6:10 PM
Anybody who bangs on my door, unnecessarily interrupting me (I'm the judge of necessary versus non-necessary), is likely to be treated "rudely". Kids selling things are turned away more politely than adults doing the same thing. Missionaries get a lecture in the use of the Golden Rule and why they should never be knocking on anybodies door, if I don't just tell them to get lost. I once told a guy to get lost just because he was wearing a Jebus pin on his label and I didn't feel like playing. He was offended that I didn't even find out what he wanted.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 6:10 PM
Dodging the point.
We aren't talking about JWs we're talking about Mormons. And it does happen.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 6:11 PM
gypsytag,
I'm not advocating treating them like garbage, but that doesn't mean we should give any sort of respect to all their nutteries, crazy beliefs, and their completely loony imaginary American precolombian history.
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 6:13 PM
gypsytag
Yeah, I got your point and I agree for the most part.
Like I said, we need to blow off some steam.
The bigots that popped up after your post are going to allow us the opportunity to get a lot of it out of our system.
Perfect timing.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful post, now duck, the shit just hit the fan.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 9, 2008 6:14 PM
Paul #304
Just because you push a bigoted, hateful agenda is no reason for you to be called bigoted or hateful? Epic fail You just deny them basic civil rights. In the 1950s most blacks never had violence done to them by whites. Are you pretended then that racism isn't hateful and bigoted? Unless they're homosexual, then you spit in their faces and deny them rights granted to every other California resident. Oh bullshit. If you didn't hate them, you wouldn't work so hard and give so much money to deny them civil rights. How does same-sex marriage damage "rightful" marriage? Because your sky fairy living in the outer reaches of the galaxy is supposed to have said something over 2000 years ago? Or because your homegrown lecher got it on with every woman available but with no men? Or what? You Mormons are not the folks to whine about "rightful marriage." We saw how some of you folks in Texas operate. "If they're young enough to bleed they're young enough to breed."If there was the slightest chance that I might consider Mormonism as a belief, you folks ruined it. There is no way I'd want to be connected with a bunch of hateful bigots like the LDS Church.
Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 6:15 PM
Seeing as how the same books of scripture are morally whacked-out on other issues such as slavery, stoning of disrespectful children, and genocide, why should we trust the verse or two that mentions homosexuality? There are countless species aside from humans that engage in homosexual behavior. "Against nature" is an absolute joke and has no correlation with the actual world out there.As for your extreme example, what if everyone were Mormon? The increased population would be far more than we can feed, for starters. What if all religious people started behaving as though their religion was between them and god instead of trying to force it upon unwilling participants? What if a random stranger gave me a suitcase with a million dollars in it? This "What If" game is fun and all, but eventually we have to come back and live in the real world. Gay people, when finally accepted as equals among us, will never be a majority, the biological imperative involved is too strong.
What it boils down to, in the end, is that you don't like what consenting adults, whom you don't even know, do in their bedrooms. Worse than the dislike, you'd like to curtail their rights because of this choice. The question is simple: What's it to you?
Posted by: TlalocW | November 9, 2008 6:16 PM
Get a pair of magic underwear. I had a friend go to Utah who was able convince some store workers that she was Mormon and buy some (apparently you need to show some sort of ID card or church card to get them), and she sent them to me as an Xmas gift.
I always meant to spend a complete Saturday wearing them around the house waiting for Mormons to knock on the door so I could greet them while wearing them - with a beer in one hand and pornography in the other, but alas, my past attempts at scaring them off had worked too well.
Oh, here's a better idea - get the women's magic underwear and wear them as a cross-dressing Mormon.
Posted by: Tatarize | November 9, 2008 6:18 PM
The No on Prop 8 campaign lost because it was terrible. Absolutely terrible. It was one of the worst fought campaigns ever. It was reactionary, slow starting, complacent, and had everything going for it. The state went overwhelmingly for Barack Obama and the No On 8 campaign didn't bother to point out that Barack Obama opposed Prop 8 until the Yes On 8 people sent around posters saying that "Barack Obama Doesn't Support Gay Marriage; Vote Yes on 8" to half-assed point out this fact? They should have made it well known at least in the black community where the Yes side won by 70%+. Rather than focusing on the heavy Yes supporting districts where anybody you got to was a gain they went around San Fran making sure the base knew that "No" was how they were suppose to vote. In fact, explaining to the people that "Yes" was a vote in favor of stripping rights might have helped too.
Worst of all, WHERE THE HELL WAS MY GODDAMNED YARD SIGN! My entire neighborhood was blanketed with Yes signs and nobody, I mean NOBODY, had a No sign. If I had one offered, I would have taken it, marched into my front yard and planted that bastard in there. Nope. Nobody had them and they weren't available because the No on 8 people sucked ass.
Protest all you want... where the hell was that passion when it would have been useful? Seriously, I was underwhelmed by their campaign. Now the icing on my cake of overwhelming landslide is that I now think that my very progressive state is filled with bigots.
Rather than be pissed at Mormons they should be pissed at that shoddy ass No On 8 campaign. It was pathetic.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/106178/why_the_prop_8_gay_marriage_ban_won/
Posted by: pixelfish | November 9, 2008 6:19 PM
I think gypsytag has a bit of a point, at least as far as the rank-and-file are concerned. As I mentioned in one of my posts above, I think the best revenge and practical strategy would be to swamp Salt Lake City or Utah Valley with every type of gay and lesbian person possible, so that one could start innoculating the Mormons against their own bigotry. Seriously, when I started reading about gay people who weren't just stupid stereotypes, and then later when I met some folks who were out, and later still when I befriended them....every step was one step closer to me becoming rational about homosexuality and not treating it like its a sin. I really did used to think it was a bad thing, but I changed. Every Mormon you know is capable of change, but honestly, it does take a while. So I do try to maintain friendly terms with my old friends and my family who are still on the inside. They're still staring at the shadows at the back of Plato's Cave....but I keep hoping they'll join me in the outside world.
Of course, I do feel differently about the people higher up. I think they've had a chance ask themselves what they are actively teaching other people and I'm pissed as hell that my family is hostage to their emotional blackmail. Moses at 314 brings up that the culture encourages shunning those who have left if they start getting too obstreperous. So far my family hasn't gone that far, and most of my sibs are actually pretty chill about my non-belief, but it's painful to see my mom in denial because she REALLY believes that I've forsaken the only chance to go to heaven.
RE: Mormon symbols and Mormon beliefs...those are fair game to mock or dissect in my opinion. Mock on. (Although, you will probably find you get better results luring away Mormon friends if you tone down the mockery while posing serious questions.)
I'm lucky in that I at least have two of my best friends and one of my cousins joining me in my apostasy, and that I left before I went to the temple or got married. It was relatively easy for me to leave the church, but a lot of people don't feel they can afford to question their beliefs, when it may potentially leave them bereft of every family member and friend. I'm always proud when one of my still-Mo friends speaks up against Prop 8, because I know how much it costs them socially.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 6:19 PM
Yes. That's what we want. Why is it any skin off your nose? Why in the world would your church think it was worth millions of dollars worth of PR? You people are screwed up. It...does...not...affect...you...or...your...marriage. OK?Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 6:20 PM
Ok so maybe it does. Why do you feel the need to keep them from doing it? What effect does it have on you?
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 6:21 PM
TlalocW
Cross dressing mormon??
I gave myself too much credit earlier (common flaw).
That was true genius.
Well done TlalocW
Posted by: John Morales | November 9, 2008 6:21 PM
pixelfish, I really appreciate your posts in this thread. Thank you.
Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 6:21 PM
negentropyeater,
I agree that their religion shouldn't be respected. it should be ridiculed.
I simply took slight offense to PZ saying that we should be a little ruder to those that knock on our door.
I just don't think its necessary to treat people badly regardless of what their beliefs are.
I have an "A" on the side of my front door and my dog chased a mormon up a tree. We call it the mormon tree now.
but it was a mistake. And i felt really bad that the dog was let out at the exact moment they were walking up the driveway.
But i didn't laugh at the young boy, i apologized. I didn't ask him why he ran if he was wearing magic underwear that should protect him. I didn't do all those rude things that a person could do. No I apologized to him, told him i was an atheist and gave him pointers on how to deal with dogs that charge him.
there is no reason for rudeness, it degenerates into hate too quickly.
Posted by: Sean | November 9, 2008 6:23 PM
For all you lurking Mormons, I've been reading up today on your religion, and I have to say: you all are crazy. I mean cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs CRAZY. I was raised Catholic and I thought the Catholics had some nutty beliefs, but you all are in a different universe of crazy all together. I can't imagine what contortions your mind must have to make to actually, honestly believe this stuff. I guess people really will believe anything with enough brain washing and social pressure.
I'm especially fond of the Mormons claiming they are being discriminated against. There isn't enough irony in the universe to fully appreciate that argument. Seriously, you all are nuts.
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 6:25 PM
So is wearing your hair long, but it still didn't stop Jesus. I bet Jesus was down with the mangina too, how many jews back then with that much charisma stayed unmarried into their 30s?
Except that homosexuality occurs all throughout nature. Lots of creatures engage in same-sex relations, from other mammals to birds. But not everyone is gay. Only a small percentage of people are. Homosexuality is no more a detriment to the survival of the species than personal sacrifice is - again something you see throughout nature. Same sex relations happen, they happen without detriment to that species and there are even survival advantages to the practice.Posted by: natural cynic | November 9, 2008 6:25 PM
I may be reading a little too much into this, but I think that the REAL reason that the Mormons supported Prop H8 was because it 'widened' the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. It doesn't take a lot of thought to see that if that step onto the slippery slope can happen, the definition of marriage could also soon allow --- polygyny, just as it was in the original Joseph Smith/Brigham Young Make-Believe Universe. That would call into question the prophesy of 1890 that made it apostasy. You must realize that after God has changed His Message to correct things, it just, just, just has to be correct.
IMHO the proper way to celebrate same-sex love is to [tastefully] demonstrate it in front of your friendly local LDS congregation on Sunday morning. Couples holding hands, smooching, minor necking [but nothing beyond second base!] while on public property in full view of the congregation as it comes to and leaves services could be the right kind ofr demonstration. Every Sunday.
As has been mentioned [Pam @ Pandagon and others], the major reason that non-whites voted for the proposition was that there was very little outreach into the black churches. A few same sex black couples or interracial couples singing "We Shall Overcome" in the same circumstances in front of black churches might have a consciousness raising effect.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 9, 2008 6:25 PM
I missed this bit of nonsense:
If (and that's a massive IF) there is "our father in heaven" and we're face to face, he'll have some big-time explaining to do. And I'm not going to take "I'm the Big Guy In The Sky" as an explanation for any of the sadistic shit he's pulled. What's he going to do, send me to hell?
Posted by: pixelfish | November 9, 2008 6:28 PM
As I understand that most people here are atheist, I will still argue that the practice is totally against nature - to an extreme, if everyone were gay, there would be no survival of the species. And yet you want us to accept these marriages as valid?
Last I checked there was no specific onus on any one relationship to perpetuate the human race. Plenty of straight couples don't care about perpetuating their genes. (And if gay people want to, there's the miracles of IVF and surrogacy.)
Also: Perigrinas - San Francisco isn't ruined by the gays. It's enriched by their presence. I loves me my San Francisco, and it's my favourite city in the world, and I'm pretty certain some of it would not be possible were it not for a healthy thriving GLBT culture. I know you're in troll territory, but I can't stand by while my favouritest city is slandered because it has the generosity of spirit to accept people of all types as equal.
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 6:30 PM
I'VE GOT IT!!
When the mormons come to my door...I'm going to flirt with them!!
Oooeew, what if they respond? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I think a really good BJ with a prostate massage would change their mind about the "unnatural" point though.
Brother, it's heaven.
snicker
Posted by: Eric Atkinson | November 9, 2008 6:33 PM
Post #338
Most rational one yet on this thread.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 6:33 PM
BTW, guess what were the TWO states where Obama got his lowest score ?
Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 6:34 PM
UT and OK?
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 9, 2008 6:35 PM
Lol. Priests think they have a good thing going. We atheists have Mormon boys and they're so much better. There's even a delivery service.
...There really is something magical about those underpants.
ok. im done. im sorry.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 6:36 PM
I believe it was OK and WY.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 6:37 PM
yikes
Posted by: pixelfish | November 9, 2008 6:37 PM
Negentropyeater: Wyoming was pretty low, as was Oklahoma, and Utah. (I think Utah had a 35% on CNN's chart, last I looked, but it wasn't the lowest at the time.)
John Morales: Danke schoen.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 6:37 PM
WYOMING 33%
UTAH 34%
Mormons sure don't like Obama.
Bet you, they must have been praying real hard.
Does that mean that the Mormon God was on vacation that day ?
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 6:38 PM
Pay attention everyone.
Eric is explaning what "rational" is.
Edge of seat gripped!
This could be good.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 9, 2008 6:42 PM
I think you should spend an entire week criticizing the beliefs of Mormonism. Show how the Book of Mormon was written in the 19 th century, how all archaeological and genetic show no close relation whatsoever between Native Americans and the Hebrews, and how the Church's historical treatment of black people (ironically, one group that really supported prop 8). Then use the magic underwear as floor mop.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 9, 2008 6:42 PM
Yeah. #338. I agree. There's no reason to be a deliberate asshole. I had Mormons come to my door once (because I ordered the free book). I was polite. I by no means took their mythology as anything other than a sociological novelty, interesting but not to be taken seriously.
But we don't want to make them the victims of this. I think that's what all this (perhaps mean spirited) protesting may risk. They're the hate filled ones. That's the problem, but it's easy to get sucked into.
Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2008 6:43 PM
Bullshit. The Mormon apologists are among the most laughed at in all of archeology. Constantly straining at every little gnat of a thing that, with a wackaloon interpretation, can be stretched to support their delusion while ignoring the, literally, tons of evidence that it's all made up.
Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 6:43 PM
oh dear. I just got approval from Eric.
I must be wrong in someway. i'll have to rethink my position.
I am shamed in front of the whole atheist community.
Oh god i mean FSM what have i done!!!
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 6:45 PM
Timothy!! You filthy little minx!
Love it!
Timothy's got Wood.
snicker yet again.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 6:50 PM
OK also 34%.
Posted by: Murray | November 9, 2008 6:50 PM
How about we all enjoy some hearty mormon mockery courtesy of South Park?
http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/712/
Joseph Smith was called a prophet,
dum-dum-dum-dum-dum
Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 6:51 PM
Timothy,
Thanks.
I have to disagree on the protesting though.
i think protesting is good because it is bringing attention to an institution. i have no problem with that. I think their should be more protests to show just how outraged people are. Its the true abomination.
i mean didn't the good book say you reap what you sow.
well, i think the mormon church is going to get both barrels of the sow, and rightfully so.
I really just make it a point to distinguish individuals from institutions. I think sometimes people blur that line.
Posted by: Rick R | November 9, 2008 6:51 PM
gypstag @ #324- "i know and they've brought a whole bunch of crazy with them.
Again, i have no problem with the bashing of religion.
My beef is how we treat people as individuals."
And here we have the mirror image of the "I don't hate gays as individuals. I just don't think gays as a group deserve marriage equality" bogus argument.
Well, speaking as someone whose rights were stripped on Nov. 4th, I can proudly say that I have a supply of diarrhea ballons all ready for the next set of Mormon missionaries who choose my house for a visit. They've earned 'em.
C'mon, Mormons. Bring it. Not all of those nasty sinful gays live in West Coast cities like San Francisco. Most of us live in the quiet neighborhoods you like to canvas, the ones right around the corner from your churches.
Ringing bells today? Knocking on doors? Feeling lucky?
Posted by: Robert | November 9, 2008 6:51 PM
Re #91:
"Incidentally, I am absolutely opposed to the idea of using the IRS as a behavior modification tool."
You already are using the IRS as a "behavior modification tool" - that's what the tax exempt status is for (it's meant to keep churches quiet and out of politics). Removing the tax exemption would remove the (failed) attempt at modifying behaviour.
Posted by: Aquaria | November 9, 2008 6:53 PM
I'VE GOT IT!!
When the mormons come to my door...I'm going to flirt with them!!
A friend of mine did that. Within a few weeks, the missionary ended up sending back the bike, and living with her!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 6:55 PM
Hmmm....... I wonder who has been rude here for weeks?Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 6:55 PM
I think jcr is opposed to using the IRS for anything.
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 6:57 PM
Rick
What do you think would cause more trauma?
Diarrhea baloons or a sacktickle?
I love your idea, but I'm looking for the best bang for my buck.
Must be the Cherokee/Jew in me.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 6:58 PM
What? A L-word being against the IRS? Shocking!Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 7:00 PM
Not another thread being brought to the L-word!
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 7:00 PM
Aquaria
I think flirtations from me would have a different effect than you're friend.
I'm not a "her".
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 7:02 PM
I'm sorry I made that comment for fear of what comes next.
Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 7:03 PM
RickR,
I see your point. And i suspect that I would feel the same way if i was in your shoes.
But when a 16 year old kid who hasn't even voted yet shows up at your door, you're not going to make yourself feel better by throwing a bag of shit at him.
Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2008 7:05 PM
A polite bigoted piece-of-shit is still a bigoted piece-of-shit. And say what you will, I know your religion is nothing but a 19th Century Scientology and you're a fucking bigoted piece of shit.
Posted by: Rick R | November 9, 2008 7:05 PM
ggab- "Rick
What do you think would cause more trauma?
Diarrhea baloons or a sacktickle?
I love your idea, but I'm looking for the best bang for my buck.
Must be the Cherokee/Jew in me."
How about this? A gay porno with a bevy of muscular hunks with whiter-than-white teeth, having a tumble wearing the magic undies?!?! Nothing like seein' gay boys being boys, pitching tents in god's own underwear. "Swordfight of the gods", anyone?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 9, 2008 7:05 PM
I believe the minimum age for Mormon missionaries is 18.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 7:07 PM
Rev., I'll take the responsibility. Have another beer. Sounds like I need another one (or) too.
Posted by: Rick R | November 9, 2008 7:08 PM
"But when a 16 year old kid who hasn't even voted yet shows up at your door, you're not going to make yourself feel better by throwing a bag of shit at him."
So you say.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 7:08 PM
Even as a heterosexual man, a diarrhea balloon would be MUCH worse for me than any flirting from a man.
By leaps and bounds.
but I'm not a mormon.
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 7:09 PM
RickR
You are truly twisted.
Set the controls for the heart of the sun!
Release the Kraken!
Call Larry Flint!
The kid stays in the picture!
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 7:10 PM
Dear intellectually-deficient bean-counter,
They have shots for rabies these days. Also, I'd take goofy-ass Mormonism over vapid atheism any day.
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 7:11 PM
If they are preaching the word without any sense of social sensibility, surely it's our duty to do something to make them socially aware.Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 7:12 PM
It's 19, actually.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | November 9, 2008 7:13 PM
I volunteer to wear the magical underwear for a week.
I can outskidmark just about everyone and am temporarily without female sensibilities to talk me out of them...
Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 7:13 PM
Tis,
they all look like young kids to me.
but of course, being 18 that makes them all guilty i guess..
just like all muslims are guilty cause muslims do the suicide bombings.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 7:14 PM
We already knew you were an idiot, no need to scream it from the mountain top.
Posted by: Jeeves | November 9, 2008 7:16 PM
It's inevitable. At some point or other, the ole' diarrhea ballons show up as a way to express your anger. I've created a short monologue to see what a Mormon would think if they were covered in diarrhea.
Mormon: Well, that went well. I rang the doorbell and someone has thrown a diarrhea ballon at me. I'm now covered in some else's shit. I was just going to hand him a pamphlet but I suppose I deserve to be pelted with shit. I was expecting no one to answer the door or, if they did, some curt response. But, no, shit ballons are entirely right and proper. I've always heard the right way to begin and end a debate is to put some diarrhea in there. I had always heard that atheists and agnostics got their morality and values from something other than an old book. Apparently, that something other involves flying shit ballons and not reasoned debate. To each his own, I guess.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2008 7:17 PM
"Also, I'd take goofy-ass Mormonism over vapid atheism any day."
I guess we're defining "vapid" as "devoid of lies".
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 7:19 PM
No, devoid of intelligence.
Posted by: SC | November 9, 2008 7:22 PM
"To each his own, I guess."
Just thought I'd repeat that. No particular reason.
Posted by: Andrew | November 9, 2008 7:23 PM
PZ!!! This is your most 'militant' post yet!(At least, out of the ones I've read!)
I love it.
Posted by: Rick R | November 9, 2008 7:23 PM
Jeeves, your post presumes that the goal is to change Mormon hearts and minds. Personally, I don't give a shit about any of them, what they think, or what they believe.
These idiots are a threat to civil liberties. I no more care about changing their minds than I care about sitting down with a KKK member to discuss the idea of racial equality. I DON'T CARE.
What I DO care about is sending these idiots back to their churches with the clear idea that their moronic beliefs are not welcome in mainstream America. They are fringe maniacs. That's it.
And being covered with shit is poetic justice. Have you actually seen any of the "Yes on 8" ads?
Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 7:23 PM
Scott,
I can outskidmark just about everyone and am temporarily without female sensibilities to talk me out of them...
This could be the reason for the lack of female companionship.
The toilet paper is there for a reason.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 7:24 PM
That sounds like every religion.Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 9, 2008 7:25 PM
In a way its like... divide and conquer. Mormonism is the red headed stepchild of Christianity. We've separated them from he herd and now we pounce. The other denominations that supported prop 8 just sortof whistle and walk away.
Conspicuous absence of wild bill coming to the rescue? Not gonna stand up for the ginger? eh?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 7:25 PM
Let me get this straight. You'd choose mormonism, a religion based on some of the most indefensible proclamations, started by a liar and con artist, that just recently spent millions of dollars to deny a group of people rights over the entirely rational position of not seeing any proof of god so not believing in one.
Thanks. We know who is at least lacking in any great amount of intelligence
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 7:27 PM
If Pharyngulites are going to share a brain, then at least get one that works.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 9, 2008 7:27 PM
@395
isnt this about the geys?
when did they spend all this money hating on us?
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 7:28 PM
PeregANUS
Care to share with me Mormon ideas on injuns like myself?
You know prairieniggers.
What do you say?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 7:28 PM
Do you have a point beyond showing your ass?
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 7:28 PM
Well atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god, it doesn't subscribe belief in anything. Moreso it's the individual who can assess the merit of arguments on their own worth as opposed to applying it to a strict doctrinal core...i.e. atheism requires no intelligence, but it's a position the intelligent can use. And come on, mormonism? I can pay someone 5 bucks to "read" out of a hat and come up with a more imaginative story.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 7:29 PM
We have one, that is why we reject your alleged god.Posted by: Mark | November 9, 2008 7:31 PM
California - One giant facepalm
Posted by: John Morales | November 9, 2008 7:35 PM
Peregrinus
In short, Peregrinus expresses preference for acknowledged "goofy-ass" absurdity over perceived vapidity. Which, of course, is itself vapidity.Heehee. Such unintentional irony.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 7:35 PM
There are two kinds of atheism, as I see it. There is the kind exemplified by Judge Posner, who is an atheist because he simply lacks belief in God, and then there is the atheism as exemplified by the theomachoi that tend to infest this place. I have no quarrel with the former kind of atheists but I'd shed nary a tear if the latter were "reverse raptured" to Hell tomorrow.
And yes, Joe Smith is one of the most transparent frauds in the history of religious chicanery, but his modern followers tend to be good folk. (Just as long as I don't have to attend their church.)
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 9, 2008 7:37 PM
theomachoi? translate please? for us theomachoi who don't know what we are.
Posted by: Nibien | November 9, 2008 7:38 PM
Well, that is one thing stupid people are good for.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 7:38 PM
According to Holy Joe, "God" altered the melanin count of your ancestors because they were wicked. Oh, and you are descended from seafaring, proto-Christian Hebrews.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 7:39 PM
Were we just called militant atheists? How can I be militant? I don't own a beret, shades, or an AK-47.
Posted by: Jeeves | November 9, 2008 7:39 PM
@ Rick R,
I believe in the secular redemption of minds. I also believe that I have no idea of your anger in the wake of the vote. However, I would propose that shit throwing (which I assume you meant partly in jest, figurative shit, if you will) would only strengthen their wrong headed resolve. The KKK were knocked out of power by widespread education that they were simple minded fools and not to be trusted or listened to. A similar prescription is in order for the Mormons.
@SC,
Yes, I see the irony in my last sentence. But it was in regards to how the hypothetical atheists' debating skills. I realize that a campaign of hate does not go hand in hand with that last benign statement.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 7:41 PM
We wouldn't have to behave like theomachoi if not provoked by the religious trying to force themselves upon us like we were their high school prom dates.
The war isn't against god as there is none. It's against the people telling us we are wrong for recognizing the lack of evidence and therefore not bowing down to their ridiculous mysticism and laws.
Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2008 7:43 PM
Ex-Mormon, douche-bag. I know first hand from watching it happen you vile, lying-piece-of-fucking-apologistic shit. Which is why I made this post:
Here: http://docsdomain.net/blog/?p=1051#comments
And both, through my name, reference back to my blog.
Asshole. I know your shit inside and out. And I've seen people ex-communicated. And seen their loved ones ex-communicated because they DIDN'T ABANDON their loved one.
You make me sick. You are the vilest Mormon apologist I've seen in years.
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 7:43 PM
In essence, PeregANUS would rather be a person who is disgusted by people who did not choose to be black/brown/gay, than be a person who is disgusted by someone who DID choose to be mormon bigot.
Makes sense.
PeregANUS isn't mormon, he/she is just an asshole.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 7:44 PM
I have been associated with academia as an undergrad, grad, and now a university employee, and I've befriended some atheists during that time; they are not like the ****heads here.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 7:45 PM
Those who wage war against god.
Which is hilarious being that there isn't one.
Posted by: SC | November 9, 2008 7:46 PM
Peregrinus = Eques Dei = the banned Ost.?
(trying it without writing out the full name, since it was held for moderation when I did)
Posted by: Mark | November 9, 2008 7:46 PM
I`M A FALSE PROPHET AND GOD IS A SUPERSTITION...
I`M A FALSE PROPHET AND GOD IS A SUPERSTITION...
I`M A FALSE PROPHET AND GOD IS A SUPERSTITION!!!
I`M A FALSE PROPHET AND GOD IS A SUPERSTITION!!!
I`M A FALSE PROPHET AND GOD IS A SUPERSTITION!!!
Posted by: Cannabinaceae | November 9, 2008 7:47 PM
Here are my two kinds of atheism:
1. Give me a fucking break, you believe this shit? Jesus-fuckme-Christ (ShitFuckDamn!). What, you're fucking with me, right? You are hoping to grow up someday?
2. Oh, athiest #1 is just being an asshole, he's actually a nice guy. I don't believe that stuff either, but how are you doing. No, really sincerely!?
On another topic: the B.O.M is such a freakingly stupid piece of obvious malarkeyshit. How can anybody say that it's worthwhile in any way?
Must say, though, lots of nice folks sort of adhere to malarkeyshittitude-n-stuff, and are great to hang out with, barbecue, drink some beers. Some of 'em don't really care about, or sort of admire, atheism.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 7:47 PM
Hmm... Like I said, P appears to like his atheist afraid to speak their minds and challenge his silly beliefs. Goody, we need another troll to chomp.
Posted by: Maureen Lycaon | November 9, 2008 7:48 PM
Off-topic, here, but this appeared just today on the BBC site:
Octopuses share 'living ancestor'
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 7:49 PM
I am not a Mormon, dumb ass. I know several, however, and I've yet to see a Mormon excommunicated by the Mormon Church for continuing to associated with "apostate" family and friends.
I suggest you read up on the limitations of anecdotal evidence. (Or, more appropriately, have it read to you.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 7:50 PM
Yes and no one here (I don't think) is debating that fact. The Mormon church is the villain here. But there church is made up of it's members. At some point the members have to take some responsibility.
Posted by: Nibien | November 9, 2008 7:50 PM
That's about as believable as me being a billionaire with a harem of supermodels.
Unless, it was a Christian college, of course. I could reasonably see someone as intellectually bankrupt as you going to one of those.
But, honestly, you show no real intelligence in any of your posts, nothing has been remotely insightful. Poor attacks calling atheism intellectually "vapid" despite all statistics showing atheism increases with education are hardly what I would call scathing, lest you wish to make a mockery of yourself.
So, realistically, you're just another sad soul who wishes to aspire to another Ray Comfort. It's a shame that a human mind has gone to waste, but that is one of the many woes of religion.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 7:52 PM
Your opinion is duly noted and discarded, Bubba.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 7:53 PM
there should be the
KoT
Posted by: Nibien | November 9, 2008 7:54 PM
No, but if you shove your head far up enough your ass and chant "Jesus" enough you can convince yourself otherwise.
Then again, given that last time God supposedly came to Earth he got his ass crucified, I'd probably be reluctant to show my face again.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 7:55 PM
Last time I checked, UC San Diego Mathematics Department was a secular department at a secular institution. You are welcome, however, to whatever delusions help you sleep at night.
Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 7:55 PM
Maureen
That is too awesome for the word awesome to adequately describe.
That has to get it's own post.
PZed!!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 7:56 PM
Well being that we as atheists don't accept that there is a god, it's pretty funny to say we are waging war against one, Cletus.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 7:56 PM
If P can ignore our opinions, I'll follow the golden rule and do the same to his. So far, there has been no cogent argument from him anyway, so no big loss.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 7:57 PM
Astute thee, but you left off my original incarnation.
Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 7:59 PM
Could it be ... Satan?
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 8:00 PM
Yes, and YEC says there is no such thing as the Big Bang or a billions year old earth; they're wrong, too.
I guess you're the Ken Ham of atheism.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 9, 2008 8:05 PM
No, the Book of Morons clearly states that Octopuses are the 13 th species of camel.
Posted by: Dee | November 9, 2008 8:07 PM
Great responses pixelfish. I was also raised LDS, got a shock when I found out I couldn't hold the priesthood, and figured out there was nothing in the religion (or any religion) for me. I think I was a little younger than you when I came to that conclusion.
And it's great to read about the rest of you. I'm also a Utahn; born here, raised a bunch of other places, came back as a teenager, and been here ever since (over 30 years).
Posted by: cannabinaceae | November 9, 2008 8:11 PM
To be sure. To continue to be a member of an organization which continues to commit atrocities is to endorse those atrocities, at some point.
Still, I myself selfishly adhere to my IPA, triple-latte, dilettante, non-vegan, carbon burning* lifestyle, essentially non-questioningly. Not that that's exactly the same as being religious. In fact, it's kind of the opposite, sort of like being religious socially rather than as a commitment. In a way, I am no better than the lazy religionist.
...oh, except for my rejection of gods-hypotheses; I am, in fact, rather** empirical and (philosophically) materialist. Which is, I guess, to say I'm more likely to be found "fitter," given an empirical fitness function.
*(9/7)*(2 x 4.7) miles per day, at 23mpg - 34mpg freeway, '95 Saturn. 21mpg in winter.
**that is, to an extreme.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 8:11 PM
Yes, that's exactly the same Cletus. Good job. Did you get that logic from the daycare? Care to show me some evidence supporting god? I can show you some supporting millions of years and the Big Bang.
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 8:13 PM
I guess it's like the war on Christmas. It doesn't matter whether you believe in God, it's equating secularisation to absolute destruction. Funny that theists try to paint atheists in an extreme manner in order to discredit their ideas. Peregrinus is just another in a long line of theists who go on the 'irrational atheist' angle because really the best they can do to demonstrate God is to discredit those who oppose the ideas.Posted by: Aquaria | November 9, 2008 8:14 PM
Peregrinus is apparently afflicted with some warped form of SIWOTI and general contrarianism. Not worth the pixels to acknowledge.
ggab: I think it would be very, uh, enlightening if men flirted with the Mormon missionary. You never know: There might be some more bikes traded in!
Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 8:15 PM
Peregrinus said:
The difference being that the Big Bang model and (this feels silly to have to write, even) the old Earth model are both supported by loads of actual evidence, and have stood up well to rigorous testing. The proponents of the God hypothesis haven't been able to provide any compelling evidence.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 8:17 PM
Re the octopus article linked in #419: Wait, they're claiming that they used DNA sequences to trace the ancestry of a bunch of species of deep-water octopus to a single common ancestor, which is a still-extant species? I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. I'd be interested in David Marjanović's opinion of that shit.
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 8:18 PM
Why can't it?Posted by: John Morales | November 9, 2008 8:19 PM
@435,
Yes, but only if membership is optional. And "atrocities" in this case is hyperbole, to use such terms lightly is to cheapen them.Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 8:20 PM
I accept Kurt Gödel's Ontological Argument.
Posted by: nanu nanu | November 9, 2008 8:22 PM
SC: By Ost. do you mean Osterius*?
*if I misspell the name maybe it won't get held up like yours
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 8:22 PM
YAWN!
Posted by: Cannabinaceae | November 9, 2008 8:23 PM
Sorry. That's (9/7)*(2 x 4.7) miles per week. ShitFuckDamn.
That's a little more than 12 miles per day on average. Add another couple for the occasional weekend trip-n-stuff.
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 8:23 PM
So your argument is a philosophical one rather than one of empiricism?Posted by: Conor H. | November 9, 2008 8:25 PM
I just don't get it. What's so "divine" about marriage? None of my married friends even recommend it. What's with all the fightin' and a feudin'?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 8:26 PM
I guess it's not impossible, but it would require the "common ancestor" to be genetically stable enough to be called the same species for 20 million years. While possible, it seems unlikely and, more importantly, unknowable.The caption to the first photo states the correct finding:
That's not the same thing as being the common ancestor.
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 8:27 PM
Got to love that theists will make claims about the nature of the universe, empirical claims, yet will drop back to philosophy when it comes time to prove their claims. Where in that proof can God be distinguishable from Flying Spaghetti Monster? What about that proof implies that Jesus is God in manform and died on the cross for our sins only to resurrect 3 days later?
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 8:28 PM
Yes. Teleological arguments probably have merit but arguments based on mathematical logic are most important to me.
Posted by: Cannabinaceae | November 9, 2008 8:28 PM
Nerd of Redhead: If PZ makes a post that causes the rest of us to engage in 446 messages worth of total inanity (how many morons does it take to dance on the pin of a head?), does that mean he is trolling?
In other words, I endorse your yawn.
Posted by: SC | November 9, 2008 8:30 PM
SC: By Ost. do you mean Osterius*?
Yup - and he's admitted it (@ #430). As to the other incarnation, I have my suspicions, but refuse to speak its name. He's admitted to morphing and to having previously been dungeoned. Seems to crawl out of the woodwork on weekends when PZ's away/busy.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 9, 2008 8:33 PM
Like 1+1+1 = 1?
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 8:34 PM
So you base the question on whether Jesus resurrected on mathematical logic? What mathematical logic shows that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he is one with God and the holy spirit? What mathematical logic distinguishes the theist God from a deist God, or a pantheist God? What mathematical logic makes God anything more than anthropomorphising the unknown?You need to go to empirical evidence because empirical evidence is vital to the nature of our understanding of reality. It's the only way to tell a god from an invisible pink unicorn.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 8:35 PM
No, I flatly reject the doctrine of the trinity, as should all Christians.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 8:38 PM
None of which I am aware.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 9, 2008 8:38 PM
Are ye sure ye dinnae mean True Christians™?
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 8:38 PM
So what role do you give to Jesus then if you don't put him as God incarnate?Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 8:39 PM
I consider this security through obscurity. He likes it because it's obtuse, and most people aren't going to be arsed to work through it just to correct him.
Posted by: Don't Panic | November 9, 2008 8:39 PM
George Atkinson @ #166,
You said "And now, godly scoutmasters, like godly priests, need no vetting, or supervision". This is just incorrect. As much as I despise the BSA policy against atheists and gays, they do indeed have policies in place to avoid pedophiles -- the big problem is that they conflate the two (gays vs. peds). All leaders do undergo a background check and there is a huge emphasis on "two deep leadership" (i.e. never leaving a single boy alone with a single adult out of sight of others).
The biggest problem is that while Seaton and other founders of BSA did not overemphasize religion -- I take their writings about it at all as a product of the times -- later zealots (LDS and Catholics, as big $ sources, as well as anti-communists of the 50's) have latched onto this end of the culture wars and continually try to make it of more import than I think the original founders meant it to be. To this end I think they pervert one of basic the ideals of scouting which is to respect others.
Most of the trouble comes from the top National levels. Down at the grassroots I think there's more a live-and-let-live don't-ask-don't-tell attitude. Though that probably varies for Unit (Pack/Troop) to Unit.
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 8:42 PM
So you would agree that the mathematical nature of proof has no bearing on the existence of God as described in Christian doctrine as certain attributes and actions are defined to 'Him' that can only be answered through empirical investigation?Posted by: Wowabagger | November 9, 2008 8:43 PM
I like that - well put. It's that kind of 'you can't argue against my version of god if you don't know what my version of god is, can you? Ha-ha!'
Of course, what they don't seem to realise is that when you insist on making your idea of your god so nebulous as to be insubstantial you take away its ability and therefore its necessity.
Posted by: FrodoSaves | November 9, 2008 8:47 PM
I once met a pair of Mormons on a train north of London. We were just about to go around a bend which is notorious for several crashes over the past couple of decades. Since they were visiting, I decided to point out the track's morbid history and delighted in the horror that struck their eyes.
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 8:47 PM
That's a nice way of putting it.I call them diffuse arguments for God. They stretch the concept of God out to encompass almost anything (you could easily substitute the word God for Flying Spaghetti Monster in that mathematical proof and have exactly the same outcome) then once that is 'proved', pull God back to regular size and conclude that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. There's nothing in that proof that links God to the Judao-Christian construct of God, yet that's what the conclusion takes simply by the use of the capital G.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 9, 2008 8:49 PM
A heteroousian! There hasn't been a heteroousian around in ages!
So, what other parts of the Nicaene Creed do you reject?
Are you also a Pelagian, by any chance?
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 8:50 PM
My Christological thought is bounded by "Dynamic Monarchianism" on the "left" and "Arianism" on the "right." If the former is correct, then Jesus was a man indwelt by the power/wisdom/rational principle of God and if the latter is correct, then Jesus is the Incarnation of a pre-existent divine being who is subordinate to God.
Incidentally, I also think "Sabellianism" passes the hurdle of logical coherency, but unlike the Christologies I mentioned above, it is not consonant with Scripture.
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 8:52 PM
And how can you 'know' any of this without looking to empirical evidence? How do you discern it from the imaginary?Posted by: Terry Small | November 9, 2008 8:52 PM
Happy birthday, Carl Sagan!!
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 8:54 PM
Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 8:55 PM
I can sum up my distrust of solely logical proofs in two words: Zeno's Paradox. Somehow I still manage to get to work in the morning...
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 8:55 PM
We heteroousians were the victims of potent popery, for sure.
Anyway, I am genuinely impressed. To answer your question, I've given more thought to Christology than Soteriology, so I am not sure if I am a Pelagian or not. I have a favorable view of the far less cranky Calvinism of Amyraldus, but I've yet to make a commitment.
Posted by: John Morales | November 9, 2008 8:56 PM
Gah! P is now as happy as a pig in mud.
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 8:56 PM
Blockquote fail, third time in 48 hours.
And finally it comes out, it's an appeal to scripture.Posted by: Wowbagger | November 9, 2008 8:57 PM
Does that hurt? It sounds painful. Perhaps you should see a doctor.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 8:58 PM
Nicely timed.
Well I'm reading up on Godel's ontological argument. But I'll have to admit, I'm going to have to familiarize myself with a few things so I can understand some of the tools he is using.
Seems there are some assumptions at the base of his argument.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 8:59 PM
For the items that are unique to Christianity, yes. I don't recall claiming that Kurt Gödel's Ontological Argument (or any other) got me all the way to Christianity.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 9:04 PM
I give you credit for looking into the arguments of the opposition at least. I've done the same with Dawkins.
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 9:05 PM
So what evidence do you have that the scripture is a divinely inspired book?This quote sums it up for me
If the Bible is telling the truth, then God is either untruthful or incompetent. If God is truthful, then the Bible is either untruthful or erroneous. - Rev. Donald Morgan
Posted by: DaveG | November 9, 2008 9:10 PM
To #s 461 and 166,
I'm a registered Scouter, self-styled teleologist and homophobo-phobe. I won't throw away the privilege and fun of it by taking on the cowards in Dallas. I decided to "don't ask, don't tell" some time ago, and apparently everyone else did too - I have never heard the subject discussed at "ground level".
I don't recall if anyone ever asked me if I believe in God, so don't out me! I was raised UU and earned the religious award, and apparently the LDS has not yet targeted us, although we may be the largest group of connected heathens in the world.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 9:13 PM
Proving the existence of a (just one, right?) god with mathematical logic? And then the jump to Calvinism? Nice. Say, Peregrinus, do you know a guy named Dave Heddle? You two would get along great. Although Heddle's probably in a cranky mood after the Stillers lost today. I know I am.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 9:14 PM
Cannabinaceae, philosophical arguments about god bore me. There is always a flaw, usually in the premises, but trying to find it under all that unnecessary verbiage is just a snooze. I much prefer good hard evidence. So I'll sit this one out.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 9, 2008 9:15 PM
Yeah, I might have had some chance of going xian if part of the sales pitch had been something like, 'There's this god, see, and he likes to fuck with you - he finds it amusing. But he really wants you to like him in spite of that. So come along, we'll sing some songs, drink some wine, generally have a good time.'
That might have worked. But it wasn't that, it was more like, 'God exists, and he's benevolent and all-powerful, but when bad shit happens it's not his fault, it's yours, and if you don't worship him and beg for forgiveness then your ass is toast for all eternity. Unfortunately, even if you are good, you get stuck in somewhere mind-numbingly boring with all the really lame people for all eternity instead.'
Sorry, but that shit just ain't gonna fly.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 9:16 PM
Not only do I know him, he is one of my facebook friends.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 9:19 PM
8-D>Posted by: John Morales | November 9, 2008 9:20 PM
I recall a recent thread discussing philosophical "proofs" for God. Meaty bit starts here.
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 9:20 PM
Peregrinus was born in Parium, c. 95 AD. At a young age he was suspected of parricide, and was obliged to leave his native home.[1] During his wanderings he reached Palestine, he came into close contact with the Christian community, and quickly rose to a position of authority.[2] He suffered a term of imprisonment at the hands of the Roman authorities, during which the Christians gave him much aid.[3] He may have expected to be martyred, but the Governor of Syria released him.[4] He seems to have become a Cynic at this point, because he returned home and renounced his inheritance, giving away all his money to the people of his home city.[5] He resumed his wandering life, maintaining close relations with the Christians at first, but eventually he offended them in some way, and was expelled from the Christian community.[6] He went to Egypt to study with the famous Cynic Agathobulus, where he learned the harsh asceticism of the sect.[7] He made his way to Rome, where he began a campaign of abuse against the Roman authorities, and especially the emperor Antoninus Pius.[8] He gained a following among the masses, and it may be at this point that Theagenes became his chief disciple. Although tolerated at first, he was eventually expelled by the City Prefect.[9] He next went to Elis in Greece, where he continued his anti-Roman preaching.[10] At the Olympic games (either 153 or 157), Peregrinus abused the wealthy philanthropist Herodes Atticus, whereby the infuriated crowd attacked Peregrinus, and he was forced to take refuge at the altar of Zeus.[11] In Athens, Peregrinus devoted himself to the study and teaching of philosophy, and obtained a considerable number of pupils, amongst them Aulus Gellius.[12] At the Olympic Games of 161, he announced that he would publicly burn himself to death at the following Olympics:[13]
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 9:26 PM
I always wonder why a being that is omnipresent needs people to work for it. Surely a God that is everywhere should be easy to empirically demonstrate, we've been able to detect subatomic particles FFS!
The absence of God is exacerbated by the ferocity of the apologetics for His absence.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 9:26 PM
Not only do I know him, he is one of my facebook friends.
Now, I'll be glad when you're dead, you rascals, you!
I'll be tickled to death when you leave this earth, you dogs!
Hmmm, I took you for my friends,
The way you bit me in the back was a sin;
You ain't no good, you rascals, you!
Posted by: Patricia | November 9, 2008 9:27 PM
Folks do you realize we have witnessed a miracle?
Walton posted a none libertarian comment @266, and then Scott from Oregon posted one @383. Joseph Smith be praised!
Arnosium Upinarum @275, thanks for your reply.
John C. Randolph @260, blue ribbon to you sir... the Nazi's thought they were Aryans, but they were mistaken...
I see I have a lot of catching up to do. I was out joy riding looking for the new pagan monastery that is opening up in Washington, must be invisible like Hogwarts. *snicker*
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 9:27 PM
No, I'm Peregrinus, Bishop of Antissiodorum. I get calls from debt collectors looking for the other Peregrinus all the time, though.
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 9:27 PM
Our Peregrinus seems to be an overly pretentious intellectualized contrarian aka TROLL.
Pffffft. Much ado about sophistry. I bet he's fabulous at D&D.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 9:27 PM
sing it, Pops!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 9:29 PM
uh oh.
I smell a freak out incomming
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 9:31 PM
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 9, 2008 9:31 PM
E.V. wrote:
Pink gem d20s for all!
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 9:31 PM
That probably describes at least half of the people who post here.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 9:33 PM
A cleric, no doubt.
Posted by: ginckgo | November 9, 2008 9:36 PM
I'm actually related to Mormons through my wife's uncle. They're all quite nice people on a personal level, very much into family and community, supportive etc. But all of it has this slight bitter aftertaste for me because of the loopy beliefs that are absolutely central to their lives. And they breed like rabbits: the kids and grandkids of that uncle now outnumber those of the his 2 siblings about 4:1 with no sign of stopping any time soon. I've never felt it appropriate to discuss their beliefs to them, but every time I read something like this, I want to march over there and ask them what the hell?!?!
Posted by: raven | November 9, 2008 9:41 PM
Oh gee, this is a bad as the Liars, Haters, and Killers for jesus crowd. People call Mormons bigots because they are bigots. Women, gays, nonwhites, nonLDS, at one time or another well over 99% of the world's population has been defined as Untermenshen, subhumans by the LDS leaders who all happen to be old white men.
Mormons are as hateful and bigoted as any group that walks the earth. They just don't get much chance to do much about it because there are only around 8 million in the USA and because the other xians are clear that they are considered heretics. While LDS doctrine claims that a majority of the world's population is subhuman, since there are so few of them, the rest of the world barely notices the kooks and ignores them.
1. Until recently blacks were inferior for some theological reason that escapes me. Brown skinned people are Lamanites, bad jews or some such and pigmentation is the mark of Cain. They keep changing their story as we become more civilized and knowledgeable and I haven't kept up on the latest. But calling 80% of the world's population, carriers of a multigeneration curse just because they aren't white is pretty damn sick.
2. In Utah where they have set up a closet theocracy, discrimination against pagans (anyone nonMormon) is ubiquitous and unremarked on. You see a huge number of places where all the employees just happen to be LDS. One test for prospective employees, ask the if they want a cup of coffee. If the answer is yes, end of interview and you won't get a cup of coffe anyway. Another is to ask where they did a mission or what ward they belong to.
3. Prop 8 just a coming out party for Mormon bigots. In Utah Cthulhu itself knows what they could do if they weren't part of the USA, and involuntarily at that.
4. There is a US army base in SLC, in the Wasatch foothills, that overlooks the city. Fort Douglas. The guns are pointed> down at the city. The base is there in case the Mormons decide to seccede and set up their own theocracy, their original plan. In truth, the base has been mothballed these days.
5. Women are permanent second class citizens forever to the Mormons. Baby makers, chattel, subservient to males. Even as gods, they can only become baby making assistant goddesses if some male calls them up. To this day no one knows the names of our alleged goddess mothers. Or even cares. The god is known as Adam, I think.
6. Of course, to the LDS they are the only true religion and the rest of us will be stuck in the lower heavens forever as inferior beings.
Paul don't bother lying to us, we know the score. Mormons are indoctrinated bigots of the worst sort from birth until death unless they manage to break out of the programming. Many do, there is a high fall out rate, especially the ones not raised in Zion, USA and exposed to some of the 6.7 billion people who just happen to be normal nonLDS human beings.
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 9:41 PM
Peregrinus: That's not a refutation, you sly devil.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 9:47 PM
Yes. When I am not swinging my cudgel, healing, or sermonizing, I am bickering with the party's wizard, an obdurate atheist.
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 9:54 PM
Patricia:
*cricket cricket*
I don't think they're coming. Awwwwww.
Posted by: John Morales | November 9, 2008 9:54 PM
Yeah, right, like any player is gonna be an atheist in D&D, where Gods actually manifest themselves and clerics have actual divine power which only an idiot (i.e. not a Wizard, since they have a minimum Int requirement) would deny.What a stupid, barefaced lie.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 9, 2008 9:56 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof
Hm.
Given that he never published any of this, I find myself wondering how firmly he believed it.
If the religious were generally as tentative, uncertain, undogmatic, and noncommittal as Gödel, atheists would have nothing to complain about.
"There are several reasons Gödel's axioms may not be realistic"...
Well, duh.
The problem with all of this high-flown logic-chopping is that the result has no empirical demonstration.
You can talk about moral aesthetic positive God-like properties from now until the sun blows up, but the proof is useless if God doesn't do anything.
And if God does nothing, and cannot be detected, God is indistinguishable from nothing; which is to say, from not existing.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 9:57 PM
sing it, Pops!
As I said before, I'll be glad when you're dead, you
rascal,you!
Hmm, yea-ee-yea, you rascal, you!
Boy, when you're laying six feet deep,
No more fried chicken will you eat;
Aw, you dog, I know that'll break your heart, ha, ha, ha, ha!
Boy! Boy, what is it that you've got
That makes my wife think you're hot?
Oh, you dog, you ain't no good. Naw!
You bought my wife a bottle of Coca Cola,
So you could play on her victrola;
Ha, you dog! Yes, sir!
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 10:00 PM
Oh, he just thinks I am a different kind of wizard called "cleric." He cites this Chick Tract as proof.
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 10:00 PM
*instrumental interlude*
Posted by: Patricia | November 9, 2008 10:04 PM
OK PZ. I went through my stuff from my trips to the genealogy library in Salt Lake City, have I got some goodies for you to desecrate. Expect a package from me.
Tee Hee, cackle! I'm such a naughty Patricia. *snort*
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 10:08 PM
Jack Chick RULZ!!!!*
Mary Worth meets John Hagee.
(if he were an actual Poe)
Posted by: Patricia | November 9, 2008 10:08 PM
E.V. - Your comment flew right over my ignorant head. :o(
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 9, 2008 10:09 PM
I remember Peregrinus' from his previous incarnation ('vapid atheists' is his signature comment), though nothing he said was ever significant enough to warrant remembering his name.
If the waste of time was actually interested in discourse, he'd post more than one-liners and zingers calculated to evoke a response. He doesn't, because he's too busy clapping his hands with glee whenever he hits the 'Enter' key. It's his way of getting a massive 'net-job. (Witness how long it took to eke the ontological argument from him. That's just a teeny glimpse into just how long and hard he is willing to waste your time.) A friend of mine used to manage a call centre for a major department store mail-order catalog. They had a shoe-fetishist who would call in on a weekly basis to basically do the same thing to any poor girl unlucky enough to get his call.
Feel free to indulge the obscurantist fuck, but kindly wash your hands after.
Posted by: John Morales | November 9, 2008 10:10 PM
Well, I'm blushing. P says stupid things, and laughs at the responses.
I got sucked into feeding the troll. Bah.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 10:11 PM
*instrumental interlude*
Now, with cartoons!
A Parable of the Eucharist
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 10:12 PM
Sorry Patricia, I thought you had invoked the Unholy Trinity upthread. Rev BDC OM;KoT alluded to it.
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 10:13 PM
That's where I'm getting frustrated. Just as it seemed to be getting somewhere, suddenly that line of discussion ceased.Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 9, 2008 10:13 PM
i couldn't believe this thread was still happening...
then i realized the topic had changed to D&D
Posted by: nanu nanu | November 9, 2008 10:15 PM
('vapid atheists' is his signature comment)
Kind of like that idiot a while back that would post under a bunch of different names going on about how we were all socially autistic?
You'd think they'd have the decency to not make it OBVIOUS it's them but NOOO. Where are the high quality trolls, damnit?
:[
Posted by: Ryan | November 9, 2008 10:15 PM
I suspect that taking away tax exemption would be a long step towards getting Palin elected in 2012. I'm not sure it would be worth it.
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 10:15 PM
OMG, I'm surrounded by...NERDS and GEEKS!
Posted by: nanu nanu | November 9, 2008 10:17 PM
I seem to forget about quote marks a lot.
Oh well
Posted by: Diego | November 9, 2008 10:17 PM
Longish story hopefully shortened enough: I have a Mormon friend who is mostly sane about the vast majority of things. In fact, most people assume she is a Buddhist. But she goes fanatically reactionary when anything touches on her. I once touched her off by blogging about a bogus human genetics study that the LDS Church sponsored to add support to their pet notions. I was critical yet highly diplomatic, but she read my blog and immediately accused me of personally attacking her and her family by saying something negative about the Church. She got very nasty very quickly, and it took a long, long time before relations were normalized between us again. Now I just read another friend's blog and he is griping about the Church's involvement (he is gay and lives in California), and of course this friend has popped out of the Mormon, who is a mutual friend, has popped out of the woodwork again attacking him. It's amazing how a person who seems quite sweet, peaceable, and rational most of the time can have such a hair-trigger about religions.
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 10:18 PM
Er, Ryan... wrong thread.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 9, 2008 10:18 PM
See... if you're all thinking in the box... like... you'd be like: why don't we just kill all the mormons? psh. but if u weren't like not thinking inside the box... you'd be like: why don't we just kill EVERYBODY? if you kill indiscriminately it's not genocide.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 9, 2008 10:21 PM
@529 or anyone
are there any numbers out there regarding how what kind of revenue that might generate?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 9, 2008 10:23 PM
Less saner words were never not unspoken...
Posted by: Corey PS | November 9, 2008 10:24 PM
The most frustrating aspect of the anti-gay-marriage movement has to be their tendency to invoke the well being of the children in their arguments. I think that were they have succeded, it has been this aspect of their arguments that has allowed them to do so. As the daughter of a lesbian single-mother, I feel that the best possible thing that could have been done for my well being would have been for my society to recognize my family as legitimate. If other parents could have stopped telling my classmates that I and my mother were going to burn in hell, that would have been nice also.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 9, 2008 10:25 PM
#520:
Don't forget the dweebs, wonks and spazzes.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 9, 2008 10:27 PM
They all adore him; they think he's a righteous dude.--A reading from the Gospel according to Hughes.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 9, 2008 10:32 PM
Nerd Taxonomy - a pictorial guide.
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 10:35 PM
Tim, lay off the spleef.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 9, 2008 10:36 PM
@ Corey
It is all kindof based on the idea that gay is contagious. There's this underlying fear that if you legitimize it, a whole generation will be devoid of heterosexuality. Which, as it just so happens, is the real cause of gayity. I mean, it's strait couples having all these gay babies right? ...and the fundies are the ones trying to outlaw birth control!
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 10:37 PM
Speaking of musical interlewds and Magic Mormon Underpants--
Po-Jama People:
Some people's hot
Some people's cold
Some people's not very
Swift to behold
Some people do it
Some see right through it
Some wear pyjamas
If only they knew it
The pyjama people are boring me to pieces
Feel like I am wasting my time
They all got flannel up 'n down 'em
A little trap-door back aroun' 'em
An' some cozy little footies on their mind
Po-jama people!
Po-jama people, people!
They sure do make you sleepy
With the things they might say
Po-jama people!
Po-jama people, people!
Mother Mary 'n Jozuf, I wish they'd all go away!
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 9, 2008 10:40 PM
Millhouse: I didn't know your dad was so interested in science.
Homer: Science!?!
Bart: He didn't say science, he said...pie-pants.
Homer: Mmmmm, pie-pants.
Posted by: Patricia | November 9, 2008 10:45 PM
Perhaps some of you would get a kick out of discussing religion with the mormons the way I do when they come to my door.
I tell them how happy I am to see them and that I believe in polyagamy too. Then when they say oh no! I tell them some of the joys of having six husbands - they run like hell.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 9, 2008 10:47 PM
Owlmirror #505,
"Given that he never published any of this, I find myself wondering how firmly he believed it."
He actually published the idea of time travel in a rotating, non-expanding universe. Apparently this idea was worthy to publish yet the proof of God wasn't.
While undoubtedly a genius Gödel had some very unusual ideas. He thought he was being poisoned so he starved himself to death.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 9, 2008 10:52 PM
#536 should read :
He thought his food was being poisoned so he starved himself to death.
Still bad reasoning, IMO.
Posted by: Patricia | November 9, 2008 10:52 PM
I beg your pardon E.V. - I am as dense as granite tonight, that flew even higher over my head.
Must be the lack of alcohol.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 9, 2008 10:53 PM
sorry, I've been typing grad application essays all day. My mind is bereft of anything useful or meaningful.
It does amaze me how opponents of GLBT rights really think that it's something they can deny indefinitely. It's as if they are completely oblivious of the last century of social change in the west. Maybe I'm just overestimating them.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 9, 2008 10:53 PM
There. Fixed. :o)
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 9, 2008 10:55 PM
Nothing unusual about it: I was poisoning him.
By the way, he was off on the details of time travel as well.
Posted by: Malcolm | November 9, 2008 10:56 PM
The mormons don't come to my door any more. Its a real shame, as I used to enjoy inviting them in for a coffee and a chat. It was always fun asking them questions about their book, like why these Jewish people didn't use the wheel any more, where their horses came from, etc. I miss the mormons. They were fun.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 10:59 PM
Patricia, if you had six husbands it would be called polyandry (or maybe some real fun).;)
If you really wanted to freak them out, try one of the marriages in Heinlein's books where there are half a dozen each of men and women.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 9, 2008 11:04 PM
Damn, I'm rusty on my Greek and Latin: what would it be called if Patricia only had five?
Seriously though, even an introductory Anthropology course in marriage and kinship should be enough to disabuse anyone of the notion that Christianity (or any religion, for that matter) holds any claim to 'traditional' marriage.
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 11:07 PM
Patricia: you remarked about Walton, Eric A and JCR not pulling their usual shenanagans which was a clear invitation for them to Libertarianize the thread.
Ken Cope: You are blissing tonight!
TWood: It's okay. Those people aren't over the miscengenation claptrap. We've had the arguments before but sexual orientation is rarely a a complete dichotomy - few people are completely homosexual, which is proportionate to the people who are completely heterosexual, most people fall somewhere in between in a vast spectrum on the Kinsey Scale. (Which doesn't necessarily mean they would be "bi-sexual" . Oops, opened up a huge can o' worms.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 11:07 PM
No, Goonter from da' backwoods, Kurt Gödel suffered from some paranoid delusions at the end of his life that were only exacerbated by the death of his wife. That does not make him "as crazy as a rat in a tin shithouse."
And Dana Scott, Gödel's student and a famous logician in his own right, pronounced his mentor's argument logically sound.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 11:09 PM
Poly means many. Andry implies man. So polyandry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
Posted by: Mike | November 9, 2008 11:09 PM
Ken,
Even though most communist countries don't support religious institutions financially, China, even though it is in many ways communist in name only, does support government sponsored religious organization that regulate and staff the 5 major state sanctioned religions, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Protestantism, and Catholicism.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 11:10 PM
Damn lucky for the sixth potential husband who dodged the bullet.
Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2008 11:11 PM
lol
One day he unloaded on me in one of his newer, pre-Peregrinus incarnations. I'm like "WTF, I've never talked to this douche in my life" but if that's the way it's going to be, then that's the way it's going to be...
Somewhat later in the thread there was one of his tired "vapid atheists" cliches...
I got a laugh. I'm... Hmmmm... Which nut-ball was this again? I don't even remember who he was pretending to be, but I think he was one of the cracker fetish guys... I seem to have made much more of an impression on him, than he did on me...
Whoever he is, he's no Larry Farfarman or David Heddle. Or that weird guy (John Davidson) who keeps making blogs and talking to himself on them...
Anyway, he's a silly boy. He tries to get rises... But, really, he's like a knock-knock joke. Funny at 6, dull by 8.
Oh, and speaking of jokes dull by 8, the kindergarten girl across the street caught me with a Laffy-Taffy riddle today. One I've heard about a zillion times (well, probably 8 or 9, but bad jokes multiply bad-joke-pain exponentially):
What kind of pants do clouds where?
THUNDERWEAR!!!
I stopped buying Laffy-Taffy when the monkey hit six or so. It was in self-defense, I just couldn't handle the corny...
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 11:12 PM
As per Heinlein, Brownian, it might be a Line marriage. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd leave the cloned twins alone, but then, I'd never conceive myself while watching from the rumble seat, either.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 9, 2008 11:13 PM
I remember your bs from Panda's Thumb, originally.
Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2008 11:16 PM
Now there was a writer who had some interesting, if left-field ideas. He was very libertarian and I got the impression that he thought that was the kind of wonderful marriages people could have if libertarian rules/ideals were followed.
And as he got older, the ideas got crazier and more obsessive.
Personally, I think his little communal marriages would be unstable as hell and most would end up with a shot-gun divorce. And a lengthy murder trial thereafter.
But in fiction, you can "make them work" and I've certainly read worse...
Anyway, time to put the monkey to bed.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 9, 2008 11:17 PM
Time travel?
http://math.cofc.edu/kasman/MATHFICT/mfview.php?callnumber=mf375
Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 11:17 PM
G'night all.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 11:21 PM
That does not make him "as crazy as a rat in a tin shithouse."
No, that would make him yet another FCCing Platonist asshole who died as crazy as a rat in a tin shithouse, merely one in a long list of crazy as a rat in a tin shithouse Platonists, which is as of yet an incomplete list. If only you would complete the set, P-man!
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 9, 2008 11:22 PM
Well, as Dryden said, "Great wits are sure to madness near allied, And thin partitions do their bounds divide". Gödel was very eccentric, something of a recluse and a hypochondriac, paranoid about germs, even before his final paranoia about being poisoned that led him to starve himself to death. Characterising him as having "some unusual ideas" is something of an understatement. The smiley might have clued you in to the fact that I was being facetious.
So what.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 9, 2008 11:30 PM
Us weenies always get forgotten. :^(Posted by: John Morales | November 9, 2008 11:32 PM
Greek roots, so I make it pentandry for five husbands.
Posted by: Jeanette | November 9, 2008 11:33 PM
I thought it was weird a while back when everyone was arguing about whether it was okay to be rude to people who come knocking at the door trying to convert you to their religion. Here in Denver, we realize that it's the door-knockers who are being rude, and that type of behavior is uncommon. I had Mormons come to the door one time in my life, last summer. I slammed the door in their faces, which was not rude of me; it was rude of them to be ringing the doorbell during the day, when I was trying to sleep. (Not everyone is on a 9-5 schedule, by the way.)
(Back in the 80's our family lived a block away from the Hare Krishna temple, and they used to come to the door once in a while. Back in those days they were having parades in the streets and stalking every airport. I think they eventually figured out that they were just pissing people off.)
Anyway, people mostly don't do that here, and that's because it's weird and creepy and socially unacceptable. Under most circumstances, people need an appointment to knock on your door. (Some exceptions might include established service-provider contacts and neighborly contacts, which would not include proselytizing.)
I spent a little time making phone calls for the Obama campaign, but I wasn't willing to knock on doors. That's because an appointment is normally required to knock on someone's door.
Not only are Mormons brain-washed, but people who have come to accept proselytizing door-knockers are a bit brain-washed as well. You may live somewhere where it commonly occurs, but that doesn't make it acceptable. And people who do it need to have that explained to them, too.
Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 11:33 PM
That argument doesn't prove the existence of God though, unless you take God as the unknown. It offers nothing in the way of what God actually means and it has nothing at all that supports the notions of the Judao-Christian God. Being logically sound doesn't make the Judao-Christian God any more real, in the end it needs to be supported with evidence...
...and when it came to talking about evidence Peregrinus went silent.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 9, 2008 11:35 PM
Oh here's another amusing anecdote of Gödel, but this one with a happy ending.
Gödel left Europe during WWII to the US. Einstein helped coach him for his citizenship exam and acted as a character witness. Apparently,during his preparation Gödel found a way in the Constitution to make the US a dictatorship. During his citizenship exam he mentioned this to the judge, much to Einstein's annoyance. Luckily, the judge was a patient man and ignored it. He eventually got his citizenship.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 9, 2008 11:37 PM
Dana Scott's thesis supervisor was Alonzo Church (himself, of course, a famous logician). Scott and Gödel don't seem to have ever published anything together. By the time Gödel gave Scott his ontological proof in 1970, Scott was already a well-established logician. On what basis do you maintain that Dana Scott was "Gödel's student" and Gödel was Scott's "mentor"?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 11:39 PM
I've noticed most of them do. Must be a character defect.Posted by: Eric Atkinson | November 9, 2008 11:45 PM
Magic underpants!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsXzHLiHTOU
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 11:53 PM
565, that would be my post 116, with the anchor tag filed off.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 9, 2008 11:54 PM
Natürlich, I had to look this up:
http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9802/hyp.html
Huh. We don't know exactly what it was...
Posted by: Jeanette | November 9, 2008 11:56 PM
Re: #565: Yeah, those John Saffran videos are classic. I like the one where they knock on Mormons' doors and preach the "gospel" of atheism and Darwin's Theory (of Intelligent Design by Natural Selection). That would serve them right, I think.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 9, 2008 11:57 PM
True. I kinda understated it to make the whole starving-himself-to-death-to-avoid-being-poisoned part have greater effect. I thought after telling that people would see quite clearly it was an understatement.
Besides, I'm not creative enough to come up with a phrase like "as crazy as a rat in a tin shithouse".
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | November 10, 2008 12:05 AM
Meh. The Cylons sacked Kolob long ago. It's irrelevant now.
Posted by: gypsytag | November 10, 2008 12:10 AM
Jeanette,
I hope you also slammed the door in the face of the boy scouts who go around collecting food.
Those little 8-10 years old brats are just going to grow up to be atheist haters too, so we need to teach them a lesson.
Perhaps someone could find it in their hearts to throw bags of shit at them as well. That seems to be the accepted practice now as per the posts above.
Hey i just thought I'd liven things up, it was getting boring with the ontological argument stuff.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 10, 2008 12:13 AM
I find Battlestar Galactica, which was influenced greatly on Mormonism, more believable than Mormonism. Also more entertaining.
Perhaps is Joseph Smith were declared a Cylon I might change my mind....
Posted by: pmwhitlock | November 10, 2008 12:14 AM
I got the chance to visit SLC this summer and surprisingly the Mormons aren't trying to shove it down your throat, the laymen at least. The church was another story though I did manage to be allowed on temple grounds long enough to get a picture with White Jesus.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 10, 2008 12:14 AM
pcarini (#268):
I dunno, an army of battle-tapirs sounds this close to being a great scene in a Miyazaki movie.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 12:17 AM
My favourite Saffran clip was his rant on atheists. It was just beautiful.Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 12:19 AM
I'll concede that one to you, Goonter, but Dana Scott most certainly judged the underlying logic of the argument sound.
"Given a sufficiently generous conception of properties, and granted the acceptability of the underlying modal logic, the theorems listed do follow from the axioms. (So say Godel, Dana Scott, Sobel, Anderson, and Adams. Who am I to disagree?)" (Graham Oppy, Gödelian Ontological Arguments)
Posted by: PK | November 10, 2008 12:22 AM
I lived in Salt Lake City for a year and learned a lot about LDS while there. (Trust me; the place is beautiful but wasted on the natives.) When Salt Lake County elected its first open lesbian to the state house, the state Eagle Forum led by Gayle Ruzicka threatened to have her impeached for violating the state constitution (anti-sodomy and all that).
Some little things I picked up:
*To Mormons, the ends justify the means. That holds for baptism after death, bribing the Olympic Committee in order to host the Olympics, and to donate funds to Prop 8.
*They may seem like hicks, esp since they were founded by an illiterate con man, but don't underestimate them. They are experts at circular logic - any attempt to sway a Mormon missionary will just swing them back to proselytizing.
*If memory serves, Utah has the highest pro-capita consumption of Prozac and Jell-O. (Why Jell-O? Because they can't drink alcohol. But, if you consume Jell-O made with alcohol, you're eating, not drinking, it.)
*In my first trip to Utah I was hit on by a married man at a gay bar. I told him I appreciated the compliment, but next time he tans he should remove his wedding ring to hide the tan line.
*Similarly, on weekends all the "closeted" gay boys head north from BYU in Provo to SLC to dance and get bjs in parked cars. But then it's back to that ol' time religin'.
*Finally, if you've ever tried to look up your family tree on ancestry.com, be forewarned...it has Mormon ties. And the LDS maintain the world's largest database, buried safely in the mountains of the Wasatch Front.
Sorry for the long post, but the Mormons are all business - their headquarters is more like an office tower than a religious structure. To fight Prop 8 we need to fight them on their own turf, and call them out for using the pulpit to influence policy, and for being hypocrites - the only reason they live in Salt Lake is because they were once persecuted and driven into exile. Now they are the persecutors. (Not counting that little "Mountain Meadows Massacre." Look it up for fun reading, especially the part where the Mormons tried to blame it on a tribe of Paiute Indians.)
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 12:27 AM
Ah, lovely philosophical weasel-words.
And granted the postulation that there exists an equality of desires with equines, it would logically follow that we would all have ponies.
Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2008 12:30 AM
Hee hee hee... That's polite-speak.Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 10, 2008 12:30 AM
Give it a rest, gypsytag.
The guy who advocated tossing bags of shit was reacting to attempts by the Mormon Church to systematically deprive him of the same basic civil rights they themselves enjoy.
Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2008 12:32 AM
Owlmirror - :)
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 12:32 AM
Or tapirs.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 12:35 AM
That's Graham Oppy's way of stating it, and he is an atheist. The important thing here is that he acknowledges Dana Scott, C. Anthony Anderson, and others in a position to know have judged the logic sound.
Posted by: gypsytag | November 10, 2008 12:36 AM
brownian.
oh that's totally different cause the boy scouts only discriminate against atheists.
my mistake.
its really hard to tell what we're supposed to be outraged about. I'll take throwing shit at people off the list.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 12:41 AM
An organisation discriminating against people is one thing; that organisation actively seeking to create further discrimination in areas unrelated to that organisation is another.
Are the Boy Scouts donating money to political movements to prevent people from having the basic human rights available to other people? No? Then the comparison is pointless.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 12:43 AM
But the question of God isn't a question of logic, it's a question of evidence. How that argument uses the word God could apply to anything, it does not in the slightest give any more validity to the existence of the Judao-Christian God - that question like any question of the nature of reality will be decided by evidence.Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 10, 2008 12:45 AM
Well, be outraged then. But you brought up the issue; some disagreed, some concurred. What more do you want?
Posted by: Jeanette | November 10, 2008 12:45 AM
#571:
Yeah, because:
1.) I never said that, and
2.) Those who did say that are presumably being facetious. Or is it feces-ious?
And the Mormon kids who came to my door were above Boy Scout age, and were accompanied by an adult male. (Who was teaching the young 'uns to be rude by proselytizing at people's doors.)
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 12:45 AM
If he is still an atheist, then he does not find the "logic" convincing, now does he?
And granted the postulation that there exists an equality of desires with equines, it would logically follow that we would all have ponies.¹
Which is just as sound as Gödel's ontological proof. I'm sure it could be phrased in modal logic form.
_____________________________________
OK, or tapirs. Why not?
Posted by: Cthulance | November 10, 2008 12:46 AM
I am surprised at the Mormon church's insistence that marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman given their own history, as well as their current belief and practice.
They didn't stop practicing polygamy, they just did so in the face of the law. They still practice it in their own rites and hold to it as the ideal state of marriage in their own beliefs.
They practiced polygamy until they were forced to stop, yet they still create polygamous unions in their temples. They even continue to believe that polygamy is the ideal state of marriage and that righteous men will have many wives in the afterlife with whom they will have sex and breed spirit children to populate their many worlds throughout all eternity. What hypocrisy.
I think it's just a gay thing. They don't want men marrying men or women marrying women. They do want their men to have as many wives as possible though, if only via their theological rites and fantasies.
Their own sacred institution of marriage is one in opposition to current United States law, yet they have the gall to push through an effort to define marriage legally as something which they don't even practice themselves in their own temples, and which they don't really consider to be ideal or the true order of marriage.
The hypocrisy of it! The deception! I guess it's nothing new to Mormons, they will always simply take off their thinking caps and just do whatever their leaders tell them to do.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 12:48 AM
No, the argument does not apply to any old thing. And while it does not establish the Judeo-Christian God, it establishes the "God of the philosophers," which is a good enough basis for me.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 12:50 AM
Pull the other leg.
Posted by: Nibien | November 10, 2008 12:52 AM
So, you admit your conclusion is illogical, irrational and, well, vapid?
Quite Interesting indeed; nothing like religion to ruin a mind.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 12:52 AM
TAX MORMON CHURCH
This is a hoot.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 12:55 AM
Come again?
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 12:56 AM
Replace the word God with Thor, Apollo, Ra, FSM, Rainbow Serpent, Ziltoid The Omniscient and you have exactly the same outcome of logic. And even if the logic were sound, it doesn't matter. The question of God's existence is as much evidential as the question of Ziltoid's existence. There's nothing in that argument that makes any higher power any more real.Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 12:56 AM
Exactly as I have established omni-pony-ness.
Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2008 1:00 AM
P's conclusions aren't vapid; they're inane (fatuous).
Which is to say, not just bland, but outright silly.
Posted by: Jeanette | November 10, 2008 1:00 AM
~~~ Jeanette's Ontological Proofs for the Existence of God ~~~
~ God is green. Greenness exists. Therefore, God exists. ~
~ God is salty. Saltiness exists. Therefore, God exists. ~
~ God is pickle-ness. Pickle-ness exists. Therefore, God exists. ~
One thing I learned recently: You can "prove" or "disprove" anything using ontological proofs, because ontological proofs are bullshit.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 1:00 AM
God is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent yet the best believers can do to justify such an existence is use ontology? God really does go to great lengths to hide Her own existence.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 1:01 AM
Wrong. Your "argument" is even more low-rent and trifling than Gaunilo's "Perfect Island" counterargument, and that was dispatched by Anselm and later by William E. Mann in 1976 (See Mind, Vol. 85, No. 339)
Posted by: George Atkinson | November 10, 2008 1:02 AM
Don't Panic @ #461
"Godly scoutmasters, like godly priests, need no vetting, or supervision" is, I agree, a bit harsh, for the BSA leadership has indeed been making earnest effort to address the problem.
But even the best policies will sometimes be unenforced in church-sponsored units, especially when co-religionists are accepted as intrinsically moral simply because they claim to be co-religionists. This attitude, the same that gives pedophile priests free rein, leads directly to superficial vetting (no criminal record, believes in god, must be all right) and, ultimately, lax supervision.
Posted by: gypsytag | November 10, 2008 1:03 AM
Jeanette,
sorry for implying that you did. I was more upset by the fact that no one reacted to the shit flinging. Perhaps it was a joke that i didn't get.
but I love your Ontological Proofs. Mind if i steal them?
Posted by: Patricia | November 10, 2008 1:03 AM
Sigh, *yawn* - Peregrinus @549 - Fuck you with Piltdown Man's dick.
Tis Himself - Us weenies always get forgotten. Oh no honey. I always stop and gaze at every weenie that gets trotted out before me. In fact, if you would like to lead the parade, I'll watch you twirl. And if you bounce your boobies, I'll toss confetti!
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 1:04 AM
The only thing you've proved is that you are full of ****. Why is it that any clown who has read an Internet Infidels blurb on the original ontological argument (let alone the modal arguments of Kurt Gödel and others) fancies himself or herself an expert?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 1:06 AM
Piffle. Anselm thus refuted himself, just as you refute yourself: If you can't wish ponies (nor perfect islands) out of thin air, then neither can you wish God out of thin logic.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 1:10 AM
Your inability to apprehend the argument is not my problem. In mathematics (and statistics), we routinely define objects and then seek to prove their existence based on a set of axioms. There is nothing controversial about that. Kant is quite dead, and so is his objection.
Posted by: Jeanette | November 10, 2008 1:11 AM
gypsytag @: Sure, use 'em and spread the truth. :o)
Posted by: cyan | November 10, 2008 1:12 AM
Tangential regarding forcing personal religious views on others:
My job email just included one from a fellow staffer; its subject matter was a non-identifying descriptor.
When I clicked on it, I was forwarded twice, and wound up watching and listening to a country song which entangled and lauded the combination of "God and the USA"
I don't care if job email includes email that reflects personal ideologies if the subject heading indicates such: then I can either ignore it or click on it.
But if the subject heading is ambiguous or lacking altogether, its an abuse to the other staff to have to wade through garbage, thus wasting their time, to discern whether the content is necessary to the exemplary completion of the job.
Am really pissed off at this waste of my time in having to be proselytized to in order to fulfill one of my job duties.
Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2008 1:15 AM
You merely perceive it so, because even on that flimsy basis they're still more "expert" than you and demolish your foolish contentions effortlessly.Hint: quoting titles and authorities means nothing more than that you can search. Put forth an actual argument if you wish to make some sort of impression.
Posted by: Nibien | November 10, 2008 1:15 AM
Once upon a time, there was this nifty guy named Hume, who did the same thing to design arguments that applies to your absurd "proof" of god.
I don't know about you, but being smacked down by a guy that's been dead for quite some time would be rather embarrassing.
But, I would indeed like to hear the argument for "Something exists, therefore that something is my asinine God that was made up by a bunch of bronze age dolts"
I know it may be surprising to you, but just because (even if it is the case) the universe came into being by the hand of a creator, it by no mean implies in any way, that it's your absurd notion of God. In fact, the inept content and writing of the Bible (or any other "holy" book I've read)would only imply that such a powerful being would not have inspired it.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 1:16 AM
Why is it you are spending so much time arguing over the logic of God as opposed to providing any evidential basis to support Her existence? Can you show anything that distinguishes the Judao-Christian God from the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 1:18 AM
The argument (as I see it) so far:
Peregrinus: I can discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Owlmirror & Co: So? That's no more valid than discussing how many leprechauns can dance on the head of a pin.
Peregrinus: Ignorant fool. Everyone knows there's no such thing as leprechauns.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 1:18 AM
Hume's ideas are as passe as powdered wigs and waistcoats. Please step into the 20th century, if not the 21st.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 1:19 AM
*snort* And then you screw up and perform the logical equivalent of dividing by zero. And if division by zero is
permittedgranted, why then, you can prove that 1=2, or anything else you like.Then there is "nothing controversial" about omni-pony-ness, either. It's simply empirically false.
Just like the ontological proof of God.
Posted by: Nibien | November 10, 2008 1:20 AM
A number of them, but obviously not the objection that merely the existence a creator does not imply any specific entity that your bias wishes it to be.
The very fact you're too stupid to realize that is rather depressing. It's a rather big shame that a human mind has been so utterly destroyed by his religious indoctrination.
I'll pray for you.
Posted by: Jeanette | November 10, 2008 1:20 AM
Peregrinus @605:
The truth hurts, don't it, motherfucker?
Pthththt! :o P
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 1:22 AM
You can't do better than mathematical argumentation.
Posted by: Nibien | November 10, 2008 1:23 AM
Joke?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 10, 2008 1:23 AM
Describe the nature of the god that the ontological argument entails, how/why that god interacts with the universe in any detectable way, and perhaps people might care about expertise in the ontological argument.
We know why you waltz out the ontological argument and harp on its strength; it's because you know your leap from the Philosopher's God to your Christian version isn't even close to being as rigorous as the argument you love to cut and paste from Gödel. Keep hiding that elephant.
We also noticed you dropped your little one-liner game as soon as you were called on it.
Dance, puppet, dance.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 1:24 AM
Apparently not, since you choose to remain in your deception and ignorance.
Posted by: Patricia | November 10, 2008 1:28 AM
Yep, polyandry - but the mormons have no word for that.
The thought that a man can be screwing six women is fine with them, but you trot out the idea that a woman could be screwing six men and it makes them freak out.
Men could so use this. It would be terribly funny to answer the door to your local morman as the 4th husband.
Posted by: foxfire | November 10, 2008 1:31 AM
Geez PZ, this is the biggest turnout you've had since crackergate.
Create a new blog entry for more comments lest you bring ScienceBlogs to a grinding halt...again.
;-)
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 1:31 AM
And Anselm's ideas are as passé as Old English.
Posted by: Jeanette | November 10, 2008 1:34 AM
Your granny is lame, Peregrinus.
I've got to crash for a bit.
Thank you, PZ. See, if you get a really hot thread started, you can go off and do other things, and we'll be fine bickering amongst ourselves and slashing at the trolls.
(And the trolls help to unify us. Religion's bigotry is a source of unity in our community; everyone realize that.)
Good night, atheists and other heathens.
~Jeanette
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 1:36 AM
No **** sherlock. The ontological argument only gets one so far.
Posted by: Patricia | November 10, 2008 1:38 AM
Humm, Piltdown Man's dick didn't do it.
Peregrinus - go fuck yourself, troll.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 1:39 AM
You have yet to demonstrate a logical flaw in Gödel's argument.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 1:41 AM
And you have yet to demonstrate a logical flaw in omni-pony-ness.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 1:42 AM
You might want to scale back on the nightcap, Crazy Patty. You don't have much to work with and pickling it so thoroughly is probably a bad idea.
Posted by: mandrake | November 10, 2008 1:43 AM
Patricia, you have five husbands? Can you spare one or two for a while? I'm single at the moment... and bored...
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 1:46 AM
You haven't even provided the beginning of a argument; what little you have posted is as malformed as Crazy Patty's frontal lobe.
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 1:47 AM
Just thought that I would let you guys know that my husband who is a Mormon was against Prop.8 passing. I think mostly in part that his mother's best friend is a lesbian. However my brother who's mind has been derailed by the fundy Christians would have voted for it. Thank goodness he doesn't live in Cali.
By the way here's a Animated Mormon gem on youtube that you should all get a kick out of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5dscqcNOGM
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 10, 2008 1:53 AM
People please, we have have gotten so focused on the stupidity of the ontological argument that we've forgotten the original purpose of this thread: to viciously mock Mormonism.
I'll get the ball rolling,
Why do Mormon women stop having babies at thirty-five?
Because thirty-six is just too many.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 1:57 AM
Just as you have not provided even the beginning of an argument that Gödel's conception of properties is correct and the underlying modal logic is valid.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 1:58 AM
Star base Kolob. LOL.
Yes, that is a classic. It raises the choler of Mormons but it is essential true. Each one of the whackaloon doctrines therein has been taught at one time or another by Mormon "apostles" and "prophets."
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 10, 2008 1:58 AM
Moses # 373,
LMAO!!! Best description of Mormonism I've ever heard.
Posted by: mandrake | November 10, 2008 2:00 AM
Waaaaaay back at #290 gypsytag said:
"its like saying well george bush started the war in iraq and therefore all americans are responsible, even the ones who said they didn't vote for him"
Actually, I was just talking about this to one of my friends. I *am* an American that didn't vote for George Bush, and I *do* feel that I have some ethical responsibility for the war in Iraq. Whether or not I voted for him, he is my president, it is my country, and I paid for the bullets with my tax dollars. Therefore, I have the responsibility to try to change the policies of the US government... even though it does feel like banging my head against a wall.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 2:08 AM
Oh, he's the one living in the past? Says the man for whom the most significant events in history took place circa CE 32.
Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2008 2:11 AM
Well, you have yet to tell us what this purported argument is, in your own words.That, clearly, is because you don't even know how to paraphrase it. I doubt you even know what it entails.
Posted by: Marzipan | November 10, 2008 2:21 AM
As someone who lives in Utah, I can assure you that I've encountered plenty of hateful, racist, homophobic, bigoted Mormons. A lot of them happen to be otherwise very nice people, though. Especially when they're hoping to convert you. I suggest those of you who have Mormon friends ask their opinion about those issues, you may be surprised with the amount of hate and fear-mongering you may uncover. There are some non-hateful Mormons who protest against those things, but as long as they really believe the church is "true", they continue to fund Mormon Corp through tithing and fast offerings (which are supposed to be used strictly for humanitarian purposes, but as a fairly recent incident in Britain demonstrates, can go to purposes other than specified).
I wouldn't advocate treating missionaries like crap, though. They are young people who face enormous pressure to do this shit. Well, the guys do, the girls are expected to get married ans start breeding as young as possible, so for women the mission is more of a personal choice. But if a man doesn't serve a mission, he may face social ostracism and be looked down upon by others. Also, it diminishes the mating pool greatly, as some girls simply refuse to marry anyone who hasn't served a mission. Not that any of it is an excuse to spread bullshit and hatred, but I do feel bad for them sometimes. They get harassed enough as it is. My husband almost got abducted once when he was a missionary.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 2:22 AM
Holy Joe identified figure 7 in Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham as:
"God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove."
But the figure in question is sporting a boner. (Although, if you think about it, a perpetually erect god is the sort of god one might expect for Holy Joe.)
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 2:26 AM
Aha I just thought of a good one. A few months ago when I was trying really hard to convert to my husbands religion. Yes yes I know but I was trying really hard to be a good supportive wife, then I came to my senses! I was reading their books and came across the little gem of plural marriage and I was told that even though they don't do that anymore, the men will have more than one wife in heaven because get this THERE WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH MEN TO GO AROUND! I think my jaw hit the ground on that one!
Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2008 2:33 AM
seamaiden75, interesting. The only interpretation that makes sense to me is that fewer men than women get to heaven, implying that women are more worthy than men. Heh.
To be consistent, therefore, men should be guided by women in that weird religion.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 2:34 AM
From this we learn that the Mormon god's idea of good ship design is to have a "stopped" holes in the top and the bottom. Also, you can dispense with the sails because the Mormon god is, quite literally, a blowhard.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 2:40 AM
Love it how fundies work in logic because when it comes to demonstrating what they believe in, God lets them down.Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 10, 2008 2:41 AM
So, because Gödel is insane does that mean i can't take Douglas Hofstadter seroously either? *Sigh*
Well, Albert Einstien married his cousin, and Socrates was a pedophile, Heiddeger was a nazi (insanity doesn't have too many increments beyond that), must i go on...
DO NOT UTTER THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT!! Stop discussing it, it's complete shit, the structure is such that merely taking the opposite assumption (that God is the worst thing in existance) leads to the conclusion thast God is evil. it makes no sense. And before the cosmological argument pops up, causality only applies to events in time, thus before spacetime existed no cause can be inferred. in addition, we can't even say that anything outside the universe exists, and if it did, why not simply add it to the universe anyway? we can continue "going past" the boundaries of spacetime to an arbitrary place, and we would merely be annexing new space, not leaving the universe as it were. 11 dimentional universe people.
Posted by: JonathanL | November 10, 2008 2:43 AM
I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting assault against them. However if one has strong feelings about the actions of their church in this case I think one is well within their rights to state that when they show up at your door.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 2:44 AM
I thought it might be because the gender ratio of spirit children would be heavily skewed to females.
But why am I trying to make sense of an obvious male sex/power fantasy?
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 2:47 AM
It's my policy not to waste much effort on opponents who are unwilling or unable to engage what I have already provided them. (Especially since I expect PZ to sweep it all away soon enough.)
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 2:52 AM
In a related vein, how is it that the glorified, flesh-and-bone bodies of Mormon gods and goddess are able to give "birth" to spirit children in the eternities?
Posted by: Eric Paulsen | November 10, 2008 2:55 AM
If the church (any of them) can't survive without tax exemptions then do they really deserve to? I mean the conservatives are always waxing poetic about the marketplace of ideas and stating that winning in that marketplace is what makes you a viable entity. If the church can't survive on the donations it gets from the parishoners then just how important is what it sells?
Why are we subsidizing this industry when the product it produces isn't important enough to the people who consume it that they are willing to pay for it themselves? It's time for these churches to stand or fall on their own.
Posted by: Marzipan | November 10, 2008 2:57 AM
JonathanL, 648: I absolutely agree.
Posted by: Michelle | November 10, 2008 3:05 AM
I am stunned. What a collection of hatred, sarcasm, hatred, sarcasm.... I am a Catholic who hit a link to this blog to see why an intelligent, caring professor would attack the holiest of Catholic teachings: that a simple little host becomes JESUS HIMSELF at the words of a Catholic priest. What do I find but hundreds of comments from unhappy people. Listen, ladies and gentlemen: we Catholics are not perfect; in fact, we admit most readily that we are a "church for sinners", but we try. We try to be kind, to do right, do whatever it takes to please God. Few of us have yet hit upon the right way to do it ALL the time, and that's why you snicker and mock. But I guarantee: Put away your mockery for just a bit, then read up on our holy faith and what Jesus wants of us... and I guarantee you will find peace, real meaning in life, and will do wonders for yourselves, and for those around you.
Of course, some of you will probably mock this, but do you REALLY want to remain of pre-adolescent mentality all your lives? Cut out the LDS bashing and the Catholic bashing, and try to lead sincere and kind lives. What a difference it would make in our country!
Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2008 3:08 AM
P troll:
Just who do you think you're fooling?You've provided a link to something you clearly have no understanding of, since that's the extent of your knowledge.
If you actually had an argument, it would be addressed.
Your policy seems to be to post in the hope someone (anyone!) responds, and that you're excoriated in the process is less important than the gratification you receive from the putdowns. Had you enough understanding to realise how you're being shamed, you'd retreat - as it is, you're a convenient source of amusement.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 3:09 AM
Ontological argument != proof of Judao-Christian God. You've even admitted it yourself. Are you going to provide evidence or simply work with the definition of God as a theoretical construct?Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 3:10 AM
You can add that delusion to your stockpile.
Posted by: Andrew | November 10, 2008 3:12 AM
Michelle 654,
I think you'd find a whole lot less Catholic bashing/ LDS bashing if there weren't so many Catholics/Mormons trying to prevent gay people from having the same rights as everyone else.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 3:15 AM
A being who possesses all positive properties (and perhaps some neutral ones) comes pretty close to the Judeo-Christian God AFAIC. As for the rest, you either find the accounts in the NT credible or you do not, and I accept them as credible, on the whole.
Posted by: Nemo | November 10, 2008 3:18 AM
Speaking as an ex-Catholic, I guarantee you I won't.
Seriously, what is with you Christians who think we've never heard of Jesus? Our culture is drowning in him. Many if not most of us were raised Christian ourselves, and have taken a closer look at the faith than most of those who remain Christians.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 3:19 AM
And what evidence do you have that such a being exists? Oh yeah, NONE! All you have is logic that could apply to anything. Show me what line in there necessitates God to be all positive. Show me how such a perfect being could exist outside our imaginations. Remember that EVERYTHING we have observed in nature shows that complexity is emergent and complexity only comes from a chain of simple reactions. That's what we observe in the real world. Why do you accept them as credible? What is credible about any of it?Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 3:23 AM
Michelle, #654, wrote:
The problem is that what you've been told 'pleases god' makes other people (real people, not imaginary people) very, very unhappy. But because you believe it comes from god, you choose not to accept that as a valid reason to stop doing it.
Do you not realise how ironic it is that someone who subscribes to a religion of guilt, hate, intolerance and persecution is telling us how to live a sincere and kind life?
Tell me, Michelle, how do you feel about your church's protecting from prosecution priests who repeatedly raped young parishioners? Honestly, how you can bear to remain affiliated with such evil is beyond my understanding. And you dare lecture us on sincerity and kindness?
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 3:26 AM
And the pope labelling homosexuality and abortion as deadly sins is being tolerant of others?Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 10, 2008 3:26 AM
Michelle #654,
You think the problem is we haven't read about your "holy faith"? Many of us actually have probably read more of the bible than most Catholics. Many of us were raised Catholics and went to Catholic schools. We are well aware of what it is and that is why we don't believe it.
I can lead a sincere and kind life AND bash religions.
It's funny that you get so offended that we mock, but we haven't taken anyone's rights away. The LDS and the Catholics have by helping pass Proposition 8.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 3:26 AM
And yet, you are not God. And Gödel was not God.
False. The Judeo-Christian God, as described in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, demonstrates many negative properties, including deceptiveness and massive cruelty, repeated many times.
The Judeo-Christian God is provably evil.
And as for the philosopher's God... neither you nor Gödel have defined what "all positive properties" are, nor even what a single "positive property" is.
And God for some strange reason stubbornly refuses to demonstrate any of these putative properties, let alone all of them.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 10, 2008 3:33 AM
"I am a Catholic who hit a link to this blog to see why an intelligent, caring professor would attack the holiest of Catholic teachings: that a simple little host becomes JESUS HIMSELF at the words of a Catholic priest."
Well...because it's a ridiculous notion. I mean, from the way you capitalized "JESUS HIMSELF", it would almost seem as if you really do see how absurd it is. Oh, and because a gang of Catholic nutcases tried to get a kid expelled from his secular school for not being respectful enough to the cracker, but hey, why let relevant facts get in the way of righteous indignation?
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 3:43 AM
It is Gödel's original definition of an individual who is said to be God-like.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 3:44 AM
And what necessity does such a perfect being exist?Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 3:48 AM
Or, rather, that's how the Jews/Israelites/Hebrews before Jesus conceived of God. I don't expect them to get it right.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 10, 2008 3:50 AM
So you were bullshitting, then. Surprise, surprise.
OK. Fine. I'm prepared to stipulate that the proof is correct. That merely establishes the proof-theoretical result that the conclusion follows from the premises according to the inference rules of the modal calculus used. If we further stipulate that the modal logic is complete, then there is a model in which the proof is true. But, that does not establish that such a model bears any resemblance to reality.
So, either God is purely a mathematical structure or evidence is required to establish the correspondence between such a model and reality.
By poo-pooing the requirement for evidence, you're only left with God as a mathematical structure.
Interesting position for a theist.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 3:53 AM
Yeah, the whole non-believer burning in hell thing of the new testament is much more a sign of a loving God...Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 10, 2008 3:55 AM
There's a famous anecdote (which is almost certainly false) that Euler and the French philosopher Diderot had a debate about the existence of God.
Euler started: "Sir, (a+b^n)/z = x, hence God exist-reply"
Diderot could not reply. Of course the formula doesn't prove God's existence. It was merely 'proof by intimidation'.
This is pretty much what Peregrinus is doing, but instead of reciting a formula he links a paper. In fact, he links to a paper he doesn't understand. If he did he would have been able to summarize the argument for us.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 4:00 AM
Funny that in the end, his belief in God (the Judao-Christian one) is nothing more than an appeal to scripture. Why does God exist? The bible says so. He's just hiding behind the ontological argument as a justification.Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 4:01 AM
And that's how Jesus conceived of God, and that's how Paul conceived of God.
Since God does not speak, it is not possible for anyone to get it right. Or rather, anyone might be right, and everyone might be wrong, and no-one has any way of knowing.
Just as from a contradiction, it is possible to prove anything at all.
Posted by: andyo | November 10, 2008 4:03 AM
Michelle #654
I'm also a catholic (not ex-comm'd yet), and I have to stress and echo Wowbagger's post (#662). Please answer his questions. They are simple and right to the point.
What we have seen here from believers is largely they just do a troll post, and when pressed with simple questions, either they just go away (as I hope you won't), or just go off incoherent and purposefully dense but irrelevant tangents (as it is also happening here with another religious person).
Posted by: raven | November 10, 2008 4:04 AM
Ummm, Michelle the Mormons hate the Catholics. Not sure why but they are rival religions, both with Popes. Each Pope claims the other one is an imposter.
The Catholics consider Mormons heretics, polytheists who deny the trinity and think a cracker is just a cracker among many other heresys.
Not sure why you are even bothering to defend Catholicism. You clearly don't even understand the basics of the sect. Or why you criticize this thread and blog. You obviously are incapable of reading and thinking.
Posted by: bastion | November 10, 2008 4:06 AM
At #234 E.V. wrote:
This sect hates that sect, this demonination refutes that denomination; teach as irrational and delusional as the other; but they all pretend to be in harmony against anyone who points out that religion is irrational and the existence of an intervening God is highly improbable.
Religion does not appear to be intelligently designed.
After all, it's (often) the very same one, all-knowing god who gives each of these religions and sects contradictory, yet still "the" one true proclamation of his word and the god-approved rules they need to follow.
Ah, god. You're so good at making man- and womankind crazy with your mysterious ways and "gotcha" tricks.
Posted by: Michelle | November 10, 2008 4:09 AM
I pity you fallen-away Catholics, and I pray for you. You see, you are livid about "rights" being taken away from you, but the truth is that you want the "right" to do all the things you know in your hearts that God does not want us to do. You don't see the beauty of the free will God has given us -- the choice we always have to pick the right thing -- and like little kids and pre-teens, you WANT IT NOW, you want to please all the little parts of your body that want pleasure, and don't want to believe that God has a great reward waiting for those who used their free will wisely. Don't talk to me about "rights", when the homo culture (I refuse to use the joyful word "gay" in referring to their way of life) is bent upon destroying marriages, family life, pushing my kids into their filth via "enlightened" teachers, and so on and so on. Again, I say with joy and emphasis, the holy Catholic Faith indeed has all the answers, but those who don't want to grow up, refuse to see the answers, nor study and implement the ways to attain true happiness.
Going back to Professor Myers, what part of the 10 Commandments was it that you decided at one point in your life was "not for you"? Was it adultery? a "second wife"? not wanting to get up for church on Sundays? petty theft? For it was from that point on that you decided to hate the faith, as it wouldn't give you what you wanted. Sure hope you and the other livid people posting comments on this blog look into your hearts, and realize that rejecting God will get you precisely nowhere. Oh my... worse. Might earn you a place you really don't want to go.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 4:09 AM
Indeed almost certainly false.
http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/euler.html
There's also this, which unfortunately I do not have free access to at this time:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2303096
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 4:14 AM
Your question makes no sense as stated.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 4:17 AM
Liar.
Liar.
Liar.
The Ten Commandments say clearly that Saturday is God's holy day, not Sunday, you Sabbath-breaker.
They also say not to bear false witness, you perjurer and liar.
We may go to hell, if there is one. But you'll be there as well.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 4:19 AM
So those who feel that strong desire to marry a same sex partner can do it? If they know they want to marry that person, why shouldn't they?Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 4:19 AM
Is that why Jesus said:
All who came before me are thieves and bandits; but the sheep did not listen to them. (John 10:8)
Or why he repudiated various elements of Mosaic law in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere?
Posted by: Michelle | November 10, 2008 4:21 AM
I forgot one of the main reasons Catholic-bashers ("Catholics" among them) hate the Church: they feel guilty using contraception! Oh, yes -- and there might be an abortion or two in past history. So sad that instead of straightening out their lives, which the Church makes it so simple to do via a heart-felt confession, they decide to speak out in an "enlightened" way -- supporting so many things the Church as a gentle mother reminds us is not healthy for soul or body.
Oh, and to the person who thinks we should despise the Church because of the recent priest/abuse cover-up: These horrible sins of cover-up (never mind the actual sins against the 6th commandment) were huge mistakes (and sins!) in administrative decision-making. It has nothing to do with the Faith, given us by Jesus through His Church. Instead, these were multiple, horrible, INDIVIDUAL sins, but you cannot ridicule a religion that holds the truth high, for us all to follow. We have to pray for those (and punish, as required by law, in certain instances) who do not live by the Faith, but there is absolutely no reason to deride that Faith for the sins of individuals.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 10, 2008 4:22 AM
Nope. I do however see the free will you wish to take away from others.
I can see how successful Catholicism in getting rid of your hatred.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 4:26 AM
This has got to be a poe!Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 10, 2008 4:27 AM
Not so much that as we feel angry that the Church has discouraged condom use in Africa while AIDS has been spreading.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 4:28 AM
I feel guilty when I don't use contraception tbh.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 4:29 AM
"By these words it seems to be indicated that every sinner kindles for himself the flame of his own fire, and is not plunged into some fire which has been already kindled by another, or was in existence before himself."
--Origen, De Principiis (as translated by Rev. Frederick Crombie, D.D.)
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 4:31 AM
Liar.
If the administration of an organization is making huge mistakes, then obviously that organization is rightly condemned.
True.
Since the Catholic Church holds falsehoods high, we therefore can indeed ridicule it.
Posted by: Walton | November 10, 2008 4:31 AM
Wow, this thread has really exploded with posts. And for once I can't be blamed, having only commented a couple of times.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 4:34 AM
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.
Of course, that's one of the many contradictions that the bible is rife with, so of course, anyone can derive anything they want from it.
Posted by: andyo | November 10, 2008 4:34 AM
Uh, Michelle, I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
But now I have no doubt you are a perturbed individual. Just why do you think we need you to "pray for us"? And the "homo" culture? Yeah, you're all about compassion and forgiveness (not that they need forgiving for anything).
Have you actually thought how many of your assertions actually have a base on reality?
Posted by: raven | November 10, 2008 4:37 AM
MIchelle is just mentally ill, crazy. The birth rate of US Catholics is identical to the general population. We are talking 63 million people here.
The vast majority of Catholics long ago decided the church had no business telling them how many children they should have. The priests damn well know this and most of them quietly agree and never say a word. If they made an issue of it, they would lose almost all of their members in a heartbeat. No members, no money and no religion.
Some of my relatives didn't agree with many of the Catholic church's doctrines. They never said a word or felt guilty. They either dropped out calling it superstitious rubbish or joined Protestant churches. Oddly enough, the only one who still goes to Mass is a lesbian married to another woman. Don't ask me to explain that one.
Michelle is undoubtedly a seriously mentally disturbed fruitbat. We see that a lot with the rabid religious fanatics of any sect.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 4:38 AM
Origen was an early proponent of apokatastasis, which later theologians condemned as heretical. Not that you would care about that, I suppose.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 4:40 AM
You were even commended for your post!Posted by: Walton | November 10, 2008 4:52 AM
Michelle:
I forgot one of the main reasons Catholic-bashers ("Catholics" among them) hate the Church: they feel guilty using contraception! Oh, yes -- and there might be an abortion or two in past history.
I don't think this is necessarily the reality of it. Plenty of practising Catholics actually use contraception; no doubt they feel guilty and go to confession, but it doesn't turn them away from the Church.
Rather, I think what turns people away from the Catholic Church is some of its more fossilised and judgmental doctrine. For instance, there have been many Catholics - including a close friend of my family - whose baby sons or daughters have died in infancy and have not been buried in sacred ground, on the basis that they haven't been baptised and therefore were not "saved" at the time of their death. I recognise that this largely depends on the priest, but this idea certainly does have a basis in Catholic teaching (that a person is not "saved" until they undergo the sacrament of baptism, regardless of their innocence).
Not to mention the fact that the prohibition against contraceptives, while largely ignored in the West, is taken seriously in the Third World - with the result that HIV spreads, and many people have more children than they can afford to support, with predictably bad consequences. I understand the Catholic teaching that sex is not for pleasure but for the creation of life, and that's fair enough; but one has to realise that human beings are fallible, and many will inevitably have sex when the Church teaches that they should not - with negative results for society as a whole.
Coming from a liberal Protestant background, I've never been a fan of the "top-down" structure of Catholicism (or, for that matter, of the LDS Church, which is organised in much the same way). Religious beliefs are by their nature individual; it's about having a personal relationship with one's God, not about accepting dogma handed down from a higher authority. It shouldn't be an "all-or-nothing" package.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 10, 2008 4:54 AM
No,no,no, didn't you know, babies are born with an innate sense of feeling guilty for using contraception. It's got nothing at all to do with religious brainwashing.
Seems obvious that if God had wanted us not to feel guilty for using contraception, he would have created males with a detachable condom on their penises.
Posted by: andyo | November 10, 2008 4:57 AM
Walton:
Religious beliefs can be either. The former largely we don't object to (unless you've a very loony individual religion).
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 4:57 AM
Then why do I feel guilt only when not using contraception? Is it because of my secular background?Posted by: Michelle | November 10, 2008 4:58 AM
>>Michelle is undoubtedly a seriously mentally disturbed fruitbat. We see that a lot with the rabid religious fanatics of any sect.
My goodness, have I hit a nerve? a very raw nerve? I said nothing another law-abiding sincere Catholic wouldn't say. How did you get from my few comments, to that amazing psychoanalysis of me?
Our America has been a great country because of her Judeo-Christian principles. Now, she is in a tail-spin because of those who attack these principles. Why am I supposed to sit back and be all kind and gooey and understanding when organizations of anti-J-C-principles want to destroy my children's understanding of God and family, when I know (and anyone who understands history knows) that this tailspin is leading to disaster?
Again, please get this straight -- I and others like me who speak out cannot be labeled as "haters" when what we want is simply for our country to be set back on its feet again, with God at the helm. Tell me why YOU are so full of hate. Please help me to understand where this livid hatred comes from. I do not label you. I do not call you names. So... help me to understand your thought processes.
Posted by: Michelle | November 10, 2008 5:00 AM
(BTW -- what's a "poe"? A compliment, I hope!)
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 10, 2008 5:05 AM
I found this incessant fruitbatism rather disturbing. There's no evidence that fruitbats eat pieces of bread thinking they are eating pieces of the creator of the universe. Cathos are way more loony than fruitbats.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 5:06 AM
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+LawAnd it's not a compliment, it's saying your musings are so insane that we can't tell if you are real or someone doing an over-the-top parody.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 5:07 AM
I'm not full of hate, I don't hate you at all. Tell me why you don't think homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals? Tell me why you think that the precepts of Catholicism should dominate a secular society?Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 5:08 AM
Michelle you claim that we don't know what's in the bible but I say it's you who doesn't know what's in your bible or you are flatly ignoring what is in there.
Moses who is supposed to be a holy man did this:
Exodus 32:28
And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men
Does that sound like a good and loving thing to do to your fellow man?
or how about this:
Hmm let's see what your great savior has to say:
St. Matthew
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter inlaw against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not
worthy of me and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me
Sounds like a very loving savior to me... NOT
Go read your bible!
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 5:10 AM
@Walton
To play Devil's advocate, if it weren't for top-down structured religions, how would you have otherwise come to have your relationship with God and Jesus? The only reason Christianity persists as an idea today is that it has ~1700 years of top-down structures to propagate the meme. How do you resolve those two positions?Posted by: negentropyeater | November 10, 2008 5:14 AM
That's an easy one, duh ! Because you've rejected the love of God.
When you reject it, your soul gets destroyed, which causes your brain to feal guilty for the wrong things, this can even lead to you becoming a socialist or a baby killer.
Posted by: Tristan | November 10, 2008 5:15 AM
Peregrinus quoted:
Man, whoever wrote that seriously missed their calling as a patent attorney.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 5:17 AM
So that explains why I feel compassion towards my fellow man and my desire to live in a harmonious society...Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 10, 2008 5:18 AM
Nope. America was founded as a secular country. Secondly, it turned out to be so "great" because of the Natives' lack of immunity to European diseases. Finally, if it was a Christian country it definitely wouldn't be a Catholic one.
The only person who has suggested anyone to "sit back" was you:
"Cut out the LDS bashing and the Catholic bashing, and try to lead sincere and kind lives. What a difference it would make in our country!"
We did not refer to you as a hater because you want to do (scary as it is). We referred to you as a hater because of this you
1) Used the term "homo"
2) Refused to use the term 'gay' because it was a "joyful word"
3) Referred to their life style as "filth"
Apparently in you mind hating homosexuals doesn't qualify as hate. In ours it does.
Posted by: Walton | November 10, 2008 5:20 AM
Again, please get this straight -- I and others like me who speak out cannot be labeled as "haters" when what we want is simply for our country to be set back on its feet again, with God at the helm. Tell me why YOU are so full of hate. Please help me to understand where this livid hatred comes from. I do not label you. I do not call you names. So... help me to understand your thought processes.
I don't hate Catholicism. I have Catholic friends and relatives. But I do disagree with some of the more dogmatic parts of Catholic doctrine, and I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a monolithic, top-down, centrally-controlled religion. As I said, I think religion should be about finding one's personal beliefs and personal relationship with God, not about blind and unquestioning obedience to a central authority.
when what we want is simply for our country to be set back on its feet again, with God at the helm. - Which God? America is a religiously-diverse country, and different religions have different perspectives on God and different moral and ethical teachings. The point of the much-maligned "separation of church and state" is to ensure that people retain their freedom of conscience, and that no one sectarian viewpoint dominates public policy. America is not a Catholic nation, or a Protestant nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Mormon nation, or a humanist nation. It's a nation for everyone; and so public policy needs to be justified on objective, secular grounds, not simply on the grounds of one particular religious belief.
For instance, to justify banning same-sex marriage, it isn't sufficient to point out that Catholics, Mormons and evangelicals are against it on moral grounds. This is true; and no one is asking Catholic priests or Baptist pastors to bless same-sex weddings. But to justify actually making it illegal - considering that some religious groups, such as the Episcopalians, United Church of Christ and Unitarians, are in favour of gay marriage - you have to show why it's harmful to all Americans, not just those who are opposed to it on religious grounds, for same-sex marriage to be allowed.
As Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom: Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; ... that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry...
God, if He exists, did not choose to impose one religious belief on all His people and force them to follow it via coercion. Neither should the Church, or the temporal powers. Religion should be a personal and free choice; that's the only way it's truly honest. And if someone genuinely doesn't and can't believe in a particular doctrine, no one should force or pressure them to do so. This is the problem I have with the authoritarian structure of Catholicism.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 5:21 AM
Got to love believers. "You are persecuting us because you are stopping us from persecuting others!", the call of oblivious hypocrite.Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 10, 2008 5:22 AM
Quite the opposite. I feel guilty is I don't use contraception when I'm fornicating.
I do quite a lot of fornicating. It's harmless and fun.
And if there were, that would be none of your business.
Confession propagates two immoral premises: 1) that one can be absolved of responsibility for ones wrongdoing vicariously, and 2) that such vicarious redemption is achieved by the torture and murder of another person.
Vapid blather.
No, it's a criminal conspiracy, coordinated at the highest level within the Vatican, which continues to this very day.
There is no more connection between the Jesus and the Roman Catholic Church than there is between Rembrandt and Microsoft.
No, multiple, horrible, individual crimes, enabled by a 150-year cover-up, most recently orchestrated by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, a criminal conspiracy aiding and abetting child-rapists before, after, and during the fact.
The Catholic Church has no regard for truth. If it had, it wouldn't continue to shield child-rapists from the law while pretending to the gullible rubes on their pews that these are "sins of the past". They are crimes, both past and present, and the Church continues to be a vile child-rape enablement mafia.
False. You have no right to mete out punishment of any kind to those who do not live by the insane delusion you call "the Faith". Thankfully, that ended with the last poor bastard you nutters boiled in oil. Priests who rape children, and bishops who conspire to enable those crimes, must be handed over to the civil authorities for prosecution, not whisked away to the Vatican beyond justice.
I deride the institution of the Roman Catholic Church for its institutional failings, and any individuals who support such a blatantly evil, depraved, and immoral institution.
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 5:27 AM
Again, please get this straight -- I and others like me who speak out cannot be labeled as "haters" when what we want is simply for our country to be set back on its feet again, with God at the helm. Tell me why YOU are so full of hate.
Well let's see Michelle maybe it's because God's law says to put to death the following:
adulterers, gays, lesbian, and bisexuals, blasphamy oh this one is especially good it says Leviticus 24:
And he that blasphermeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
Posted by: Walton | November 10, 2008 5:28 AM
To play Devil's advocate, if it weren't for top-down structured religions, how would you have otherwise come to have your relationship with God and Jesus? The only reason Christianity persists as an idea today is that it has ~1700 years of top-down structures to propagate the meme. How do you resolve those two positions?
Firstly, I don't really have a personal relationship with God; I no longer go to church regularly and I have serious doubts about all aspects of the faith. But if one must have any religion, I'm arguing that it should be a personal religion, and that each person should independently choose which doctrines they believe, rather than subordinating their mind to a (fallible, human) central authority. This seems to me to be sheer common sense. That's why I prefer the Protestant concept of the "priesthood of all believers" - each person having a direct line to God, rather than having to rely on what the Church (which at many times in history has been, indisputably, a corrupt institution) tells them. Both Catholicism and the LDS have suffered, at times, from the inevitable disease of an organised institutional religion: it becomes the institution, not the belief, which is important. (Like in Terry Pratchett's Small Gods, where only one of the millions of adherents of the Omnian faith actually believes in Om; all the rest are simply out to retain their own position in the social hierarchy.)
The only reason Christianity persists as an idea today is that it has ~1700 years of top-down structures to propagate the meme. - While it's undoubtedly true that Christianity is strong today in the West because of the Roman Church, and Constantine, and the church's history of temporal power and influence, I don't think it would be a dead religion without that privileged political position. Non-centralised churches do survive and thrive in the "marketplace of ideas"; and there are other religious traditions in the world which have survived without a centralised structure. And, of course, in a country like America with no state religion, the major churches retain their power and influence because they have so many adherents who voluntarily donate their money and time.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 10, 2008 5:30 AM
Well, it must be that those things aren't controlled by the soul. It doesn't control everything, but it's supposed to give you this innate feeling of guilt when using contraception or masturbating yourself or any kind of sexual perversion, or when you don't go to Church and feed on the love of God every Sunday.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 5:36 AM
Michelle, the hate-filled (and in denial about it) troll, much of what needed to be pointed out to you has been done so by the other posters.
However, I have one question: if you were asked to sit in a room full of the children repeatedly raped by the priests who were protected from prosecution by the church hierarchy and explain to them how it is possible for what happened to them if there is a god and he is kind and loving, what would you say to them to reassure them to your god does exist and he loves them and cares for them?
You can defend your church here to us, who already see it for what it is - an evil, bloated, obsolete, corrupt, archaic monstrosity - but what would you say to the people who god's own agents on earth, priests, repeatedly raped and were not punished because they were protected by the church hierarchy?
What would your exact words be?
Posted by: scooter | November 10, 2008 5:39 AM
Emmet at 714: I feel guilty is I don't use contraception when I'm fornicating.
I do quite a lot of fornicating. It's harmless and fun.
That's how I ended up married with two kids. Careful with that sperm, Eugene.
It ended well, so not complaining.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | November 10, 2008 5:47 AM
Michelle #678 says, "...Might earn you a place you really don't want to go."
Is that as bad as being trapped on a planet swarming with superstitious lunatics who keep threatening each other with it?
Posted by: scooter | November 10, 2008 5:47 AM
Michelle
(BTW -- what's a "poe"? A compliment, I hope!)
It describes men with extremely small penises, or not, the joke is ambiguous and permanently shriveled.
Jesus Christ Live on the Radio
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 6:05 AM
#718 Wowbagger-Bravo please take a bow! Brilliant! I wish I'd said that!
As for the two trolls on here go look up the word Dominionism - it's scary!
and one more thing you claim that you don't want homosexual views pushed on your children well we don't want your hate filled bible pushed on ours!
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 6:13 AM
Well I don't feel guilty about any of those. Sweet, my soul is dead yet I still feel compassion for my fellow man. That that those who attribute goodness to the soul!Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | November 10, 2008 6:23 AM
I've never been able to understand this Christian notion of "free will." So, this God person gives us the choice to either do exactly what he says or be tortured forever? What kind of free will is that?
Oh, well. I have already ranted about it, so I'll stop here.
Posted by: Rick R | November 10, 2008 6:23 AM
Michelle @ #654- "Of course, some of you will probably mock this, but do you REALLY want to remain of pre-adolescent mentality all your lives? Cut out the LDS bashing and the Catholic bashing, and try to lead sincere and kind lives. What a difference it would make in our country!"
Of course, some of you will probably mock this, but do you REALLY want to remain of pre-adolescent mentality all your lives? Cut out the FAG bashing and the LYING FOR JESUS, and try to lead sincere and kind lives. What a difference it would make in our country!
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | November 10, 2008 6:25 AM
Damn. I meant to say I have already ranted about it.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | November 10, 2008 6:37 AM
The ontological proof fails because it's based on equivocation. The argument boils down to: perfect thing X exists in my imagination; existence must be an attribute of perfect things X; therefore perfect thing X exists. The failure occurs in the premise; it is simply not true that perfect thing X exists in your imagination. The idea of perfect thing X exists in your imagination, but that is not the same thing. No force of logic can equate "the idea of X exists" with "X exists anywhere other than the world of ideas".
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | November 10, 2008 6:48 AM
Michelle #701 says, "Again, please get this straight -- I and others like me who speak out cannot be labeled as "haters" when what we want is simply for our country to be set back on its feet again, with God at the helm."
I'm so very sorry to bring you the bad news, sweatheart, but our country does not have that provision in it's constitution.
Let me repeat that, since it may look horrendously sacrilegious to your eyes: there is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution of the United States of America that demands, requires or in any way suggests that God must be placed at the helm. There isn't even any mention of a "helm".
Unfortunately, the reason the country is flat on its back in the first place is due in large measure to the veneration of irrational notions and superstitious nonsense by an alarming proportion of its citizens, who are as a result readily manipulated by people who lust for power. Putting "God at the helm" would be equivalent to putting nothing there at all, except that you and I both know who would really be in charge, and it sure wouldn't be your idea of "God". I don't want my country to be consumed by an ignorant and superstitious mob controlled by a power-hungry elite who uses their gullibility to potent advantage. That way ends in disaster for all.
While it's understandable that you may be unable to understand the reaction of those who have respect for the document upon which their country is founded and guided, you can't expect them to be thrilled over the idea that your religion wishes to take over their country. Yes. It's THEIR country too. The folks who want THEIR country to be of the people, by the people and for the people. That, believe it or not, means ALL of them, not just a part of them who think they are special or divinely graced.
It does NOT belong to your idea of "God".
If you would like to see the country get back on its feet, if you sincerely mean that, I suggest you support the proper education and informing of its people and its children. You can start yourself by reading about the history and constitution of your own country. Go and see what the founding fathers had to say. Go to school, or visit a library. Introduce yourself to nature through science. There are vastly more Good Books than you may ever have imagined.
Trust me. It's really and truly a wonderful world out there. All you have to do is seize it for yourself.
As for the "hatred"? Learn to distinguish between "hatred" and "outrage" by looking them up in a dictionary. But when the word "hatred" is leveled against adherents to your precious faith, please understand that there is every historical justification for it. You can read all about it. It's your choice.
That's what is so great about this country: you still have the freedom to form and shape your own mind, despite all of those who would shape it for you. Go ahead, give it a whirl. It's okay to seek honest answers and seek them in earnest. Your idea of God wouldn't object...would He?
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 6:50 AM
I think we've scared Michelle away but if we haven't I have a question for you.
What would you do if one of your children came up and told you that they were a homosexual or gay or horror of horrors a gay atheist?
Just asking.
Posted by: Michelle | November 10, 2008 6:56 AM
Oh my goodness, I am beginning to feel as if some of the posters here might not like me! :-) Listen, I can't scroll up and find and answer every question or comment that was posted regarding my own comments, but one poster's question stands out: What would I say to a room of abused children...etc. etc. My dear sir, without a moment's hesitation I would say exactly what I would say to a roomful of relatives of those murdered in the Holocaust, or to, say, a roomful of children tortured by Commies as happened in the pre-50s: I AM SO SORRY! I AM SO SORRY that evil people did this to you, but let me help you now in whatever way I can, and let's ask God to stay with us and keep us in His grace, AND ask Him to forgive and change the hearts of those who did this to you." I believe in the power of God, I believe that He sent his Son Jesus to show us what to do, and I believe that His church is the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church.
Those who keep bringing up Old Testament directions from God, out of context, also choose to ignore the fact that Jesus came to "make all things new", and has fine-tuned His Father's requirements of us. Those of sincere heart, led by the Catholic Church who has never been wrong in 2000 yrs. of her history IN ALL THINGS PERTAINING TO THE FAITH, know what God wants of them. (My caps are to warn off all those who start bringing in the Galileo history again, for instance. ) Oh yes, and to the one who gave me a "slap" about the Church having no right to punish -- you misunderstood, I WAS referring to abusers, whose sin is publicly outed, having to be turned over to civil authorities. I was not referring to the tragedy of, say, the infamous witch-burnings. (These, again, were big administrative mistakes -- sins -- but they never were dogma of the church.)
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 6:58 AM
Hopefully she'll be better than this mother. (The boy eventually killed himself)Posted by: negentropyeater | November 10, 2008 6:58 AM
Michelle,
as long as you continue to base your ideas on the notion that homosexuality is a choice, a lifestyle, a view, without substantiating any of it, there cannot be any discussion here, you might as well move on.
You are simply refusing to accept all the scientific evidence, purely based on primitive semi-intuitive notions that were deeply implanted in your brain at a young age, notions such as homosexuality goes aganst nature when we clearly know that homosexual behaviour is frequent in nature and beneficial to many species.
So unless you're willing to show some scientific evidence that homosexuality is a choice (and No, sorry, "that's what I've been told and that's what's written in the Bible" does not constitute scientific evidence), there is no basis for any sort of discussion.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 10, 2008 7:00 AM
"Be even ruder to the next pair of white-shirted Mormon missionaries who come to your door. Hey, does anyone know what a Mormon would find heretical? Send me something they find sacred."
Encourage gay ex-mormons to attend a gay Mardi Gris clad only in their magic underwear?
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 7:00 AM
Can anyone tell me how I brought up things out of context when I typed them straight out of the book?
Please examples?
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 7:01 AM
Can you answer why you don't think that homosexuals should have equal rights in a secular society? Why do you think it's okay to persecute homosexuals for simply wanting dignity?
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | November 10, 2008 7:07 AM
That is called a theocracy. Its results are usually not nice, to put it mildly.
Posted by: Pimientita | November 10, 2008 7:11 AM
Not me! I'm a lesbian. Using contraception would just be silly.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 7:16 AM
But god didn't protect them from the priests, his agents on earth, in the first place; why would he start caring now? If he didn't see fit to 'stay with' them and 'keep them in his grace' when they were being sexually abused, what's changed? Did they deserve what happened to them? Do you think they needed to learn a lesson?
And, more importantly, when they realise that the institution of the church not only didn't stop the priests from doing what they were doing but moved them to other areas so they could keep on doing it and avoid prosecution and justice, what if they ask you what you did?
What did you do, Michelle? Did you write to the head of the church in your area, demanding that he intercede to see justice done? Did you write to the Pope and ask him to ensure these evil people were stopped and punished?
If you've read through this post you'll see there are Mormons who are leaving the church because it fostered hatred of gays. They are worthwhile people who stand up for what they believe in. You aren't fit to lick their boots.
If you were even a tenth of a decent human being you'd have stood up and walked out of the church and not returned until they'd found every kid-raping priest and handed him over to the authorities.
But you didn't did you? You proudly admit to being a catholic, and are, as a result, worthless scum who stood by an organisation that not only protected rapists after they acted the first time, but allowed them to go on destroying the lives of children.
You're sorry? Not good enough. Not even close.
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 7:20 AM
Michelle your last name wouldn't be Phelps by any chance?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 10, 2008 7:23 AM
If there was a God, surely he'd have mercy and spare us the febrile censer-swinging cretins stinking up the place with the attar of smouldering stupid.
Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2008 7:24 AM
Michelle: Those of sincere heart, led by the Catholic Church who has never been wrong in 2000 yrs. of her history IN ALL THINGS PERTAINING TO THE FAITH, know what God wants of them. Oh yeah, Catholics know what God wants.
When you've digested that one, there's many, many other instances of doing God's work that I'll be happy to point you to in the long and glorious history of the Church. Can't wait to get to the Spanish Inquisition, me being born in Spain and all.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 10, 2008 7:24 AM
How do you know this? Because the church tells you they've never been wrong?
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 7:26 AM
Nobody expects the Spanish InquisitionPosted by: Malcolm | November 10, 2008 7:29 AM
Some godbot blathering about ontological arguments,
No, I think that the point here is that you can't do better than mathematical argumentation.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 7:33 AM
John Morales,
But Michelle's already explained away all of that - the Albigensians, the Spanish Inquisition, the kid-raping priests etc. - they were all just administrative mistakes. Not really the church's fault at all. Somebody probably just signed the wrong form, or forgot to mail the letter that said 'don't kill all those people' and 'we'd really rather you didn't rape the kids'.
Could happen to anyone. It's in no way an indication that the church is a vile cancer on humanity and living proof that god is either non-existent, incompetent or evil.
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 7:34 AM
Here's another goody tell me who this reminds you of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASW3UCc17AI
Posted by: Malcolm | November 10, 2008 7:36 AM
Michelle is obviously mentally challenged, but at least she advocates prosecuting the pope.
Posted by: Malcolm | November 10, 2008 7:41 AM
Wowbagger,
You have to remember that child-raping priests is all part of the sky fairy's plan.
The sky fairy moves in mysterious ways, and all that.
Posted by: Escuerd | November 10, 2008 7:42 AM
I suggest everyone who wants a laugh (or to take a small amount of money and time from the Mormon cult) request a free copy of the Book of Mormon and/or the "Finding Faith in Christ" DVD from this website: http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/heavenly-father-s-plan-of-salvation/request-a-free-copy-of-the-book-of-mormon?src=tv#d
NOTE: If you give them your phone number, they WILL call you for a while, and if you give them your home address, missionaries will stop by. Consider this before ordering.
Yes, you too can guarantee yourself hours of fun with Mormons by ordering your free copy of the Book of Mormon today.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 7:46 AM
Now there's a headline I'd love to see: 'Pope indicted'. Still, I imagine that wily old bastard has more layers of plausible deniability between him and the actual kid-rapers than tons of gold bullion stashed in the Vatican cellars - for god, of course. Because, you know, he needs it.
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 7:49 AM
#749 No stop your giving me nightmares! The horror!
Posted by: Moses | November 10, 2008 7:49 AM
750 comments. Wow. The Mormons are as bad as the Catholics. And there's a lot less of them... ;)
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 7:51 AM
#752 Moses
The 750 comments are because we have a Catholic Fundie in our midst.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 7:56 AM
Yeah, and in this thread we've heard that there are Mormons who've quit the church because of its support of Prop H8 - I don't recall hearing from any papists who've left the catholic church for similar reasons. Says a lot, doesn't it?
Anyway, I'm off to bed. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2008 8:02 AM
Wowbagger, yeah. Sigh.
No matter how bad Mormons are, they're wusses when it comes to doing God's work.
Still, it's informational to compare historical accounts (don't take my word for it, any decent history book will cover it) with this version:
----
[LETTER OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE MASTER GENERAL OF THE ORDER OF PREACHERS]
[...]
From the outset, one of the first tasks assigned to your Order was the proclamation of the truth of Christ in response to the Albigensian heresy, a new form of the recurrent Manichaean heresy with which Christianity has had to contend from the beginning. At its core there lay the denial of the Incarnation, a refusal to accept that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us, full of grace and truth" (Jn 1:14). To respond to this new form of the old heresy, the Holy Spirit raised up the Order of Preachers, men who would be pre-eminent for their poverty and mobility in the service of the Gospel, who would unceasingly contemplate the truth of the Incarnate Word in prayer and study, and through their preaching and teaching would pass on to others the fruits of that contemplation.
[...]
-----
Or this one:
----
[ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV ON ST. DOMINIC]
The value of this knowledge of Divine things not long after was to be seen in his disputations against the heretics. They were armed with all arts and fallacies to attack the dogmas of Faith; yet with wonderful success he confounded and refuted them. This appeared especially at Toulouse, the head and center of the heresies, where the most learned of the adversaries had come together. It is recorded that he, with his first companions, powerful in word and work, invincibly withstood the insolence of the heretics. Indeed, not only did he withstand their strength, but he so softened their spirits by his eloquence and charity that he recalled an immense number to the bosom of the Church. God Himself was ever at hand to aid him in his battle for the Faith. Thus, having accepted the challenge of the heretics that each should consign his book to the flames, his book alone remained untouched by the fire. Thus by the valor of Dominic Europe was freed from the danger of the Albigensian heresy.
----
(Both links from the Vatican library)
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 8:03 AM
Me too off to bed to get my whole 3 hours of sleep. Yaaaawn.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 10, 2008 8:03 AM
"You should all read this, if you're currently convinced that black turnout is responsible for the prop 8 win for the bigots.
Quick version: exit polls statistically very screwed up; not enough blacks in Cali anyway; easy racist answer to complex question." - Cath
apparently the total sample for that poll was around 1,000 voters.
That's plenty for getting a headline statewide percentage for Obama Vs. McCain.
But the black subsample that was used to arrive at the "70% of blacks voted for Prop 8" was only around 100 people.
With that small a sample your error bars get REAL wide.,
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 10, 2008 8:06 AM
Do you have a link for this?
Posted by: Moses | November 10, 2008 8:07 AM
You're just refusing to take a stand so you can, dishonestly, try to weasel out of your position by "being above it." I say this, because like it or not, when you aren't too chicken-shit to engage honestly, good old monotheistic Jehovah comes clearly through in your arguments and positions. In short, you're really talking about what sort of Abrahamic-cult doctrine you believe in and not existence of the Abrahamic God.
Even though you pretend to be open minded. A very cowardly position and a version of Pascal's wager.
Not that I would expect different from you. You just God-bot with a refreshing level of dishonesty that even the fundies don't possess. And, man, do they possess a lot.
Posted by: Escuerd | November 10, 2008 8:12 AM
Catholics can leave the church more quietly than most Mormons. While the Catholics are certainly goofy in their superstitions, they're less cult-like than the Mormons in that they do less to foster dependence on the church. If a Mormon leaves the church, they're often leaving their whole lives behind. If a Catholic leaves the church, it's usually not as big of a deal.
Also, plenty of Catholics disagree with their church on various issues, but still consider themselves Catholic. Mormons are more likely to be excommunicated if they dissent on anything their church considers important.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 10, 2008 8:19 AM
Which is strange on its own.
Posted by: Moses | November 10, 2008 8:32 AM
You think we haven't seen cut-and-paste warriors before? People, like you, with shallow and self-serving arguments pretending to be above it all while citing philosopher/mathematician arguments that aren't their own? And doing it while you're all ate up with yourself? Seriously, "philosopher kings" like you come and go, a dime a dozen.
So, no matter how much you cut-and-paste and jump the thesaurus (Apprehend? please, antique word usages scream thesaurus) you still don't have an argument. You still don't have proof. You still haven't carried the argument because you have yet to start from zero and put on proof necessary for anyone not already predisposed to being religious (and believing your arguments because they've been brainwashed or lack critical reasoning skills) to get to God.
No matter how clever you think you are by plagiarizing some dead white man blinded by his cultural beliefs and assumptions.
So, take your argument from GROUND ZERO - No God - And build it. And the first problem you need to overcome in your philosophy is the infinite regression first discovered in kindergarten: Who made God? Where did God come from?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 10, 2008 8:42 AM
we Catholics are not perfect; in fact, we admit most readily that we are a "church for sinners", but we try. We try to be kind, to do right - Michelle
Well you're not very good at it. Widespread collaboration with fascism, systematic cover-ups of child rape; homophobic bigotry; and causing millions of deaths from AIDS through barefaced lies about condoms letting the virus through.
Posted by: Michelle | November 10, 2008 8:47 AM
Hi again.
(Phelps? who is that?)
Listen, it was fun for a while, as I thought I had some genuine truth-seekers on this site, but it feels like being lowered into a pit of snakes right now. Is no one genuine? Do you not hear what I'm saying? Those who know our holy Church, have lived within her gentle constraints, are truly looking for God -- they know in which direction to go. They know when evil, masquerading as "demanding rights", is on the doorstep. They know what innocence is, and where twisted logic lies.
Why do some of you keep harping about me and those "like" me, bashing those who just want equal rights? You have got to be kidding. These "rights seekers" are just like an avowed murderer who decides to gather other murderers around him and demand to be treated by the rest of the world with compassion, understanding, love, marriage rights just because he and the bunch of murderers decided they should be lifted up in the eyes of others. (Don't like my word "murderer"? Feel free to substitute adulterer.... rapist... robber.) Those who have homosexual tendencies -- male or female -- have no need to make this public in any way to others, but should recognize this as some cross, some test allowed by God, and strive all their lives to remain pure. Those who want to ACT on homosexual tendencies do not have my approval, and never will, but I am willing to help them to find new situations -- jobs, apartments, other support -- to help them stay away from temptation.
I laughed when one poster taunted me to learn more about science, and about educating children. I have degrees in both, and I am so grateful to God that He gives me daily opportunities to learn so much more. Speaking of degrees, again, I encourage Professor Myers to use his God-given talents to spread goodness, rather than insult God in His Eucharistic presence.
Yes, it's late. Sleep well, young men and women, but I hope you awaken with a fresh resolve to look into bettering your lives and those of others. Again, God is Truth, and His truth is outlined very well by the Church founded by His Son, Jesus.
Posted by: Moses | November 10, 2008 8:47 AM
Yes. Pretty much. I went to "jack Mormon" status. Because of this I rarely talk to my Dad as he's got the Mormon-Death-Cult stick pretty far up his ass. Same with my brother, which surprises me considering the way he lived his life until he had kids...
I have good relationship with my mother. Mostly because she's pretty much gone to jack Mormon status too. OTOH, her support for Bush and the War and the quasi-fascist/theocratic Republican party is a bit of a strain. I just put it down to she's old and she got sucked into Fox News plus 9/11 further messed up her head because, before that, she was (literally) much more moderate and open-minded.
As for all my Mormon "bosom friends." Damn, when I left the Church and the shunning started, all of them but Glen were gone in weeks. The only reason Glen stuck by me is I was his sparring partner. When I dropped Karate, our relationship hit the skids, too.
BTW, evangelicals behave like Mormons, too. They aren't quite as bad. But there's a lot of those cult-like behaviors, too. Which makes me laugh when I hear one of them call Mormon's cultists as I'm thinking "So are you."
Now, if I took myself off the roles... Then the pressure would really start. Mostly now they leave me alone save the occasional Missionaries showing up to re-church me.
Posted by: Jaketoadie | November 10, 2008 8:50 AM
Just thought I would preface this comment with the fact that I am a resident of Utah, and a member of the minority of non mor(m)ons.
I notice that you mentioned BYU. Not only is it sad that you can get expelled for being excommunicated, but I think you have to be a tithe paying mormon to even enroll.
Also, forgoing that bit it apparently isn't that good of a school. A friend of mine has a sister in a local nursing program. She is working with a lady who did all of her pre-med stuff at BYU, including anatomy. It would seem that in BYU you can opt out of the objectionable parts of the anatomy class that involves the genitals if you feel that this will compromise your chastity, or something like that. So this lady in the nursing program was so ill versed in the human anatomy that there has apparently been a number of catheter related problems. Such as: pulling out a tube on one poor guy with it still inflated, another being missing the urethra on one lady by 2 holes, feeding it into the anus instead.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 10, 2008 8:53 AM
re #758 - apparently the sample size was 2,000 or so.
http://www.edrants.com/is-the-african-americanprop-8-exit-poll-connection-viable/
"Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International were the team behind the 2004 polling botch, and this dynamic duo also spearheaded this week's California exit polling. The hard data is not yet available at the Edison/Mitofsky site. But the Associated Press has reported that 2,240 California voters (of these, 765 were absentees interviewed by landline telephone), interviewed in 30 precincts, represented the total number of people that Edison/Mitofsky interviewed. Which means that some percentage of these voters were African-American. Let's give Edison/Mitofsky 50%. That leaves us with a mere 1,120 voters.
A quick jaunt to the California Secretary of State's website reveals that there are 25,423 precincts in California and that 10.5 million people turned out on Tuesday. In other words, Edison/Mitofsky is making a major claim based on 0.11% (a little more than one-tenth of 1%) of the total precincts, and a sample of voters smaller than a crab louse dancing in a thorny thatch of hair. Is this really large enough? Exit polls have proved somewhat accurate in relation to simple binary choices, but I'm wondering if it all turns to bunk when it comes to correlation. Perhaps a legion of statistics experts can help explain why Edison/Mitofsky can get away with this. Because I'm tempted to view this as a strange offshoot of the Bradley effect."
SFgate gives the same figure:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/05/politics/p000704S36.DTL&type=health
Supposedly the poll had a 10% African-American representation - which is a worry in itself because Census stats say California is only 6% black.
A sample size of 230-odd is still going to be pretty unrelibable.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 10, 2008 8:55 AM
Totally.
Thanks for the links.
Posted by: andyo | November 10, 2008 8:59 AM
Michelle,
I don't think someone with any degree in science would think of homosexuality the way you do. I think you have a "degree" in "science". There. Now, what "science" is that?
Also, someone with a science degree wouldn't be so stupid as to come here where many if not most have not only actual degrees in various scientific disciplines, but also do actual research, read papers, and most of all, are not stupid.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 10, 2008 8:59 AM
the Catholic Church who has never been wrong in 2000 yrs. of her history - Michelle
So you approve of the genocide of the Cathars and the burning alive of "heretics", Michelle. You sick fuck.
Posted by: ffrancis | November 10, 2008 9:04 AM
Wowbagger (way back at #613): so is all this really an argument about pinheads? Or between pinheads?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 10, 2008 9:05 AM
Degree in "science"
Oh really? What science?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 10, 2008 9:10 AM
Wait! Jesus in accounting?
He's the son of god? I thought his dad's name was Pedro.
Learn something new every day.
But seriously. Answer my question in #742
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | November 10, 2008 9:11 AM
Except when it taught that it was only right to address God in Latin. And when it taught that he would forgive your sins if you gave the church money. And when...
Oh. Perhaps those things don't pertain to faith.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 10, 2008 9:12 AM
Bad News for Mormons : they're losing followers in the USA !
Oh, their offical numbers still show 6.7 million members in the US (2.3% of the pop.) and positive growth rates.
But Pew research' latest report on the US religious landscape shows that the number of self identified Mormons is much smaller than this, at only 1.7%, and that the number of people entering the faith (0.4% of the pop.) is smaller than the number of people leaving it (0.5% of the pop.).
Source:http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf
And this is of course a complete reversal of the past growth trend of most of the 20th century.
Could it be that the LDS church is tricking the data (by keeping ex-members in their statistics) because admitting that they are losing followers would be the absolute worst heresy for them ?
In 1984, University of Washington sociologist Rodney Stark was astonished to discover that the LDS Church's growth rate from 1940 through 1980 was 53 percent. He estimated that if it continued to grow at a more modest 30 percent, there would be 60 million Mormons by the year 2080.
Well, looks like they're in for some surprise !
Bet you this slow death of the Mormon faith in the US will only accelerate itself in the future.
Sooner rather than later, they'll have reduced to less than 1% of the population, en route towards insignificance.
Posted by: E.V. | November 10, 2008 9:17 AM
Surpriz! Cracker Jacks haz Sienz Degreez!
Posted by: Stephen Wells | November 10, 2008 9:19 AM
Michele, _why_ should homosexuals not act on their sexual desires. If two consenting adults want to engage in any private act, and it's no skin off anyone else's nose, what is the _problem_ and why is it relevant what their genders are? Why can two men play basketball but not Hide the Salami? Why can two women share an icecream but not I-Lick-You-Scream?
Does it make you uncomfortably warm and itchy in the bad place to visualise that? Is that part of your problem? I'm straight, happily married, and I simply Do. Not. Care. how other people choose to have harmless fun. What's so twisted in your head that you can't do the same?
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 10, 2008 9:29 AM
Michelle,
Hi, I'm a gay man. Still wondering how you helping me to find a job or an apartment might help me not to feel sexually attracted to men, and to start liking pussies more than cocks ?
Maybe you can explain how it works, I'm really interested to learn more about this program.
Posted by: Walton | November 10, 2008 9:35 AM
Why can two men play basketball but not Hide the Salami? Why can two women share an icecream but not I-Lick-You-Scream?
Ewww. While I understand the point, did you have to put it in such graphic terms?
(This isn't a remark regarding homosexuality itself; a graphic depiction of straight sexual activities would be equally inappropriate for this forum.)
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | November 10, 2008 9:36 AM
What Michelle (and others) clearly fails to understand is that people has no obligation to follow the precepts of her church by virtue of the very legal provisions that allow her to practice those precepts, and that also protect her from being compelled to, say, pray towards Mecca five times a day.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 10, 2008 9:39 AM
The first obvious flaw in the paper PerigrANUS links to (I'm not saying there are none earlier) is at this point:
A prime number between 100 and 105 is a Platonic object, while
the Statue of Liberty - American sentiment notwithstanding - is not. Proposition (H2)
makes a claim for the nature of God's ontological status that is similar to saying that
numbers are Platonic objects... Hartshorne's argument makes a similar claim for God and there is no
obvious reason to deny such an ontological status to God.
Even if there were "no obvious reason to deny such an ontological status to God", this would be a hole in the argument, since to be convincing it would require proof that God does indeed have the same "ontological status" as the prime between 100 and 105. However, there is an obvious reason, which stems from the use of "possible worlds" ideas. A "possible world", in the only interpretation of that term that will suffice here, a logically possible world, is simply one that can be described without self-contradiction. It is clear that a "world" in which there is no prime number between 100 and 105 cannot be so described. However, no reason whatever has been proposed to believe that a "world without God" cannot be so described. Indeed, many such possible worlds have been described, and the descriptions have not been shown to be self-contradictory. Hence even if Godel's "proof" is indeed logically sound, this does not suffice to show that God, even in the most vapid form, must exist.
More generally, all forms of the ontological argument appear to involve smuggling the conclusion in among the premises. Once this has been done of course a logically sound argument for the existence of God can be constructed. The simplest course, which I recommend to all devotees of the ontological argument, is to make God's existence an explicit premise of your logic. This ensures that no long and complex derivations will be required.
Posted by: KristinMH | November 10, 2008 9:39 AM
Jaketoad @ 766: That is really fucking scary. Remind me never to go to Utah and get sick, OK? A catheter up the ass does not sound like a fun time.
Posted by: Walton | November 10, 2008 9:41 AM
The simplest course, which I recommend to all devotees of the ontological argument, is to make God's existence an explicit premise of your logic.
Which doesn't, of course, get us anywhere at all, since God's existence is not empirically demonstrable (as we've already discussed ad nauseam). So does this make the ontological argument simply a sophisticated exercise in navel-gazing?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 10, 2008 9:42 AM
"premise" in my penultimate sentence should be "axiom".
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 10, 2008 9:46 AM
To add to what Nick has said, it is quite possible in Mathematics to describe internally consistant systems that do not exist in reality. Using such a system to show god exists is a futile exercise as the system is not achored in reality, and thus it is not possible to extrapolate logical conclusions from the constructed to the real world.
Posted by: Walton | November 10, 2008 9:48 AM
In fact, I'm not keen on sterile "God of the philosophers"-type arguments. One can't rationally debate the generic concept of the existence of God; because God, if He exists, is by definition inherent in the functioning of universe itself, and since (by that premise) we can never know what a universe without a God can look like, we cannot evaluate whether God actually exists in this universe.
On a similar level, when a city is destroyed by a storm and the fundamentalists say "It was God's punishment for our sins", there is no way to prove or disprove this statement. One can point out that the storm is explicable through the ordinary laws of nature; but they can reply by claiming that God works through the laws of nature. Which makes divine action indistinguishable from the ordinary operation of material laws - and therefore empirically unknowable.
The only way it would be possible to empirically prove God's existence would be if God actually intervened in a perceptible way in the material universe, in a way that suspended the ordinary laws of nature. Which, of course, Christians believe He did (the parting of the Red Sea, miracles, the Resurrection, etc.) But the historical truth of these claims has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | November 10, 2008 9:49 AM
@779: you think those are graphic terms? They're not. they're euphemisms, and you, having carefully filled in the details _in your own mind_ are now going ewww and blaming me. I find that quite funny really, though my real aim was to see if Michele would freak out.
Posted by: SC | November 10, 2008 9:50 AM
Why can two women share an icecream but not I-Lick-You-Scream?
Never heard that before - made me laugh.
That may be the most appealing description of lesbianism I've ever seen.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 10, 2008 9:51 AM
Oh, and i would just like to say I have made a start on being mean to Mormons.
There is a Mormon Tabarnacle a couple of miles from me, and I normally get them knocking on my door every couple of months. The last time I explained to them I was an atheist, and that I had the decency not to come round to their homes trying to convince them there was no god and I was surprised they lacked the same manners and consideration towards me. They seemed somewhat flumoxed.
Posted by: SteveM | November 10, 2008 9:53 AM
Michelle wrote:
Of course, some of you will probably mock this, but do you REALLY want to remain of pre-adolescent mentality all your lives?
How ironic coming from a fundie Catholic. Religion is based on infantilizing its followers, and the followers wishing to retain the advantages of childhood throughout their lives. The unconditional love of an all powerful parent that will tell them what is right and wrong, will comfort them when they are sad, will protect them when they are scared. Religion represents a denial of adulthood, a retreat from going forth into the world to use ones own brain to reason what is right and wrong, to face one's fears and make one's way in the world. To accept and cling to religion the way Michelle does is to cling to childhood, to retain the pre-adolescent mentality she accuses the atheist of. To reject religion is to become fully adult and mature.
Posted by: SC | November 10, 2008 9:54 AM
Ewww. While I understand the point, did you have to put it in such graphic terms?
Walton, get some professional help. Seriously.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 10, 2008 9:57 AM
Walton@783,
Er, yes, Walton, that was rather my point! Of course, in reality the long and complex derivations are necessary in order to hide the way the conclusion has been smuggled in among the premises. (I'm not accusing those producing ontological arguments for God of deliberate deception - I'm sure they hide this from themselves too.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 10, 2008 10:09 AM
Michelle, if you alleged god is real, you should be able to offer up some physical proof for him/her/it. Something like Moses' burning bush comes to mind. Something that can be examined by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, and found to be of divine origin.
Michelle, believe it or not, you are an atheist. You disbelieve about a thousand gods/godesses except for you Abrahamic god. Guess what, he doesn't exist either. Time to become rational and give up the last god. Then all the logical dissonance of believing falls away. It makes life much easier at the end of the day.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 10, 2008 10:16 AM
That was graphic?
and says who?
Posted by: raven | November 10, 2008 11:36 AM
Michelle is lying. No sincere, sane Catholic would say what she said, not in the USA.
It is not so much a raw nerve as an old story and a commonly boring one. Seriously deranged people who are a danger to themselves at best and a danger to themselves and everyone around them at worst.
The Michelles don't so much make their religion look stupid and evil as much as they show that mental illness is hard to treat.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 10, 2008 11:48 AM
"Hide the salami"? I thought that was what non-frum Jews say when they see the Rabbi walking up the path!
Posted by: Mike G. | November 10, 2008 11:57 AM
Sounds to me like LDS might be on shaky ground legally.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 10, 2008 12:02 PM
Still not convinced. Would love to get a tax lawyer here to explain the 501c3.
Posted by: mas528 | November 10, 2008 12:16 PM
Somewhat pertinent to the discussion.
Doesn't proposition 8 violate the Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
Posted by: MikeM | November 10, 2008 12:26 PM
Too many comments on this thread to read. I have a software install to do today.
But I want to note this: There was a really clear racial divide on Prop 8, and I think we need to discuss this. Why did so many African-Americans vote for 8?
This is an interactive map from the Sacramento Bee that shows voting patterns. Prop 8 failed in my neighborhood 55-45. My neighborhood has no ethnic majorities; the largest ethnic group is probably Chinese-American, but that wouldn't be by a very large margin.
http://www.sacbee.com/1232/rich_media/1355616.html
However, look at the area labeled "South Sacramento." Anyone who lives in this area will tell you that this area is predominantly African-American, and Prop 8 passed there 62-38. Voting data has shown that Latinos voted yes by a small margin, Asians and Whites voted no by slim margins, and African-Americans voted for it, 70-30 (that was the CNN data I saw).
Does anyone have any theories as to how this can be true?
Just for fun, click on the area "Granite Bay." That's the least ethnically diverse, most religious part of the Sacramento area... And it passed 8 by the same margin as South Sacramento. The only common thread I can see: Protestants.
Posted by: Alex | November 10, 2008 12:26 PM
gypsytag @ 571,
I used to go door to door collecting food with the Boy Scouts when I was that age. Please don't abuse these kids, they have no idea what they're doing; a lot of them aren't old enough to know the difference yet. There is a difference between making a point and being cruel. If you want to teach someone a lesson, stick with the adults who are culpable for their actions and don't treat children so unfairly.
Also, you can't assume that "these brats...will grow up to be atheist haters".
Me --> Boy Scout --> Atheist
Not such a good assumption on your part, gypsytag.
Lastly, I am amazed at your lack of cognitive dissonance for wanting to throw bags of shit at people who are collecting food. What's your next best idea, throwing shit at people who trick-or-treat for UNICEF?
Where is your sense of decency?
Posted by: SteveM | November 10, 2008 12:31 PM
@799:
Doesn't proposition 8 violate the Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
I assume you are referring to this part of the Amendment?
Based on the Wikipedia article on the 14th Amendment:
I would say that it does not, since the federal government does not grant marriage as a privilege of national citizenship.
Posted by: CJO | November 10, 2008 12:39 PM
But the historical truth of these claims has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The case for it has never even been made, Walton. It can't be made. You're talking about fairy stories. It's just as vacuous as if you'd said "That Hansel and Gretel acted in self-defense has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt."
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 10, 2008 1:01 PM
their offical numbers still show 6.7 million members in the US (2.3% of the pop.) and positive growth rates.
So, they exaggerate their membership numbers?
Who knew they had so much in common with the Scientologists?
-jcr
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 10, 2008 1:06 PM
New data coming out that suggests that the 70-30% thing was based on incredibly small sample sizes used to determine how African-Americans voted on Prop 8.
There's a link on these threads posted today somewhere. I'll look in bit
Posted by: Anon | November 10, 2008 1:31 PM
Ignorance and hatred is dripping from this board. And it doesn't help when the original author is among the worst of them.
The LDS church has no affiliation with those polygamist sects. Yes, the church used to practice polygamy, but when it was outlawed by the government back in the 19th century, the church complied and gave up the practice. So much for being "out of step with the rest of the country."
There's the liberal persona I know. For being such an open-minded way of thinking, it is shocking (!) how ignorant and closed-minded people who claim to be liberal are. This definition of what it means to be liberal is both ironic and spot-on. The irony: free from bigotry. The spot-on truth: morally unrestrained; licentious. If you don't like something, you mock it. If there isn't a law for it, you petition for it. If you don't get your way, you mock some more. Liberals act like a two-year-old kicking and screaming when they don't get their way.
Can I get an answer to this question: why is same-sex marriage an "equal right"? Just because you may believe homosexuality is okay that doesn't mean you are right. Are homosexuals bad people? Of course they are not. But does that mean the government should recognize their sexuality? In other words, why is same-sex marriage an "equal right" when homosexuals do not have the ability to procreate with each other? Shouldn't a group of people have the ability to do something before they can be considered equals to others who already have the ability? This is where someone will say marriage is the ability, but it's procreation that is the underlying ability and the issue at hand. But in true liberal fashion, you wouldn't ever consider this point of view.
Hate on Mormons, Catholics, and every other theology, but that won't ever make you more right than them. Voting is an equal right and apparently your opinion is in the minority. From a social perspective, this makes you more wrong than right. Sucks to be wrong, doesn't it? Just be happy with the thought you live in a country that allows you to voice your opinion. But please, your childish antics are pathetic and quite degrading to your credibility.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 10, 2008 1:36 PM
Why did so many African-Americans vote for 8?
Is it really fruitful to focus on the race of a voter? Perhaps decades of divisiveness was a factor in in many voters' decision: (IE, "If I'm not one of them, so why should I vote for what they want?)
The long and short of it is, that the voters who passed Prop 8, like those who vote against medical marijuana, and many other matters that the government should have no involvement with in the first place, fail to understand the suffering caused by their choices.
-jcr
Posted by: GuyIncognito | November 10, 2008 1:37 PM
While the privileges and immunities clause might not apply, it has always been my opinion that an honest reading of the Equal Protection clause strongly supports legalizing gay marriage:
"No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Of course, some say that the Equal Protection clause is satisfied because gays are able to marry a heterosexual just like everybody else.
Posted by: MikeM | November 10, 2008 1:43 PM
BDC @805. I agree that there may be some data pointing that way, but in the very limited map I link to, it certainly supports my conclusion.
"South Sacramento" is predominantly African-American; "Downtown Sacramento" is predominantly White/Asian... Of course, that's not a good example, given that "Lavender Heights" is in downtown Sacramento. A better example would be East Sac, which is predominantly white and liberal... And voted against 8.
Using that map, which is limited, concluding that African-American and Protestant voters approved 8 is not hard. Based on area by area votes, it sure looks that way.
I haven't looked at Oakland's or Richmond's numbers. That may be even more telling.
(Orange County, in Socal, voted heavily for McCain and 8.)
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 10, 2008 1:45 PM
Voting is an equal right and apparently your opinion is in the minority
This of course is the great hazard of democracy. This is why our constitution was designed to place several barriers to mob rule, such as dividing the government into three branches, electing the president through the electoral college, and establishing the bill of rights as a barrier to arbitrary legislation.
-jcr
Posted by: CJO | November 10, 2008 1:52 PM
Shouldn't a group of people have the ability to do something before they can be considered equals to others who already have the ability?
Really. I'm sick of this ADA business too. Parapalegics can't walk, so obviously they shouldn't be considered the equals of those who can.
Posted by: khan | November 10, 2008 1:54 PM
So homosexuals should 'remain pure' when even the priests find it impossible?
Posted by: MikeM | November 10, 2008 2:02 PM
Read this comment from a Sacramento area pastor:
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 10, 2008 2:03 PM
What the fuck is it with conservatives and the inability to see an argument through to its conclusion?
You can't advocate for the above and be against sex outside of marriage, since we won't know if someone has the ability to procreate (and therefore deserves to be married) unless they get knocked up/knock someone else up. And if you're equivocating heterosexuality with the ability to procreate, well, you're just grossly ignorant of both biology and the Bible (which mentions several barren heteros, if you're interested in reading it).
Fuck, but you're a stupid, stupid human being. As a public health measure, I suggest you take advantage of full-service gas stations from now on; left to your own devices you're liable to blow up innocents.
And no more lectures about bigotry, you homophobic moron: all they do is demonstrate that you're both an anonymous coward and a hypocrite.
Posted by: West | November 10, 2008 2:04 PM
Is it really fruitful to focus on the race of a voter?
A group that fought hard for it's civil rights turns around and denies it to another group. That's worth at least *some* discussion should the numbers prove out. Or are some groups more equal than others?
Posted by: Czernobog | November 10, 2008 2:06 PM
Anon @ 806:
Should infertile heterosexuals be allowed to marry?
Posted by: Lowell | November 10, 2008 2:07 PM
Maybe in your church procreation is the "underlying ability" justifying marriages. But that is not the basis for civil marriage.
In this country, a marriage is a contractual relationship between two people. They are not required to reproduce. (Or would you deny the right to marry to a heterosexual couple where one or both parties were infertile?)
Posted by: SeanD. | November 10, 2008 2:08 PM
"They never had water hoses shot on them, dogs attacking them," Goudeaux said.
Being beaten to death doesn't count I guess.
Posted by: Czernobog | November 10, 2008 2:15 PM
In addition to the infertility point, what about couples with no intention to have children in the first place? Should they be allowed to marry?
Posted by: CJO | November 10, 2008 2:23 PM
"They never had water hoses shot on them, dogs attacking them," Goudeaux said.
Being beaten to death doesn't count I guess.
No shit. And then there's the Stonewall riots, where fire hoses actually were used, I believe.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 10, 2008 2:24 PM
Voting is an equal right and apparently your opinion is in the minority. From a social perspective, this makes you more wrong than right. - Anon
Wrong, moron. Neither truth nor morality is decided by the casting of votes. It is entirely democratic to be outraged by a majority vote, and work, democratically, to overturn it. That can include protest against and ridicule of those who support it.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 10, 2008 2:29 PM
Sheesh. All this to-do over buttsex. Really, the sticking of a penis into another man's butt. Some day, I'd really like to meet one of those people who honk on about it not being "natural", look him in the eye and ask him, "If that's the case, then why does it feel so good?"
Buttsex. Really, if you are even moderately in control of your actions, you will never have to experience buttsex in your entire life, nor even witness it happening, nor have it affect you in any way. And yet it freaks people like Michelle and Anon out so bad that they have to construct these ridiculous justifications as to why we shouldn't allow it to happen.
Uh oh, I think Walton just fainted.
"The spot-on truth: morally unrestrained; licentious."
You don't have to insult us just because many of us have more fun than you do.
"If you don't like something, you mock it. If there isn't a law for it, you petition for it. If you don't get your way, you mock some more."
Someone prepare another fainting couch for the fatally mocked. Boy, we sure get a lot of delicate constitutions around here. The way they carry on, you'd think they were actually being persecuted in some way.
SC:
"That may be the most appealing description of lesbianism I've ever seen."
More appealing than "Two hot chicks totally making out!"?
Uh oh, I think Walton just fainted again.
Posted by: Matt Hayden | November 10, 2008 2:39 PM
In addition to the infertility point, what about couples with no intention to have children in the first place? Should they be allowed to marry?
That's a really good way of reframing this, because it neatly undermines one of the central arguments against same-sex marriage. If a heterosexual couple elects not to have children, does that invalidate the marriage? Should it be invalidated by statute?
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 10, 2008 2:42 PM
If they hate buttsex, they they SHOULD allow gay marraige; nothin stamps out sex like marraige. Besides, why don't they TRULY protect the sanctity of marraige and stop divorce from happening. Yeah, that would shut them up, cus they can't stop divorce because marraige is already a compete sham.
Posted by: SC | November 10, 2008 2:44 PM
Speaking as a hot chick, yeah. :o
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 10, 2008 2:46 PM
WE DON'T NEED MORE PEOPLE! There's nearly a billion kids to choose from, pick one of them.We no longer neeed to reproduce like rabbits. The world is filled, divine mandate satisfied, so put a cork in it for God's sake!
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 10, 2008 2:54 PM
Athiest can marry; that's a bigger slap in the face to the church than any buttsex! after all, the priests love them some buttsex! But athiests don't even get a disapproval rating for marrying, it's total hypocracy
Posted by: scooter | November 10, 2008 2:56 PM
People should get married by the Church of the Sugbenius, you get to choose how long you want to stay married at the ceremony.
At some of the Devivals, and campouts, there are several one night marriage ceremonies performed.
Gay marriage and three ways are all approved by BoB.
You can also get rubbers with Bob\B's smiling face on them.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | November 10, 2008 2:58 PM
Why should a church be unable to express an advocacy position on a doctrinal teaching? Whether it's a letter, speech, diagram, musical arrangement etc., free speech is constitutionally guaranteed whether you approve of the content or not.
Incidentally, President-elect Obama agrees that marriage is between a man and a woman. Although he opposed Prop. 8. The people have spoken and the irony is that the state may not have passed it had previously disenfranchised minorities not come to the polls to vote for Obama.
Posted by: scrabcake | November 10, 2008 3:02 PM
I grew up in the second reddest county I can find on the election map, and that includes Appalachia.
Some important lessons I learned in Middle School classes include: "Why you should not throw aerosol cans on a backyard trash-fire.", and "people who grow up with a Single Mother can turn out alright sometimes, too. The current president of the Mormon Church has a single mother!" and finally "Don't have gay sex because the doctor will know what you've been up to when you go in to get your bum examined."
Among such gems of wisdom, was that when the Mormons went west to escape persecution in Nauvoo, a group of them took off overland in covered wagons. That's the bunch we know about. Brigham Young and such. Another group decided that it would be better go by boat--south, around the tip of Chile, and back up to California, and then travel East overland. This bunch was called The Water Saints (like a fifties pop band). They landed near San Diego, and quite a few of them decided to stay there and start a community there. That's why there are a lot of Mormons in southern California.
We learned this in Utah History class. Yay Theocracy!
Posted by: Steve_C | November 10, 2008 3:05 PM
No one is saying what the LDS church did was illegal.
We're just saying it was disgusting. We're exercising our free speech right too.
Too fucking bad if they don't want all the ridicule and contempt.
They worked to remove a right that the state and courts had allowed.
Gay marriages don't hurt anyone, especially hypocritical mormons and christians.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 10, 2008 3:06 PM
Pete "well meaning fool" Rooke.
The US contstitution gives freedom of religion by not establishing a state religion. But in turn, the churches are expected to stay out of secular matters, like who to vote for or how to vote on referendum. (Note, if they keep such things internal to their church nobody can do much about it.) This gay marriage vote was a secular matter, since no one was going to require any church to marry anyone against the will of the church. Churches should have stayed out of the matter.
Posted by: Ray | November 10, 2008 3:07 PM
Michelle @654
Your priest's little bit of parlor magic, changing a wafer into... a wafer that hasn't physically changed but is now the flesh of your zombie god? Please! How silly and sad that you believe that. I am happy in my life and can still "snicker and mock" at something so stupid. I have already found peace, real meaning in life and try to lead a sincere and kind life without magic crackers or gods. Try rationality, what a difference it would make in our country!
Cheers,
Ray
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 10, 2008 3:14 PM
Pete "well meaning fool" Rooke. Nerd of Readhead
What evidence do you have that Pete Rooke is well-meaning?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 10, 2008 3:14 PM
Funny thing is I actually might agree with Pete on this in that I'm not sure the 501c3 statutes say anything about supporting particular propositions and no one has sufficiently answered that question for me so far. From reading the information from the IRS I quoted above in post #114 it is not clear to me.
If it is a violation of the 501c3 rules then the reason they can not do it Pete is because they receive tax exempt status. Something that if they'd like to give up, they can talk about whatever it is they want.
However Pete, it is also our right to say what gigantically bigoted assholes the Mormon church as an organization is for holding such viewpoints scripture or not.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | November 10, 2008 3:14 PM
Marriage is a public institution and I was reminded on the radio the other day that this country still remains to the right of center when it comes to values. The church had as much right to their position as the gay issue related charities that advocated against the proposition.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 10, 2008 3:18 PM
Reminded by right wing pundits trying to lessen the blow of the Mandate the election results show going to the other side.
And pete see my comment above. If propositions are not under the 501c3 laws then yes they do have that right. But we have the right to call them on their bigotry.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 10, 2008 3:26 PM
God hates buttsex like he hates puddles of pee around the base of the toilet; that is to say not at all.
If either really were an issue for him, he would have given men better aim.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 10, 2008 3:26 PM
Nick,I the phrase comes from Heinlein. One of his advices in Time Enough for Love, was to always vote, but if you don't know who to vote for, find a "well meaning fool" and vote the other way. If Pete posts here on something, generally the truth is the opposite of what he is espouses. But Pete means well, but he has not grasp of modern life.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 10, 2008 4:10 PM
"The church had as much right to their position as the gay issue related charities that advocated against the proposition."
They're still wrong.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 4:19 PM
So it's okay to hate just as long as God hates them. This is why people strive against religion, because religion is detrimental to secularism. We live in a secular society. Who are you to push your beliefs on others? Oh that's right, you're a Catholic. You love everyone; you just don't want anyone to have a lifestyle out of catholicism. Funny that a cannibal cult is so intolerant of other people's lifestyle choice... too busy feasting on the body of Christ to realise how fucked up their belief system is.Posted by: Rick R | November 10, 2008 4:24 PM
Two things have become abundantly clear after the Prop 8 debacle-
1) Civil rights and equality issues should never be put up for popular vote. This is the wrong arena to fight these issues in. "Is this hatefully maligned group of people equal citizens under the law? Let's see a show of hands."
2) It is WAY too easy to amend the Constitution in some states.
Oh, and 3) Religion is a cesspool of hatred and bigotry. But we knew that already.
Posted by: Michelle (the usual one) | November 10, 2008 4:25 PM
I would like to disassociate myself from the other Michelle jesuskisser here...
I don't wanna pray for you guys since I'm not big on talking to myself and all... S'not personal, guys. I don't hate you. I love you all, really! I just, you know... I prefer not thinking there's some pervert peeker up there listening to my insane words.
Posted by: E.V. | November 10, 2008 4:31 PM
Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 4:32 PM
So infertile couples do not have equal rights because they can't procreate?The reason why it's "equal" is that marriage is a social contract that brings two people together. It's a secular institution in our society and there is no reason why homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals...
Isn't it funny how every Christian who comes on here complaining about ignorance and intolerance then complains about homosexuality.
Posted by: E.V. | November 10, 2008 4:34 PM
Take 2:
Posted by: Stephen Wells | November 10, 2008 4:50 PM
If infertile people can marry, post-menopausal people can marry, and people who use contraception can marry, the fertility "argument" is DOA.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 10, 2008 4:50 PM
"2) It is WAY too easy to amend the Constitution in some states. "
That's the real tragedy of these amendments. Where I live, you need 60% (or was it 66%?) of a public vote to fund a new library, but only 50% to strip rights from people. It's fucked up.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 4:54 PM
I'm sure most of the faithful here probably believe she has the right to stoned to death for being barren, since that'd be in line with the rest of their warped, hateful beliefs.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 4:57 PM
I wrote:
Addendum: because it would always be the woman's fault - the joy of a misogynistic religion - and not the man's. I just about guarantee none of these guys would admit to having substandard swimmers or suffering from 'performance anxiety'.
Posted by: scooter | November 10, 2008 5:08 PM
It's pretty straightforward. Religious institutions are 501 c3.
You CANNOT lobby congress people, take a stand on propositions, get involved in any electoral contributions, or endorse candidates PERIOD.
The sierra club lost their 501 c3 in the sixties by lobbying and conducting mailing in protest of a dam that would have flooded part of the Grand Canyon.
They won the battle but lost their 501 c3, they are now a c4 organization with far less tax benefits.
The feds could use some money right now, anybody know IRS people?
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 5:13 PM
Geez, I guess I'm screwed three times over as far as the Catholics are concerned since 1. I am married to a Mormon 2. I'm an Atheist and 3. I had to have a hysterectomy as a result of fibroid tumors.
Does this mean that my marriage should be dissolved simply because I can't have kids? Or the fact that I don't believe in God and since marriage is a religious institution that automatically qualifies mine to become null and void.
To Pete and Anon,
The people on this board are expressing their outrage at what should've been protected by the constitution in the first place and never to put to vote. Our constitution is supposed to protect the minority from the wims of the majority. Which by the way in case you missed it the majority of people a long time ago used to the think the world was flat. It didn't make them right! So what's next for the hating bigots of the world getting all Atheists marriage dissolved! Or perhaps all the people who are barren should be devoid of there right to marriage on the basis that it will never produce offspring. Where does it end?
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 10, 2008 5:14 PM
A group that fought hard for it's civil rights turns around and denies it to another group.
Ok, this is a big part of the problem I'm talking about. Those votes are cast by individuals. If you claim that they did so because they're black, or some other category you want to hang on them, or that their race creates a particular obligation you don't address the question of why this particular person chose to vote yes on prop. 8.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 10, 2008 5:17 PM
I'm sure most of the faithful here probably believe she has the right to stoned to death for being barren, since that'd be in line with the rest of their warped, hateful beliefs.
I'm not aware of any religion that calls for a woman to be stoned to death for infertility.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 10, 2008 5:19 PM
Our constitution is supposed to protect the minority from the wims of the majority.
I couldn't agree more. In fact, I would say that any system of government of a free society should have as its primary goal, the protection of the individual from the collective.
-jcr
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 5:25 PM
jcr wrote:
What are you saying? Do you mean you don't believe that individuals can be influenced as a group?
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 5:30 PM
By the way I feel inclined to mention since it seems Michelle didn't understand who I was talking about when asked if her last name was Phelps. I'm talking about Fred & Shirley Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. One of their main mantras is "God hates Fags"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3PyoUPcobA
Perhaps she actually knew who I was talking about but instead chose to seem ignorant rather than associate her views with such hate filled individuals. ?
Posted by: bastion | November 10, 2008 5:31 PM
At #419, Maureen Lycaon wrote:
Off-topic, here, but this appeared just today on the BBC site:
Octopuses share 'living ancestor'
I was kind of expecting to read about a group of octopuses engaging in the equivalent of the cannibalistic rite of catholic communion.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 5:36 PM
jcr, #854, wrote:
If you want to be picky, John, note that I included the phrase since that'd be in line with the rest of their warped, hateful beliefs - not that it was ever a policy of a religious group.
That being said, do you think it's really that far-fetched? If there are people who will stone a 13-year-old girl to death for being raped then I have little doubt they could be convinced to do the same if they were assured it was 'god's will'.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 10, 2008 5:40 PM
Wowbagger@856,
Of course he doesn't - it's against his religion.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 10, 2008 5:42 PM
What are you saying? Do you mean you don't believe that individuals can be influenced as a group?
I'm saying that by fixating on groups, you promote collectivist attitudes. EG, "I'm not one of them, so I'll vote against them.
In particular, how do you think it goes over when you tell someone "I believe that you have certain obligations based on the category I've placed you in, never mind that I'm not one of you."?
-jcr
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 5:49 PM
Er, if that person's holding a sign saying 'Yes On 8' and is wearing a cross then I believe I'm going to feel just fine to assume they're there because of their religious affiliations.
If you've read all the posts in this thread you'll see where I applauded the ex-Mormons who left the church because of their disgust for its pro-8 lobbying - praising them for being individuals going against the group.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 10, 2008 6:06 PM
So God hates fags worse than athiests?! Why does god consider procreation at all, it ISN'T necessary. None of this matters at all compared to the rest of the issues that face this country. By forcing it to be a major point of contention, the religious right have stolen from our country; it has made them intellectually dishonest, morally reprehensible, and politically poinsenous.
Posted by: SeanD. | November 10, 2008 6:10 PM
"I'm not aware of any religion that calls for a woman to be stoned to death for infertility."
Anglican? Ah, no...that was beheading.
;-)
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 6:19 PM
"I'm not aware of any religion that calls for a woman to be stoned to death for infertility."
I'm not either but I do know that the bible called for the women who couldn't produce children to present their husbands with their maid servants or basically just any other woman who was around and who they thought could produce children so they could "spread their seed".
I wonder if they would like this part of the bible brought back since they want to bring "God back to the helm". Ugh!
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 10, 2008 6:43 PM
"They never had water hoses shot on them, dogs attacking them,"
Yes and Blacks were never shipped off in mass to concentration camps, gassed and turned into soap and lamp shades.
"My victimhood is more genuine than yours" is about as productive as "My father can beat up your father".
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 10, 2008 6:50 PM
"I wonder if they would like this part of the bible brought back since they want to bring "God back to the helm". Ugh!"
What have you got against traditional marriage?
Next you'll be saying widows shouldn't be compelled to marry their brother-in-law.
Posted by: bastion | November 10, 2008 7:10 PM
At #730, Michelle wrote:
What would I say to a room of abused children...etc. etc. My dear sir, without a moment's hesitation I would say exactly what I would say to a roomful of relatives of those murdered in the Holocaust, or to, say, a roomful of children tortured by Commies as happened in the pre-50s: I AM SO SORRY! I AM SO SORRY that evil people did this to you, but let me help you now in whatever way I can, and let's ask God to stay with us and keep us in His grace, AND ask Him to forgive and change the hearts of those who did this to you." I believe in the power of God,
Yes! I believe in the power of the almighty, all powerful, all knowing, and all loving god, who saw from the beginning of time that you would be raped, did nothing to keep you from being raped, and then protected your rapists though the institution of his holy church.
And don't forget to tell the children: "Please don't ever forget how much god loves you."
Praise the Lord. Amen and alleluia!
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 10, 2008 7:16 PM
Ian, that is a joke right?
Actually seamaiden, the whole religion of islam was started because of Abraham's impatience with his infertile wife, who gave bith at 90 and when Abraham was 100. I'm just iterating the scriptures; they are impossible to believe. No one lived to be that old. but that's a separate issue isn't it?
Posted by: bastion | November 10, 2008 7:20 PM
Maybe I need to give up my atheism and start my own religion.
I'd then write a holy book that would prohibit, by my god's authority, all the things I dislike, and make god-approved all the things I approved of.
Then, I could also go around claiming that I get to tell other people how they should live their lives because my divinely inspired book said so.
Not sure though how crazy my new religion would have to sound to be credible.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 10, 2008 7:22 PM
Yikes Bastion!! unfortunately, it is excactly the "wear the blinders" mentality that pervades christian culture and leads to the injustice and ignorace that exists in america
Posted by: Jeanette | November 10, 2008 7:34 PM
Alex @801 (If you can find this among so many posts: You're reading it out of context. Gypsytag was trying to make exactly those points you mention (and had taken some previous posts too seriously, I think).
Posted by: andyo | November 10, 2008 7:52 PM
So, has Michelle told us yet what kind of science degree she has that tells her the truth about homosexuality?
Posted by: speedwell | November 10, 2008 8:58 PM
Gee, people, I don't often plug my politics around here, but I really think it's an irrefutable fact that groups are made up of individuals, and so-called "group choices" are really individual choices in the aggregate.
If I have something in common with you, it doesn't automatically mean that I will make the same decisions as you. You and I would be extremely offended if anyone told us that they could influence us by influencing a group we belong to, particularly if that group was, say, our race or sex. We reserve the right to make individual choices and to not have people assume in advance we will, say, hold certain opinions or do a certain something because of a group membership. Last I checked, that was called prejudice, and thinking people frowned on it.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 9:08 PM
Or the bandwagon effect. Yes groups are made up of individuals, but there's feedback from groupthink too where people are influenced by what the collective has a general consensus on. By and large our social nature cannot be ignored and looking at groups has some advantages into understanding.Of course on an individual level it's bunk, but we can see general trends based on certain communal ties.
Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2008 9:33 PM
Heh. Why does this bring Matthew 21 to mind?18Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
"He" being Jebus. Tenuous, I know - but hey, vaguer Biblical similes have historically been used to justify nasties. Just sayin'.
Posted by: speedwell | November 10, 2008 9:34 PM
we can see general trends based on certain communal ties.
Granted. But as individuals we can still decide, in principle, whether or not we want to fall in with the group under discussion. I don't think we would disagree on that.
Any scientist knows that it's a gross fallacy to assume that, if it is (for example) 65% likely to find a behavior in a certain group, any randomly selected individual member of the group is going to exhibit that behavior in 65% of the test cases. Something may be true in the general case, but if there is any variation between individuals at all, it can't be relied upon in specific cases.
I run into that superstitious belief regularly on the Internet, and it hacks me off. I'm sure there is a name for it.
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 9:34 PM
#869 Actually Rickroll: Cain's son Lamech had two wives and he was way before Abraham Genesis 4:19
You know I never understood how any of the men in the bible could be considered holy in the least.
Cain killed Abel
Noah turned into a naked drunk after the flood, who cursed his sons to be turned into servants for mearly covering his naked ass up
Lot was a drunk who slept with his two daughters and impregnated both of them while living in a cave after Sodom and Gomorrah
Abraham pimped his wife out as his sister and not just once
and Moses killed an Egyptian
(I could go on and on)
I mean holy crap if these were the best people that their invisible sky God could up with that is really sad!
Posted by: speedwell | November 10, 2008 9:37 PM
Ah, got it... "Ecological fallacy." Didn't know that. Got a sudden urge to Google search based on the string, "generalization individual cases statistically fallacy".
(Sorry, can never remember the HTMLspeak for a link): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 10, 2008 9:56 PM
Speedwell,
If those churches did not attempt to, as a body, prompt or compel their parishioners to vote for Prop 8 and the exit polling data happened to show that they were all (for example) Mormons, and anti-8 people were jumping up and down and protesting Mormon churches and businesses then you'd be correct in your criticism. I think we're being less generalised than that to which you're referring.
If we're talking 'members of a congregation whose faith condemns homosexuality as a monstrous sin and who were exhorted by their church leaders to vote for Prop 8 in order to preserve the god-given sanctity of the marriage of one man and one woman and that anyone who didn't would be angering god' then that's actually a pretty specific group.
Posted by: speedwell | November 10, 2008 10:05 PM
@Wowbagger: Yeah, I admit that if you define your group as "those who can be trusted to do whatever their group leaders tell them to do," then you have a special case where the ecological fallacy does not, by definition, apply.
I'm not here to defend Mormons or Christians, far from it... I was just taken aback that some people were giving another commenter a hard time for saying (essentially) that "group action," when applied to individual people, is a convenient, but not quite accurate, notion.
Posted by: CJO | November 10, 2008 10:08 PM
18 Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry.
19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
Entirely symbolic. The tree is Israel, which has failed to bear fruit in the presence of the lord.
Of course, you may well be right that some misogynistic godbotherer has appealed to the passage as a condemnation of infertility generally; that would just go to show: if it's ignorance of the bible you crave, ask a fundamentalist.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 10:08 PM
Agreed. Again, agreed.But the real application of what I was trying to get out is how those trends can give meaningful data. I'm sure you'd agree that statistically it's likely that someone born into an evangelical christian home is going to grow up condemning abortion and homosexuality. While some may be pro-choice, the 'groupthink' of that particular group has an influence on the thoughts of the individual. It's that in certain social circles we can see influence that deviates away from the national average.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 10, 2008 10:12 PM
Kel 875: "Or the bandwagon effect." Or a Stand Alone Complex lol.
Seamaiden, i get your point. Hey! Cain was the founder of civilization because he( and his incestuous kin) built the first city, Enoch. And it was only Ham that was cursed by Noah (who built the ark at 120 *eyes rolling*, although it was made out of some 'special wood' that is apparently a halluconogin [not that it is spelled correctly]). Yep, David had over 300 wives and ALso concubines, but they make a big deal out of Bethsheba. Nope they weren't good, just Chosen. It's actually hilarious, because most Jews think of it as i kind of "Quarreling Lovers" relationship (the Bible can attest).
There was a whole special on the history channel about how god morphs thorughout the Bible, how originally it was EL, the canaanite father God that they adopted and changed the name. The there was that whole "wrestling with God" episode, then there was the burning Bush - I Am who I AM (aka Mind Your Own Damn Business), then there was that mountaintop miracle which officially discredited the other gods. Until then, the other god's were just as real as Yehway (the serpent in the Garden was the creation god of sourounding nation). Then The Ark vanishes, then God vanishes, then Jesus (who himself wasn't "holy" or the Son of God until Christianity had the upper hand). God is far from unchanging.
Mormons are just a new offshoot of the Catholic Church, RCC 2.0. Baptism is central, many gods- god is not the Creator, but the ascended creation of another god, and that one is too, and so on, endless regression. Very bizarre afterlife structure (which points back to the first thing), different books of the Bible, like the Catholics. Pope figure, oppresion of Black people, political entanglements. I needen't continue, though i could. You see i went to a christian private High School, and Mormonism was a whole week of study(as was catholicism and islam). I have a uniquely informed position on these sorts of things...
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 10, 2008 10:16 PM
i frogot to mention that the plauges of egypt were direct attacks on the deities of the region. Thje river turning to blood, the sun going black (ra), frogs were minor dieties. very provacative after you familiarise yourself with the information; utter nonesense, but cool mythos at any rate
Posted by: INTJ Mom | November 10, 2008 10:20 PM
I'm an ex-Mormon still living in Utah. I don't think targeting Utah in general is going to help anything. It will certainly make life harder for us non-Mormons in Utah. It's pretty recent that the state has started to view tourism as important and wanting to attract tourists has managed to start releasing the Mormon church's grip on the state gov't, albeit slowly. Most of the big tourism places are not run by Mormons. The best thing to do is boycott Mormon owned businesses (anywhere in the US), and not Utah in general. Utah Mormons would not think it strange for someone to ask if their's is a Mormon owned business. There are still some Mormons here who won't knowingly do business with non-Mormons. Down in Utah County (where BYU is located) there was a billboard up last year advertising a website that planned to specifically list Mormon owned businesses on it so that Mormons who want to patronize other Mormon businesses would have a resource to find them. I can't recall the site name now, and I don't know if it ever really got off the ground. The point is that the mindset is there, so take advantage of it instead of hurting all of us non-Mormons who are not bigots.
Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2008 10:22 PM
CJO @882, thanks. I hadn't delved that deeply, but it sure sounds plausible. Certainly, verses 20..22 don't clarify that :)
I merely remember looking it up once as an example of pettiness when replying to someone who subscribed to Sola scriptura, and it stuck in my mind.
Posted by: KristinMH | November 10, 2008 10:25 PM
If we make it to 1000, the thread will achieve self-awareness. Come on, don't quit now!
Posted by: Rick R | November 10, 2008 10:26 PM
On another blog, I found this comment from a guy who lives in Los Angeles-
"They keep saying
on our local news that the Yes on 8 people are going to make
a formal comment sometime this week as to what they think
about the protests that have been going on."
Can any L.A. Pharyngulites confirm this? Please let us know if you hear anything.
In my mind, I'm picturing a group of religious haters all red-faced and indignant because there has been a significant backlash against their bigotry-
"All we did was lie and smear homosexuals so we could dupe innocent voters to take their rights away!! And now they're being MEAN to us!!"
Boo fucking HOO.
Posted by: Rick R | November 10, 2008 11:00 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-spaulding/mormon-and-catholic-churc_b_142364.html
Posted by: pcarini | November 10, 2008 11:09 PM
It'd only take two dedicated trolls. Why do the Catholics come in and shit all over the Mormon bashing threads, anyway?
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 10, 2008 11:26 PM
#884 Rickroll. LOL. I concede to your great wisdom. :)My apologies it was only Ham.
Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2008 11:29 PM
pcarini, Why do the Catholics come in and shit all over the Mormon bashing threads, anyway?Rhetorical, I know, but I'd guess (1) it's about religion (2) there's 1.2 billion Catholics, but only a few million Mormons (3) they've collaborated on Proposition 8. In no particular order.
Posted by: Alex O'Leary | November 11, 2008 12:11 AM
Devout Mormons don't like to talk about the white salamander incident. Read the Wikipedia entry on "Salamander letter" for the details. In short, Mark Hoffman forged a document which depicted Joseph Smith, founder and original prophet of the LDS church, taking advice from a magic white salamander. Hoffman took the letter to Gordon Hinkley, the then-current prophet-seer-revelator of the LDS church. Hinkley authenticated the letter, presumably after praying about it to get guidance from God. Now that the letter had been authenticated by the prophet, Hinkley proceeded to sell the letter. Then things get complicated. Some of Hinkley's customers began to ask uncomfortable questions. Hinkley's solution was to bomb them. Hinkley started building pipe bombs. He was a better forger than bomber. One bomb went off in Hinkley's car. He now serves a life sentence for the first two bombs which killed their intended victims. With the bombings, the salamander letter was revealed to be a forgery.
What's worse? Founding prophet taking advice from a magic white salamander? Or the current prophet (the guy who talks to God) declaring the story to be true?
Now you can make your own magic white salamander. This requires knitting, something which PZ has commented on in the past.
http://www.parody.org/knitting/patterns/white_salamander/index.html
Viewed directly, this appears to be a simple blue and white striped placemat. For those who use discernment to look at the same material from a skewed angle, the white salamander appears.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 12:12 AM
yep, rascism against blacks may yet see a revival because of this. and That is irony per force.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 12:15 AM
Ham actually fits right back into this equation because he was apparently the seec of the negroid populus. the mysteries never cease lol
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 12:19 AM
and no, that's no racial slur. It's caucoid, negriod, and some other -iod that are the three (supposed) racial archetypes in shem, ham, and Japheth. I never knew that Noah was born in Eastern Africa though, what a surprise.
Posted by: Michelle (the Catholic one) | November 11, 2008 12:38 AM
(Chuckle) You really *do* want to know?
I have a B.Sc. in Biochemistry, and later obtained my B.Ed. when I decided to teach. Trust me, you can have scientific interests *and* love the one true God with all your heart. Really wish you would try it. There is absolutely nothing to lose, and everything to gain here and in the next world.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 11, 2008 12:45 AM
She just pulled out Pascal's Wager.
Yawn.
What if you pick the wrong god?
Posted by: John Morales | November 11, 2008 12:50 AM
Michelle the Catholic,
Well, you're religious, and you've made ridiculous statements*, so I don't trust you.But, given that PZ says exactly the same thing, and that it agrees with my own judgement, I accept that claim.
* "Those of sincere heart, led by the Catholic Church who has never been wrong in 2000 yrs. of her history IN ALL THINGS PERTAINING TO THE FAITH, know what God wants of them." You're saying it's not wrong to torture and cruelly murder heretics?
I know you're not consciously doing so, of course not, because you deny and compartmentalise and practice double-think. I pity you.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 11, 2008 12:52 AM
Religion is the sacrifice of sanity on the altar of superstition.
You come here and scream like a madwoman about a piece of bread turning into the body of God, and break the moral code you pretend to hold to by bearing false witness, and you dare to claim that there is nothing to lose by becoming as crazy as you are.
Feh.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 11, 2008 1:06 AM
Thus spake Michelle (the Wackaloon):
Except your integrity.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 11, 2008 1:08 AM
I guess if you don't consider having your kids repeatedly raped by god's agents on earth - and having the church protect them from prosectuion so they could do it to more kids - to be a bad thing then yes, Michelle, you might be right about having 'nothing to lose'.
Oh, I forgot - that was just an administrative mistake, wasn't it, Michelle. Oopsie! Sorry kids, but you're lives are ruined. Don't worry, god still loves you. Honest!
The heart, by the way, is a muscle that pumps blood. It is incapable of emotions. I guess they didn't teach you that in biochemistry.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 1:09 AM
haven't i been over this? Catholics are so old christian; it's all about the mormons now. They are your progeny just like the inquisition, the corruption of europe and the current moral bankruptcy. Besides, science and christianity waved bye bye to each other in Newtons time
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 1:30 AM
The heart as the center of humanity is pagan drivel from ancient egypt. But i guess since the RCC is so STEEped in history, it forgot that there was this thing called the Age
of Enlightenment. what's up with this so-redeemer thing about Mary anyway? and why is Christ still hanging on the cross in your churches?
Posted by: Notagod | November 11, 2008 1:40 AM
The mor(m)ons weren't persecuted without cause:
- The mor(m)ons were trying to impose their beliefs on others.
- They were allowed to settle in certain areas but, they kept trying to encroach on areas they had agreed they wouldn't settle.
- Joe wasn't lynched, he was shot during an escape attempt from jail, the escape attempt was facilitated by other mor(m)on leaders.
- The Mountain Meadows Massacre was ordered in concept although not in specific detail by their god-idea's words (their prophet communicates with and speaks for their god-idea.) The massacre was planned with the intent to blame it on the Indians. Only children too young to remember and talk were to be allowed to live, many children were murdered along with all adults.
Read:
Blood of the Prophets - Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Will Bagley.
They have a myth that it is bad to use their god-idea's "real" name (not sure of the specifics there.)
They aren't suppose to talk about the specifics of their temple marriage ceremony (maybe any temple ceremony.) Which includes a meeting where an elder talks to the couple about acceptable sexual practices. The couple is naked or possibly thinly veiled and should be the first time the couple see each other without clothes on.
They have a ritual they call baptism for the death in which young girls get dunked (backwards) by males. The dead people have no choice about participation. There has been some minor concession to some Jews. That means your name is intended to be used in a mormon death ceremony, to the mor(m)ons it isn't just your name, it is you.
If you read the book mentioned above, with attention to their deceptive mode of operation and tactics, you will have a basic understanding of their current MO and tactics.
They prefer to separate themselves from polygamy officially and state that the current polygamists shouldn't be called mor(m)ons. Operationally, they just don't want any polygamists to talk about it. Also, the polygamists have a legitimate claim to "mor(m)on" because they are living by the original rules, the "official" mor(m)ons are the ones who have broken the god-idea rules.
Within the clan the undies do magic. Officially, to outsiders, the undies are to help them remember their vows...respect...blah, blah, blah.
The book of mor(m)on is the official god-idea book and in practice replaces the bible.
I'll stop there for now.
Suck it, jesus christ!
Posted by: Patricia | November 11, 2008 1:42 AM
So Rickroll - Exactly what are your credentials to quote paganism?
Trot em' out. Let's see what you're made of.
Posted by: John Morales | November 11, 2008 1:51 AM
Patricia, "The heart as the center of humanity is pagan drivel from ancient egypt." probably refers to Ieb, and the the "Weighing of the Heart" using the "feather of Ma'at".
Isn't it pagan, and isn't it drivel from ancient Egypt?
And why would Rickr0ll need credentials to refer to this? I know about it, and I have zero credentials.
Posted by: Kel | November 11, 2008 1:59 AM
If only you could show evidence of the 'one true God'. He's meant to be omnipresent...Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 11, 2008 2:04 AM
#907 Patricia- And it Harm none do as you will.
Blessed Be
They live by the law of three, which is:
The good you do will return to you three times and the bad you do will also return to you three times.
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 11, 2008 2:13 AM
Oh goody, Michelle (the religious one) is back! By the way Michelle I answered your question about who Phelps was on #857
After you check it out maybe you can explain to us with the exception of perhaps picketing funerals how your views are any different from theirs.
and
By the way you never did answer me about what you would do or say to your child if they came and told you they were gay or an atheists or "oh no" a gay atheists?
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 2:26 AM
i don't need credentials patricia, it's common knowledge. They believed man was consisting of four parts (soul, name, body, mind) and that the afterlife was a constant struggle, as you had to traverse the underworld in some sort of unending journey. Tey believed man's heart to be the source of all good and evil, but the brain (like yourself) to be a vestigidal organ. John, you appear to be the resident expert, so i'll leave it to you, and maybe there are some more tendrils of connecting theology between egyptian paganism and Mormonism, I appreciate it
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 11, 2008 2:36 AM
OOps Sorry Patricia that's Wiccan. #910
Posted by: John Morales | November 11, 2008 3:14 AM
Patricia, Rickr0ll - I'm really no expert (though my Google-fu is not weak), but I think it unfair to avoid the opinion and question credentials, when credentials weren't used in the claim.
And, just to provide for quote mining, I linked to a variant of Spell 30 of the Book of the Dead, being an evil atheist and all.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 3:16 AM
Are you all quitting?! there's only 86 more to go (i'm sorry, i just can't help but want to get behind this lol) Come on Patricia, iasked you about your religous beliefs, and i am curious to know about them seriously. So what if i don't but it? don't you still get points for witnessing? Come on, someone else help me out here too lol.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 3:33 AM
come on guys, it Is pretty mean to all attack patricia simply because she is in the wrong place. After all, she is Trying toreconcile her faith with science; doesn't that deserve some props? I'll admit, Catholicism is probly the most difficult denomination to reconcile with the real world, unike others, such as eastern Orthadoxy or Christian Science, so it is not all her fault. You were probly raised catholic weren't you patricia?
Anyway John, could you dig up anything on the net?
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 11, 2008 3:34 AM
I'm not here you go you guys can tell me what you think of the poem I came up with a few days ago.
The Godless Garden
Welcome to the Garden.
There is nothing here to fear.
No talking snakes or demons to whisper in your ear.
Their is no god on high to make his anger known.
The view of sin or fall of man has never been imposed.
Their is no guilt for being born of the human race.
In pride and self assurance the women show their face.
Their is no fear of angering a vengeful jealous god.
Who for this perceived crime would surely have you flogged.
Their is no war to bring about great misery and pain.
For this reason also there's no need for blood to stain.
Let us take the time to great the day with love and understanding
for all the people young and old who've simply lost their bearing.
For it is in reason and scientific knowledge
that we can find our way again to see the truth and follow.
Seamaiden75
Posted by: John Morales | November 11, 2008 4:01 AM
OOT - but since this thread is now senescent, I don't feel too bad about it.
---
Rickr0ll @916, what? I'm guessing you're referring to Michelle the Catholic, because otherwise that makes no sense.
Patricia is my favorite strumpet here, and it's for her to tell you (or not) as she wishes about herself.
---
seamaiden75, I am antipathetic to poetry, which I consider immensely inferior to prose*, so you really don't want my opinion. I've only come across two poets I like: Cuttlefish and Ogden Nash.
* Thus revealing that I'm a Philistine and lack intellect.
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 11, 2008 4:05 AM
Oh well that's ok John. Just trying to come up with something to talk about. No biggie.
Posted by: John Morales | November 11, 2008 4:13 AM
seamaiden75, I'm glad you understand.
One thing stands out (and I think it might be because you've used a spellchecker): Their -> There.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 4:22 AM
Whoops John, you appear to be right. lol oh well. either one is fine for me i guess, anything to put it over 1000 lol. soz particia.
I like a little poetry, but there are too many who do it on this site.It's a little irritating and creepy lol (no offence seamaiden, i liked your lol)in the interest of sport i shall add one too i guess:
Wintering
If time is an illusion, what is this
a word - winter - of cold times and warm hearts
these are the oxymorons that hold us
but is bondage in human time so bad?
It is this time of primal survival
that man forgets the primordial war -
not mytholigical, but animal -
Battle agaist demons with our spirit
Even pagans knew when the spirits dwelt here
thier unnaparent forsifght is quite strange
did they know that our time is a closed circle?
inexorably, beginning meets end
our condemnation is so visable
when the world falls away and seems to die
cheer and joy are adamentally present
an ironic relic of defiance
My forte is essay writing actually. i guess now i am a slightly creeepy annotyng athiest. But i repeat myself (nothing like a little self-depreciation to lift one's spirits).
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 11, 2008 5:12 AM
John-LOL! OH my gosh! Thank you for pointing that out to me. I can't believe I didn't notice it. I guess that just goes to show that sometimes you get so used to reading something the way it should be that you don't notice when it's wrong. I need to go and fix that. Oh and by the way I looked up Ogden Nash and I like him too. So thanks for mentioning it. :)
Rickroll- Sorry wasn't trying to be creepy. LOL. I liked your poem too. Yours is way better than mine but it's something that I came up with as a way to start my blog. I'm extremely new to blogging like a couple of days ago and couldn't think of good way to start it off and that popped into my head so I typed it down. At any rate thanks. :)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 11, 2008 7:51 AM
Hey Mormons
Stop Baptizing Dead Jews
Fucking assholes
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 11, 2008 7:55 AM
No one ever said you couldn't. It's when your religion starts to creep into your science that the problem rears its ignorant blinders wearing head.
Posted by: Mark | November 11, 2008 7:55 AM
There's another controversy going on with the Mormon Church based on their bizarre habit of baptizing dead people into the Mormon religion. The Jews are extremely upset because the Mormons seem to be particularly obsessed with with Baptizing holocaust victims.
http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-baptizing-the-dead,0,6260851.story
With all the bad press they're getting these days, what might happen if an intrepid group of people began very publicly baptizing dead Mormons into a new church based on gay rights, and maybe atheism too!
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 11, 2008 8:05 AM
So when the Mormons say their numbers are growing, they're only counting the LIVE recruits, right?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 11, 2008 8:08 AM
Good point
Posted by: Rob | November 11, 2008 9:26 AM
Have you ever read the Garrett, PI books (Glen Cook)? Gods regularly appear there, and the main character is an atheist. He's even been hired by gods. He figures they stay out of his business, he stays out of theirs.
Posted by: Norman Doering | November 11, 2008 9:36 AM
This will be on my blog soon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa4siqvLRQc&feature=related
Posted by: Lee Picton | November 11, 2008 10:08 AM
Before I forget: It's about time wowbagger was nominated for an OM. I find I pay attention to all of his posts, which are thoughtful, incisive and have a suitable amount of snark.
Posted by: Arthur | November 11, 2008 11:10 AM
Sorry, I didn't read the 930 comments that came before this, but I can think of a few things that Mormons would consider sacrilegious. 1)anything to do with the temple outside of the appropriate Mormon context (you can learn anything you want about the temple ceremonies online) 2)insults (preferably vulgar) directed toward Heavenly Mother (this is God's wife, or perhaps a collective term used to refer to his many wives). There is a reference to Heavenly Mother in one of the church hymns, but most Mormons would say that the scriptures don't talk about her to avoid sacrilegious comments about her. 3)treating the temple garments (the Mormon underwear) with a lack of respect (most Mormons think that the garments shouldn't touch the floor, and when they wear out, you're supposed to cut out the sacred markings and burn them and then you can throw away the rest).
Like many other religious groups, Mormons have a persecution complex, and one problem with a public desecration is that Mormons would see it as an act of Satan (who's trying to destroy the work of God, i.e. the Mormon church), and any perceived persecution against the church strengthens the resolve of people within the church to stay firm in the faith.
Posted by: Arthur | November 11, 2008 11:18 AM
"So when the Mormons say their numbers are growing, they're only counting the LIVE recruits, right?"
Actually, the Mormon church is not growing all that fast. Mormon missionary work tends to push rapid conversion and baptism, and the result is that most people who are baptized and placed on the church rolls end up leaving the church soon afterward. But most do not actually remove their name from the membership list. Although the church claims something like 13 million members worldwide, there are only about 5 or 6 million who actually attend church and would identify themselves as Mormon.
Posted by: karen | November 11, 2008 11:28 AM
#929 Norman Doering, thanks very much for posting that link; it's well worth watching, and one can only hope that at least some "yes on H8" types might give Mr. Olbermann's words serious consideration.
Posted by: INTJ Mom | November 11, 2008 11:55 AM
Arthur, as an ex-Mormon I can answer your question about how they count members. They are like the Catholics, once you get on their rolls, you're there forever regardless of whether you attend, believe, join another church, whatever. The only way to get off their membership rolls is to either be excommunicated or resign your membership. They have this whole hoop jumping process people have to go through to resign.
When they say they have 13 million members worldwide, they are counting everyone they have on their rolls, not just the active and believing members. However, in a press release they acknowledge that all their claimed members aren't active, they claim about 50% are actually active and participating. Other research done by both people inside and outside of the Mormon church puts actual participating membership at about 25-33% of what the Mormons officially claim. I have articles archived below:
http://intjmom.com/docs/religion/Mormon_numbers/sltrib_Mormon_numbers.pdf
http://intjmom.com/docs/religion/Mormon_numbers/sltrib-LDS_worldwide.pdf
http://intjmom.com/docs/religion/Mormon_numbers/sltrib-avewardslosemembers.pdf
http://intjmom.com/docs/religion/Mormon_numbers/sltrib-09012005.pdf
http://intjmom.com/docs/religion/Mormon_numbers/Mormon_statistics.pdf
http://intjmom.com/docs/religion/Mormon_numbers/law_of_harvest.pdf
Please feel free to archive these yourselves and pass them around if you so desire.
Posted by: KristinMH | November 11, 2008 1:09 PM
Arthur @ 932, it's not just Mormons who do that - ever try to get out of being a Catholic? You can only get out via excommunication, and it's a lot harder to get excommunicated than you'd think. You have to physically attack the pope or start your own schismatic sect or desecrate the eucharist in public. Writing a polite letter to your parish priest won't cut it.
I wonder how many of the 2 billion or whatever it is Catholics in the world are actual practicing Catholics - or deconverted like me and almost every other "Catholic" I know.
Posted by: INTJ Mom | November 11, 2008 1:20 PM
#906: I'm an ex-Mormon, I had a temple marriage. There is no talking to the couple about acceptable sexual practices, if someone says this happened, I'd venture they were speaking of the interviews they have to go through with their bishops in order to get a temple recommend for the wedding.
Neither is the couple naked or thinly veiled for the ceremony. The couple has to wear their full temple endowment gear to get married, on top of the bridal dress and the man's white suit. It's very uncomfortable. You've got a robe, green apron, veil (or hat for the men) on top of your garments and either bridal gown or white suit.
You don't meet the wedding officiator until the ceremony starts. You get randomly assigned someone (unless your family has pull and you can request a General Authority). The ceremony itself takes about 2-3 minutes. The ceremony is memorized and said exactly, and there's no ad libbing generally. The sealing rooms are small and only a very few close relatives and/or close friends who have temple recommends can be at the actual ceremony. Everyone else has to wait outside on the temple grounds.
Posted by: John Morales | November 11, 2008 4:04 PM
Rob @928,
I think I've read one (I seem to recall a standard generic fantasy setting). But, how is he an atheist exactly, this hired-by-gods PI? I don't get you, he obviously does not disbelieve their very existence.My point was that, in a reality where deities were, you know, actually and evidently interacting with us, only a fool would be an atheist. In this reality, well...
It's like in those movies, where obviously supernaturall occurrences are happening, and the purported skeptic despite all the evidence maintains her "skepticism". It's just wishful thinking by believers to imagine such.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 4:08 PM
i was kidding seameaide lol. thanks for the praise. i said i liked yours though. Anyway, Norman, that was an awesome video, six stars!
So what you're saying is that Morsec0de, another resident atheist, may also still be catholic? wow. check out his posts at suddenly athiest. It's a hell of a lot easier to keep up with than all these posts on this site (by the way only 64 left!!) yeah, i mean, they are the freindliest religion in terms of what they try to do to people spiritually (they have a database of names that are, or going to be, baptised, and it's in this crazy mountain fortress designed to survive a nuclear attack. Paraniod much?) but that doesn't mean they aren't as reascist or homophobic as any other crazy ass religious institution
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 4:11 PM
my fave by far is douglass Adams. Look up the babel fish. It's just great!
Posted by: Ryan Hayes | November 11, 2008 4:13 PM
Sorry I'm late.
I haven't read the 936 comments on this topic but,
What's with the Utah-thrashing, PZ?
Utah -> Mormon
Mormon -> Utah
This is not true.
I've spent 30 of my 35 years hear in Salt Lake City, and I'm painfully aware of the pervasive Mormon influence in this state. But you're off base lumping us all into an ignorant-sounding stereotype.
There are free-thinking, die-hard-atheist scientists here who are big fans of your blog.
Ouch man.
Sure.
Go ski Colorado.
It leaves more for me.
Posted by: John Morales | November 11, 2008 4:57 PM
Ryan Hayes @939,
If he has, it's not in this post - you're being needlessly defensive. PZ is bashing "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", and "now you've got Salt Lake City trying to turn you into a little Utah" means he considers that it's trying to spread its influence.You yourself just wrote "I'm painfully aware of the pervasive Mormon influence in this state." - are you Utah-thrashing? Because what PZ's written is no worse than what you have.
Posted by: Julia | November 11, 2008 5:32 PM
I have a serious question, if anyone is still listening. Wikipedia says this about interracial marriage:
"Perez petitioned the California Supreme Court for an original Writ of Mandate to compel the issuance of the license. Perez and Davis were both Catholics and wanted to marry in a mass in a Catholic Church. One of their primary arguments was that the Church was willing to marry them, and the state's antimiscegenation law infringed on their right to participate fully in the sacraments of their religion, including the sacrament of matrimony."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp
Couldn't a gay couple do something similar? Find a friendly church willing to marry them, and claim religious oppression when the state refuses to allow it? Does this make any sense, or am I not as clever as I think?
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 5:46 PM
there are such churches out there, i'm sure, and so your argument stands to reason from what i can see. Anyone who brings the matter of gay marraige up to the supreme court will be ultimately asking the same fundamental question as if it were an interracial marraige
Posted by: Timberwoof | November 11, 2008 9:12 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment
I wonder whether getting one all nasty and sweaty while playing hockey is sufficient defilement.
Posted by: Notagod | November 11, 2008 11:25 PM
#935 INTJ Mom,
Well, the person that told me about it was an older gentleman who was married in a mormon temple, I trust him but, then I wasn't at the mormon temple when he was married so can't be sure.
However, as you are surely aware mormons change their god-idea rules from time to time. Being a polygamist was very desirable and at times required to be a "good" mormon.
Another disgusting mormon practice was proclaiming that people with black skin were marked by the mormon god-idea for doing bad things before being born. Then, one day, it was OK for black males to be preisthooders. What is that? The mormon god-idea declared the remaining black people to be the better part of those it had painted black. The mormons still believe white is better than black, its just that blacks aren't as bad now.
Mormons are disgusting and racists, to be a mormon they have to accept that shit as being true or, they are simply living a lie. Well, they are living a lie either way but, the one way they are even worse white mor(m)ons.
Posted by: Rickroll | November 11, 2008 11:25 PM
Hey PZ, can i just make 55 more commenents so i can sleep at night?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 11, 2008 11:34 PM
Rickroll, don't worry about 1000 posts. We hit that and more regularly during Crackergate. No door prizes for the 1000th poster. Stick around if you want. Time for bed for me.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 11:52 PM
Crackergate?
Posted by: ndt | November 12, 2008 2:27 AM
Then you made a big mistake. Prop 8 only applied to the legal institution of marriage, not the divine institution. The state of California does not have any jurisidiction over the divine institution of marriage.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 12, 2008 2:38 AM
on the glass is half empty post, there is much more fruitful discussion of prop 8 actually, as to how it can be sidestepped, how it can be dismantled, ect. So look there ndt (by the way, what's that stand for?)
Posted by: ndt | November 12, 2008 2:56 AM
No - but Muslims who willingly belong to organizations that fund and organize suicide bombings are. Individual Mormons choose to stay member of their church and choose to tithe money that is used for political campaigns like this one.
Posted by: Marie the Bookwyrm | November 12, 2008 3:06 AM
Rickroll @948-- Have you not read the gripping Crackergate Saga? It begins with a Pharyngula post on July 8 titled IT'S A FRACKIN' CRACKER! (Sorry, I don't know how to post a link.) At any rate, it starts with that post, and just grows and grows from there. :)
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 12, 2008 3:13 AM
apparently so marie
Posted by: Norman Doering | November 12, 2008 6:41 AM
President James E. Faust, Second Counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
It will unravel the fabric of human society?
If it's based on God's commandment "as stated in Genesis," then isn't it a violation of the separation of church and state to have any law based on nothing but a religious dictate?
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/11/christian-love-versus-christian.html
Posted by: ndt | November 12, 2008 6:48 AM
One more thought from me before I head home to bed. Of course the anger against the Mormon church is justified. But remember that Prop 8 wouldn't have passed if a majority of California voters hadn't voted for it. They bear the responsibility for it passing.
Posted by: Pimientita | November 12, 2008 10:10 AM
Or how about a proxy blaspheming? Someone could stand in for a dead person and then say " I deny the Holy Spirit."
Dead person's up in heaven about to gouge her eyes out from boredom when all of a sudden - Whooooosh! Straight slide down to the party in hell!
I, for one, would be grateful :)
Posted by: Notagod | November 12, 2008 1:18 PM
Re 954:
The mormon James E Faust is so bushed. He has authority, supposedly, to talk to the mormon sheep but, he's got nothing for "human society". His devil-idea has control only over James E Faust himself. His moroni(c) life-style requires the end of the "human family". If all adults were practicing moronists all life would be in great and elevated danger. Obviously, everyone won't practice "these life-styles". However, if they did it would almost certainly be an overall benefit to the human family and other animal families as well, as the human over population problem would likely be reduced. James E Faust would surely admit, if pressed, that happy healthy families exist when the moronist family is absent.Posted by: kestrien | November 12, 2008 4:20 PM
California has great snow, too! http://www.visitcalifornia.com/snow.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | November 12, 2008 4:49 PM
There will be protests in NYC outside the LDS church near Lincoln Center.
I think that ridicule is the best weapon in this "war". Someone should produce a gay porno about two well-scrubbed, clean-cut Mormon Missionaries who ring a doorbell, only to be answered by some big dude in a skimpy kimono who ends up converting them. The logical title would be "Latter Day Taints".
Posted by: randy | November 12, 2008 8:36 PM
its a good thing that the atheists are so rational in their response to Prop 8:
Prop 8 reaction? Book of Mormon set ablaze on church door step
The Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 11/12/2008 03:14:09 PM MST
LITTLETON, Colo. - A fire outside a Mormon church in Littleton is being investigated as a bias-motivated arson that may have stemmed from the church's position on a gay marriage amendment in California.
Arapahoe County sheriff's deputies responded to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about 7:15 p.m. Tuesday, some three hours after a church member found a burning copy of The Book of Mormon on a door step.
No damage to the church was reported.
The caller who reported the fire told authorities that an LDS regional facilities manager indicated the incident may have been in retaliation to the church's stance on Proposition 8.
The measure passed last week bans same-sex marriage in the California constitution.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | November 12, 2008 8:39 PM
@960,
I see no reason to assume that this was an atheist, except for trolling purposes.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | November 12, 2008 8:44 PM
The Gays in California are up in arms about the reformulation of "marriages" as civil unions - note that this would be a change in name only. They claim it is a human rights issue and liken it to the civil rights struggle. Now the irony is that the African-Americans who ended up passing Prop. 8 would probably not have even voted were it not for Obama.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 13, 2008 4:29 AM
this topic has shown up in two posts now, and i still think the "glass is half empty" is muche better as far as conversation, as much as i want ot see this post hit 1000 comments. By the by, which post was it where you said "people aren't born saying the f word" rooke? finding things on this site is always a hassle.
Posted by: Ryan Hayes | November 14, 2008 9:13 AM
John Morales @ #941:
Point taken, but I think a little defensiveness is warranted.
"now you've got Salt Lake City trying to turn you into a little Utah."
"Forget that ski vacation in Park City; Colorado has great snow, too."
These are statements about Utah--not about Mormons. If you lived in a state where a sizable minority (majority in SLC) was trying to break free of an historical stigma, you'd be a little defensive about thoughtless statements that perpetuated that mis-characterization.
I'm not submitting a tirade here, just a little feedback that PZ risks alienating some of his readers.
Posted by: waldo | November 16, 2008 8:04 PM
i think what is going on here is very sad. The mormons never said they hated gays or anything of that nature. they only stated their feeling on the fact that a marriage should be between a man and a woman thats it. by the way every religion out there believes this way the only difference is that the preachers of those churches dont want to scare off anyone that might put a little money in their pockets. thats right not one person/leader of the mormon church is paid for their services. sounds pretty christ like to me. mormons love all mankind dearly and want nothing but the best for everyone. i guess it takes a real christ like person to protest on sacred grounds of another religion or to bash them in any way possible or to get something of theirs that they think of as being very sacred to them and then destroying it right in front of them. one thought is youve never seen the mormons doing any of this only thing close they've done to these kind of things was making a public statement of where they stood on a subject referring to marriage.
Now why are these gay communities so upset. marriage is thought to be a sacred ceremony where the man and woman make a covenant with God!!!!!!!!!!! How many gays believe in God! im surprised if any do seeing how mainstream churches such as cath. baptists,ext. believe they are going to hell for their life styles. Now get this... Mormons dont believe that. mormons believe those gays will have a chance to correct something they couldnt control here on this earth.. i know all of this probably wont matter to any of you people because you wont look with an open mind and heart, but at least i've done my part to stand up for what i believe in.. yes thats right.. im a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I promise that anyone who will look with an open mind and heart and this church (Gods church) will know the truth in it. God will reveal it to them in personal revelation just like he did with prophets of old. I bear you my testimony that the church is true, joseph smith was a true prophet of God and Thomas S. Monson is true prophet of God. The book of mormon is a true testament of our savior.. it is a history of the people in the americas of the anchient times.. Please i beg of all you dont protest Gods church anymore repent of your wrong doings come unto the gospel and receive your eternal salvation.. these things i say humbly in the name of son Jesus Christ Aman......
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 16, 2008 8:14 PM
waldo, you mor(m)on bigot,
No-one is trying to force any church to marry anyone. We are talking about civil marriage, which brings with it specific legal and administrative benefits. Your scumbag church showed its hate, it doesn't need to state it. Now fuck off.
Posted by: Sastra | November 16, 2008 8:20 PM
waldo #965 wrote:
That's not the point. The Mormon beliefs about what makes a sacred marriage are beliefs that belong in their church. They are not rules for non-Mormons. What you have done is like trying to ban coffee for everyone, because some Mormons think it's wrong to drink it.
Mormons are learning a valuable lesson: if you take your religious belief out of your church, and try to institute them into the wider society -- then you are no longer going to be "left alone." You will be protested. Your doctrines will be ripped apart and shredded by people who don't believe in them -- because you're trying to make those people follow them. You brought them into the light of day, and claimed they were reasonable.
Guess what? No more hiding behind 'faith' and 'respect for religion.' You are now a political group.
Nobody (except other Mormons) cares whether the Mormons will allow gay people to marry. It's not our business if you refuse to allow interracial marriages, or forbid re-marriages, or marriage to someone who isn't Mormon. It's your temple, your rules.
When you try to pass laws that say what not only the government, but other churches can do -- you've stepped out of bounds. Shame on you. Shame.
You persecute others as you were once persecuted yourself. And your chickens are coming home to roost on that.
Posted by: Kel | November 16, 2008 8:20 PM
If that were the case, then non-christians shouldn't be able to get married. Marriage has nothing to do with God unless you impose it there, and by opposiing Gay marriage, you are imposing God onto those who don't want it there.Secular country, secular institution. You are justifying forcing your beliefs on others and rationalising away that you are doing it in their best interests.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 16, 2008 8:24 PM
By the way, waldo, Joseph Smith was a professional conman, Brigham Young a mass murderer, and your church's doctrines are perhaps the most ludicrous pile of shit anyone has ever believed anywhere, Scientology not excluded.
Posted by: Sastra | November 16, 2008 8:42 PM
waldo was probably a drive-by, and may not even have stayed long enough to read the responses.
I can see going to a blog I don't normally read and stopping for a while, throwing an issue around, and eventually leaving, but the sudden gianthuge post hit-and-run makes little sense. Unless poor waldo thinks his "testimony" really is magic, and left fairy-dust in its wake, and who knows but it may someday grow a little fairy? Or, maybe, given the topic, an anti-fairy.
Posted by: Brandi | November 16, 2008 8:44 PM
You don't have to be a Mormon to believe that marriage is a covenant between a man and woman. My southern baptist raised lesbian mom will even admit to this. "Christians" in general should believe this. Face it, it wasn't just Mormon voters that passed Prop 8. Someone lost and when someone is a sore loser they need a scapegoat to punish, and it seems that because the Mormon church was the only "Christian" church that stood up and stated their position on it, they've become the target. Not to worry though. God will deal with the other "Christians" that sat placidly by and watched. I voted for McCain in the election. Could you IMAGINE if myself and others who voted for him became so enraged because the rest of the country didn't see it our way that we started protesting and threatening little old ladies, sending powdery substances to sacred places, and started hate blogs? You live in a democratic society. Face it. When something is put to a vote there is no guarantee it's gonna go your way. But NOTHING excuses violence, intimidation, and my favotire of all- name calling. Calling Mormons polygamists, bigots, idiots, or whatever else does nothing but show the true character of the person slinging the words, and their intelligence or rather lack thereof. Waldo stood up for his beliefs and you called him a bigot. Who's the bigot now Nick?
Posted by: Kel | November 16, 2008 8:57 PM
Of course it wasn't, but them spending $25 million dollars to help it getting defeated was a show of a religious institution meddling in government affairs. That's what the problem is, it's not about scape goating at all.Posted by: Sastra | November 16, 2008 9:13 PM
Brandi #971 wrote:
And when basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitution are curtailed because of narrow, sectarian religious views, then those religious views are no longer private matters of faith. They are now political views -- anti-American political views -- and they're out in secular ground, and open to just criticism. This includes mockery and insults.
What's next? Banning marriage between atheists? It logically follows. Democracy is not about "majority rules" my dear. It is about curtailing the power of the government and the mob, and protecting the rights of the individual. When God is brought into government, then government is given the power of God. Not a good idea.
We have the RIGHT to not be Mormon, or Christian, and follow your beliefs. We don't have to take them seriously -- no matter how sincerely you believe them. Secular Marriage is a covenant between two people, recognized by the state. NOT THE CHURCH's BUSINESS. The Mormon church poured huge amounts of money and time into a political matter. No, they can't sniff and whine about how this is their right. Sure it is. They now have the right to reap what they sow.
Scorn and contempt. And open criticism.
There is a huge difference between violence, intimidating threats of violence, and "name-calling." Don;t think we can't make the distinction. Nick did nothing violent. For crying out loud. You were called names??? Boo-fucking-hoo.
The beliefs waldo stood up for do not stand up to the light of reason. There is an excellent case to be made that Joseph Smith was a con man. Brigham Young did indeed appear to be uncomfortably close to the Mountain Meadow massacres. And the Book of Mormon is a ludicrous farago of nonsense written in a phony-baloney 19th century imitation of King James English, with no historical backing and a great deal of evidence placing it firmly into the New England's burned-over district's version of New Age channelings of ancient spirits from Atlantis.
If you want your religion taken seriously, and made into law for people not in the religion, then it's fair game.
Posted by: Brandi | November 16, 2008 9:26 PM
You must only use checks or credit cards. I'm sure that 'In God We Trust' on money must just piss you off. You live in a country that was founded on religious beliefs, and a right to exercise those beliefs. If not for that it wouldn't be here. You live in a country where a person can cast his or her vote based on what they BELIEVE, regardless of whether they are Baptist, Mormon, Jew, Athiest or whatever.
I'm gonna wager that you've never even read the book of Mormon. Am I right??
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 16, 2008 9:40 PM
Speaking for myself, not for Sastra, yes, it pisses me off. It's a clear example of government establishment of religion. Wrong. Some of the original colonies were, but the USA was founded as an explicitly secular nation. But NOT the right to make others exercise those beliefs if those others do not share them. What don't you get about that?As for the Boof of Mormon, have you read any of this thread?
Posted by: Sastra | November 16, 2008 9:48 PM
Brandi 974 wrote:
The United States was not founded as a church, but as a secular nation for all citizens, whatever they chose to believe (or not believe) about God. The government does not take votes on whether God exists or not, and what God wants, and which churches got God "right." These beliefs are exercised in churches. Religious rules are not imposed on people outside the religion. You should know this already.
Yes, people can cast their vote based on what they believe -- but any laws they vote for are limited by the Constitution. If you believe that it is an abomination against God for black and white to marry, you cannot vote that into law by a popular majority. Constitutional Democracy is not mob rule. It is curtailed.
If I and my friends tried to get "There is no God" on the money, it would be wrong. It would be wrong even if we could be successful. Not because I don't think it's true -- but because the government should not be given the power to endorse any religious viewpoint.
That is where you and I differ, I think. I follow principle. You would object only when the view is not your own. Which is, I suppose, a sort of principle -- but not one you usually endorse.
Yes, you're right. I haven't. I've read a few sections of the book itself, and some scholarly criticism of the book (and some not-so-scholarly ones -- Mark Twain called it "chlorophorm in print" -- which is one reason I haven't waded through as much of it as the Bible.) Serious historians know where to place The Book of Mormon. In a fair fight and level playing field, you're going to lose this one.
If you find things of value in it, then it's probably because human tales share similar themes. And because people usually get what they bring and pout into any text, or church.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 16, 2008 9:50 PM
Well, actually, since it's a lie, it does bother me.
We don't trust in God. Even you, a believer, don't trust in God to give value to money.
You trust in the money itself.
Half wrong, half right. The country was founded on secularism, which specifically means the free exercise of all beliefs and lack of beliefs.
Yes, and they can also cast their vote on whether they hate Baptists, hate Mormons, hate Jews, hate Atheists, or hate anyone who differs from what they think is the "right" religion or behavior or race or appearance. However, the ability to cast that vote does not give them the right to deprive those they hate of rights — which is exactly the agenda of the "Yes on 8" campaign, no matter how they downplayed it or hid it.
And hidden hatred is your agenda as well. May your agenda fail.
Posted by: Kel | November 16, 2008 9:51 PM
Actually the US was founded on the separation of church and state, that the right to exercise those beliefs could only be guaranteed by making sure the state had no role in the church.And as for "In God We Trust" it was only added to the money in the 1950s.
Anyone can vote on what they believe, but the church is barred from interfering in the political process. In this case, the Mormon church broke the separation of church and state by not only taking a stance on a political issue, but fiscally supported it. I've never read the egyptian book of the dead, but if someone came to me spouting that Horus is the virgin birth child of the Sun god, then I'll think they are a nutter. Just like I think that anyone who believes that Jesus was in America is an absolute nutter.Posted by: Wowbagger | November 16, 2008 9:59 PM
Brandi wrote:
Brandi, I'm not very familiar with the bible. Can you please tell me where in the bible marriage is defined specifically as a covenant between a man and a woman?
Posted by: Brandi | November 16, 2008 10:00 PM
Let the Church speak for itself:
SALT LAKE CITY 5 November 2008 COMMENTARY
Since Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot in June of this year, the citizens of California have considered the arguments for and against same-sex marriage. After extensive debate between those of different persuasions, voters have chosen to amend the California State Constitution to state that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Voters in Arizona and Florida took the same course and amended their constitutions to establish that marriage will continue to be between a man and a woman.
Such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life -- family, identity, intimacy and equality -- stirs fervent and deep feelings.
Most likely, the election results for these constitutional amendments will not mean an end to the debate over same-sex marriage in this country.
We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information.
It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage -- a union between a man and a woman.
Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church's opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.
Some, however, have mistakenly asserted that churches should not ever be involved in politics when moral issues are involved. In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society. While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues.
Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.
P.S. Sven I was asking Sastra if he/she had read The Book of Mormon personally. Being able to spout a bunch of nonsense about two prophets and nonsense about the Book doesn't mean one has read it. A person can find that sorta garbage anywhere. And as for the US being founded as a secular nation- what highschool or college history class did you take because someone lied to you.
In any case folks- God Bless you all. When you die and go to the afterlife I hope I'm the one that meets you there and gets to teach you the truth that you so vehemently deny here. Christ loves you very much and one day you're going to know exactely how much. Goodnight.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 16, 2008 10:05 PM
I haven't read the book of Mormon, but I have read essays by ex-Mormons on why they, who had read the book of Mormon, found the book of Mormon to be filled with lies and nonsense.
Such as this:
http://nielsenhayden.com/GodandI.html
The book of Mormon makes empirically false claims about the First Nations; the indigenous inhabitants of the North and South American continents, claiming that they came from the Middle East, despite all of the archaeological evidence against such a claim, and, more recently, the genetic evidence against that claim.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 16, 2008 10:06 PM
Brandi, your imaginary god won't bless us because he doesn't exist. Poor deluded godbot.
Brandi obviously believes in the tyranny of the majority. Time to make her religion the minority, then let them scream to high heaven when their rights are trampled. Payback can be a bitch. Which is why her church has to respect other peoples rights now.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 16, 2008 10:07 PM
Buh-bye, Brandi. Good luck with that whole afterlife thing.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 16, 2008 10:17 PM
Pity the entire proposition and the campaign were utterly dishonest, and based on erroneous information.
And they should therefore pay taxes on the profits they make, just like any organization that tries to change society does.
And that is a lie, plain and simple. If the church were simply opposed to same-sex marriage, then all they had to do was proclaim that the Church would not perform same-sex marriages, and that would be the end of it.
Once they try to get their religious policy made the law of the land, they are acting in utter hostility toward gays and lesbians.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 16, 2008 10:18 PM
They can't decide what Proposition 8 is about. Fuck the LDS church. Buncha kooks.
Posted by: Kel | November 16, 2008 10:19 PM
In the words of the great pharaoh Bender: "Afterlife? If I thought I had to go through a whole other life I'd kill myself right now."Also, why do fundies think that reading holy texts will tell you about their religion? All it does it tell stories, to find out about the people who started Mormonism, the best tool is to use the discipline of history. Reading the book of Mormon will not tell you about that horny old fraud.
Posted by: Sastra | November 16, 2008 10:21 PM
Brandi #980 quoted:
Yes, I'd already read this. And as much as the Churches protest, this issue is NOT about 'the sacred and divine institution of marriage.' Those issues are taken care of in churches, and private forms of spirituality. It's about secular marriage, and the separation of church and state.
Violence and force are wrong -- they're criminal. But if the churches think that this means they can't be "vilified" they're out of luck.
I don't think they quite realize what they've done. This wasn't even a matter of trying to legalize gay marriage. Gay marriage WAS legal -- and they took it away. There's a psychological difference, there. Loving couples who planned on making lifetime marriage commitments had to cancel. It's the difference between your boyfriend not asking you to marry him, and your boyfriend leaving you are the altar, in your wedding dress.
People are pissed. And rightfully so. And they've got the Constitution, and principle, and freedom, and love, on their side.
You will lose. It is only a matter of time. You cannot fight all of them.
Sorry, but this apologetic speech -- and your arguments -- suck. They fail. Welcome to the real world, where people aren't desperately bending over backwards trying to squeeze some sort of sense and meaning out of absurdities they want to believe in, that they make allowances. No "erroneous information?" Coming from the Mormon Church, that is ironic. They're wide open.
Posted by: Patricia | November 16, 2008 10:28 PM
I have the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Bible, the Gnostic Gospels, Lady Cottington's Book of Pressed Fairies, and enough pagan books to choke ten Clydesdale's - so if anyone needs a look up - my home library is pretty good.
The Book of Mormon is here somewhere.... wanders off... Koran... damned House Elves...
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 16, 2008 10:30 PM
No. Someone lied to you.
This is what Christian laws looked like in the Americas:
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 16, 2008 10:42 PM
The best way to understand the blatant hatred of the church toward gays and lesbians is to substitute other expressions for 'same-sex marriage' and seeing what you get.
For example:
'The Church's opposition to protection under the law neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians'
or
'The Church's opposition to equal pay for equal work neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians'
or
'The Church's opposition to right to food and shelter neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians'
Your church's bigotry and hostility are plain to see; its actions have illustrated that. You and your people hate gays and consider them second class citizens, and you think you should be allowed to persecute them and treat them differently because your nonsensical, made-up religion says so.
Why do you keep denying it?
Posted by: Patricia | November 16, 2008 10:42 PM
If you want to know the true skinny on that old fraud Joseph Smith, there is an older book by, I think, Fawn Brodie (from memory) called 'No Man Knows My History'. I recommend it highly. Your local library should have it.
While I laugh at Mormons for their bullshit theology, I do thank them for the Family History Library in Temple Square, in Salt Lake City. I've made three journey's there, and every time I was treated well, and learned much.
Posted by: Kel | November 16, 2008 10:45 PM
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." - Thomas Jefferson
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. - Treaty of Tripoli
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - US Constitution
Yep, not secular. *roll*
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 16, 2008 10:49 PM
I don't know who these guys Jefferson, Constitution, and Treaty are, but they're lying to you.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 16, 2008 10:56 PM
I would like to know how it would infringe on the "tranditional family".
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 16, 2008 11:06 PM
Apparently, teh gays make baby jesus cry, and if you believe in him you have to listen to the little prick bawl.
Posted by: Patricia | November 16, 2008 11:07 PM
Hold it - gawd does hate the lesbians.
Go to Romans 1:26 - For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
And in the next verse gawd has a go at the men -
Romans 1:27 - And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
To get the full flavor of this bullshit read all of Romans 1:21-32.
Posted by: Sastra | November 16, 2008 11:19 PM
I used to read the personal accounts of deconversion at "Recovery From Mormonism," and found them addictively fascinating (the top link where it says Index of Stories Ex-Mormon)
http://www.exmormon.org/
It wasn't so much the information on LDS itself that drew me (I know few Mormons, and like the ones I do know), as it was the insight it gave into how people believe a religion -- and how they think their way out of it. It's like examining faith as an anthropologist on field study.
This isn't a propaganda site for "true Christianity" -- the former Mormons end up in different places, spiritually, including atheism -- and there's a lot of positive things said about the Church, along with the negative. The personal narratives are sometimes painstaking and painful in their discussion of the process of reasoning that goes on -- and what they have to give up, emotionally and intellectually -- and in some cases, family-wise. It's also curious to note what their reasons are for stopping the rationalizing process at a particular point, if they do.
I picked up a fair amount of info on specific problems with doctrine, but it was the psychological angle that really interested me. Mormonism is more clearly falsifiable than many religions -- but the mindset is probably similar with other churches. And there's a lot of variation, even though it's supposed to be the same religion.
It's one of the sites I go to when I want to sit back and just read something interesting.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 16, 2008 11:24 PM
Ugh, do I have to? Can't I read something fun instead? I borrowed David Attenborough's autobiography Life on Air from the library; I guarantee that's going to be a lot more useful and interesting. And it's got pictures!
Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008 12:30 AM
Wowbagger - Nope you don't have to read another word of it - I post the entire set of verses so that loons like Pilty or Fool can't say I took the scripture out of context.
Also, sometimes it helps to be armed with the verses when christian terrorists show up at your door. They never expect you to know the verses that they don't - and trust me, they don't.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 12:30 AM
But note the reverse of cause and effect: First God doesn't like them so he punishes them by making them go "against nature".
And does "against nature" mean lesbianism?
Maybe it just means that they wanted to be on top instead of on bottom. Or try something a little different.
"Aaagh! You want to do it like that? And with those? And over there? That's against nature!!!!!"
Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008 12:35 AM
Aww, and there you have it Owlmirror - we go right back to Lilith.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 12:36 AM
1000!
"But honey, I have no free will in the matter — God is making me go against nature. We can't fight against God forcing us to do this horrible, unnatural business."
"Oh, well, when you put it that way... Can't fight against God, now can we?"
"Nope. Teehee!"
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 17, 2008 12:51 AM
Yeah, I get all giggly when some moron troll shows up and makes stupid claims about no-one here having read the bible - all I have to do is count down the minutes until you or one of the other learned deconverts shows up and hands them their ass on a platter.
Funnily enough, though, despite my minimal exposure to scripture I'm often surprised to find I know more of it than quite a few so-called christians.
I don't seem to be bothered by the Door Knockers for Jebus where I am. The Avon lady showed up today - and boy, was she presented with a sight since i'm home sick today and I'm sure I look it; I've got crazy hair, bloodshot eyes and look about as good as I feel.
Funnily enough she didn't try to sell me anything.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 12:59 AM
Now there's another whole can of worms there. Pseudo-religion or pyramid scheme?Posted by: Wowbagger | November 17, 2008 1:06 AM
Probably less so than Amway, if that even still exists.
Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008 1:11 AM
Wowbagger - I'm sorry to hear that you are sick. I'm dealing with the cracked right elbow. Hurts like hell.
I also find it amusing that the faithful think that we deconverts don't know the bible. I'm sort of naughty in that regard. I dare them to bring it on.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 1:17 AM
Amway is so bad, I can't believe my Mum used to be involved with them. Though I can't remember if it was her directly or buying products off friends who were part of Amway. Very creepy cult that one.
What I find amusing is that the faithful think that knowing the bible is actually important. Unless you are arguing theology, I can't think of a higher source of irrelevance for anything.Posted by: Wowbagger | November 17, 2008 1:30 AM
Yeah, it's all very circular - they want to use a book written by people who share their beliefs, about events that support the premise that their beliefs are valid, as an argument.
Problem (for them) is that it doesn't take more than a cursory glance at it to start finding the flaws - the first thing I wondered about was why a god who's supposedly kind and loving would throw Adam and Eve out of Eden just for eating fruit. Overreact much?
Thanks. Hope you get better soon too.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 17, 2008 1:38 AM
I don't think I've ever seen Sastra swear before. Reap the whirlwind, homophobic assholes.
"What I find amusing is that the faithful think that knowing the bible is actually important."
Sheesh, tell me about it. I never tell people to read Lord of the Flies with an "open heart" or any of that nonsense, and I happen to think it's a pretty good book, and one you can learn from.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 1:40 AM
Not just throwing them out, not just cursing them, but also cursing all of their descendants and the earth itself.
When God ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 17, 2008 1:51 AM
There is nothing that same sex marraiges could do to "traditional family values" that Christians (and Neocatholics) haven't already done. They might even be better suited for it, and that is what i think is the crux of it all. They don't want to be shown up by the people the assume to be superior to. In all likelyhood, it could be attached to the movement away from the Bible and religion in general, and they are afraid of losing the power that they have wielded for sooo long, as a community.
What get's me Wowbagger is Genesis ch. 11 (Tower of Babel), where God clearly shows his fear of the human race, or of being abandoned, at least. And what would God truly lose if no one believed in him? i think that is another very important thing to ask a christian: What freakin' difference could it possibly make that God would overreact and burn you in hellfire for all eternity? He never loses, and at that, he's a sore loser. Although you would never hear of this in the OT, because the concept of an afterlife was rough at best and the eternality of the human soul wasn't hammered out until Plato came along, right? That would explain the proponderance of heinous things in the Old Testament, if you assume that there isn't essentially an afterlife, which means for God, "use it or lose it.""
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 1:52 AM
It just doesn't make sense. The bible (or the book of mormon) is not a psychology or sociology book. All you can do is learn theology, and really what good does that do? It seems you learn theology for the sole purpose of telling others that don't know theology as well as you that they are going to hell.If you want to argue theology, it helps to be an expert. But really it's nothing more than literary knowledge. I'd consider a biblical scholar to be roughly on the same authoritative stance as a Middle-Earth scholar. Sure you can argue what the allegory of Gollum biting the ring off Frodo's finger and falling into Mount Doom means, and an expert could probably rip you apart on it if you hadn't spent time reading the appendicies, unfinished tales of middle earth, the salmarillion, etc. But in the end, you are just arguing about the motivations of fictional characters. At least the middle-earth scholars don't delude themselves into thinking that they have divine insight into the universe...
Posted by: RickrOll | November 17, 2008 1:55 AM
OMG 1012 (clitches chest, falls over)!!!!!
Posted by: RickrOll | November 17, 2008 1:58 AM
"clitches".....why,whywywhywhywhywhy
WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY!!!!
Don't i preview beforehand? *slaps self*
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 2:07 AM
I really should turn that into a blog post.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 17, 2008 2:19 AM
The irony behind the parallels in Middle Earth (if that's what it's really called, i've Read the Samarillion and so now am completely confused) and reality is that Music is the creation of the World; i hope that C.S.Lewis didn't come out with the Magicians Nephew before then, because That would be tragic, having to borrow that same meme from a "B" book writer would be very detrimental i feel to the story. But i digress. The irony is that Lucifer is the god of Music (demigod, whatever), and so all this talk of musical beginnings ultimately hearkens back to the idea that evil is necessary and, in fact, beautiful. Nonewithstanding is the fact that without Satan, God has virually no purpose. Eerie how the pieces fit together sometimes.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 17, 2008 2:42 AM
Likewise. But it's where the religious blind-spot comes in; they can't see that it's just another book - despite the numerous logical flaws, the historical inaccuracies, the gross injustices and the flat-out loony tunes occurrences they still believe it's a work of divine origin; the wisdom of a kind, loving, all-powerful, benevolent deity passed down to his people.
The biggest quandary for me about christians is which group is worse - those who claim to believe despite having absolutely no idea about what the bible says, or those who know it intimately and who engage in such complicated mental gymnastics so they don't have to admit that it can't possibly be what they claim it to be.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 17, 2008 3:04 AM
i would have to say the first group Wowbagger, for the reason that intelligent apologists and theologans won't butt heads with science as much, and will slowly be outmoded. The cognizant tightrope double-think often is enough to keep them from making an impression on even their fellow believers (R.C.Sproul for 1 abhors the anti-intellectual environment of the various denominations), so they aren't really making any difference. Like the smart McCain supporters in California who didn't vote because they knew that it was actually Damaging to thier candidate if they did vote. Well, the idiots are the ones who oppose science and intellectualism; the ignorant morons that never looked into the Problem of Evil, the many conflicting perspectives of the Gospels, and the putrid mess that is the Old Testament.
However, in more general matters, their votes count as much as anyone elses. their overwelming numbers make up for the fact that there is no benifiting anyone should they succeed in what they do, which is how they keep this country from moving forward with the rest of the world. In short, the smarter Christians gain little by sharing an allegiance with the idiots. Even if they do get to keep thier pet delusion. The Double-thinker's half at least half a brain in reality.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 3:08 AM
And I think "John Knight" and shudder.
Posted by: John Morales | November 17, 2008 3:21 AM
RickrOll, when waxing lyrical, you might consider using paragraphs to help your readers.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 17, 2008 3:48 AM
i do. but if you insist i chop it finer, i will.
i like big paragraphs, i must confess.
They feel nice and are satisfying to look at.
So
There
You
Are. :P
Posted by: RickrOll | November 17, 2008 3:52 AM
I've been insulted and complimented at the same time. Bravo John. And a big thanks to all who took the ever-shortening time of their lives to read my slop. Only 993 to go, by my estimates.
Posted by: John Morales | November 17, 2008 4:19 AM
OOT
Not insulted - though your enthusiasm approaches Walton's eanestness...In another thread, and elsewhere, you've asked how to use HTML tags; look them up, or (hint) view the source to if you wish to delve into the arcana.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 17, 2008 4:32 AM
Owlmirror wrote:
Posted by: RickrOll | November 17, 2008 4:49 AM
Not insulted - though your enthusiasm approaches Walton's earnestness...
OK, are you SURE you're not insulting me? lol, i kid Walton.
let's give this a shot:
(note: this, assuming it works, adds literally nothing to the conversation, but it would make my life that much simpler)
Posted by: RickrOll | November 17, 2008 4:53 AM
Posted by: John Morales | November 17, 2008 5:10 AM
OOT
RickrOll, we're abusing PZ's leniency, so after this hint I'll cease the topic.
In #1026, you have an invalid URL field (in the quotes).
'Tis best to use the comment "preview" to test things; no need to actually post. Test away, but cancel out unless you have a valid comment.
Be aware preview processes the input of the combox, so copy it all before previewing just in case, and repaste iteratively until you grok it.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 7:26 AM
What a pathetic fuck. Mr "You all hate God and people who try to honor God", the idiot had no clue. Oh look there's a problem with induction, therefore Jesus rose from the grave on the 3rd day.Posted by: waldo | November 17, 2008 8:54 AM
i just want to point something out im not trying to argue with anyone or push my beliefs on anyone. it just hurts to have people act the way their acting towards my religion for no reason.. our church actually has no problem with a union of two people of same sex. they just dont believe that marriage is something that should be given because of its covenent to god and like brandi said even her Gay mother beleives thats what marriage is.. so take your unions and drop it. but before i go i have one question. how many of you are Gay or have someone very dear to you that is gay. maybe that would explain some of your hatred your showing here.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 9:14 AM
waldo,
Look you lying scum, why isn't your church opposing all civil marriages, which are explicitly not "covenants to god". You are a hypocritical, homophobic shitbag, like your co-religionists. My sexual preferences and those of my family and friends are none of your damned business. Now FUCK OFF.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 9:25 AM
Waldo, there is nothing in Gay Marriage that requires a church to perform the ceremony against their wishes. Nor does a church have to recognize the civil ceremony if they don't recognize it for heterosexuals. It is a non-issue. Now try to explain why your religion deserves presidence over any other out there. It doesn't. It should just keep its mouth shut on initiatives, and the people decide without your church spewing false witness, which last I knew was a sin.
Posted by: Sastra | November 17, 2008 9:27 AM
waldo #1029 wrote:
We have been trying to explain to you that we do have a reason. Our reason is that you're intruding Mormon beliefs on "what marriage is supposed to be" into non-Mormon ground, and trying to define legal marriage for everyone.
Earlier I made an analogy with drinking coffee. Many Mormons think it is wrong to drink coffee. That is their right. But if they started trying to ban coffee shops across America, so that nobody could drink coffee -- Catholics, atheists, pagans, Jews -- don't you think people would protest? It wouldn't matter if the majority of the country were Mormons. It wouldn't matter if Mormons were not the only religion that didn't drink coffee. It wouldn't matter if Mormons had very carefully thought through their theological objections to coffee, and had a right to practice their religion as they saw fit.
They do not have a right to make other people practice their religion. They do not have a right to ban "sin."
This issue is not about religious freedom. You have religious freedom to refuse to marry gay couples in your Temples. It is about freedom itself. Gay marriages are real marriages under secular, worldly criteria. You can recognize and agree with this, even though you're religious. If you leave out ideas on how God arranged things, there is nothing wrong with gay marriages, because they unite loving couples, and cause no harm.
They are only false marriages if you bring in religious arguments. Even though I'm an atheist, I can see that, too. If God instituted marriage only as a way of bringing together potential breeders, then homosexual marriage is a contradiction.
But religious arguments do not unite American citizens into a common ground. Not only are there citizens with no religion, but there are religions which celebrate and sanctify gay marriages as holy under God. The government has to stay out of this. It can't let any side decide what God wants and put it into common law. The state shouldn't have official votes on theology, or anything having to do with -- respecting -- religion.
That's in the Constitution. And it has protected Mormons. Do not throw it away when it looks like you don't "need" it. You do. You will.
No; I have some gay friends and acquaintances, but nobody close to me is gay.
I do not hate Mormons. I hate injustice, irrationality, bigotry, and oppression. The problem is not with the characters of the individual Mormons. Most Mormons are wonderful people.
The problem is with the church, and its doctrine, trying to intrude into non-Mormon territory. The history is false, the theology is weak, and the ethics are immoral. I think people can do better. I could not and would not be able to criticize the religion if I didn't have respect for the possibility of people doing better.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 9:28 AM
Waldo stood up for his beliefs and you called him a bigot. Who's the bigot now Nick? - Brandi
Waldo is. He came here and spewed his hate for gays, so he's a bigot. He confirms that in his #1029, where he shows the typical bigot's conviction that anyone who opposes his bigotry can only do so out of personal interest. He's welcome to "stand up for his beliefs" all he likes; imposing them on others, not so much. The Mormon Church has chosen to enter the political arena; now it must live with the consequences.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 9:37 AM
But NOTHING excuses violence, intimidation, and my favotire of all- name calling.,/I> - Brandi
Brandi, you're either extremely stupid or disgustingly dishonest. Can you really not see the difference between "violence and intimidation", and "name-calling"? The former are serious criminal offences which should be prosecuted as such, the latter is part of free speech.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 17, 2008 9:39 AM
No, that's exactly what you're trying to do.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo!
It's not "for no reason", you semi-literate bone-headed bigot.
You don't own marriage. You don't get to legislate your religious belief. Nobody does. That's what separation of church and state is supposed to mean.
Oh, how magnanimous of you: "accept second-class citizenship and fuck off", eh?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 17, 2008 10:08 AM
Non-sequitur. A form of Appeal to emotion and a big fat Ignoratio elenchi. My knowing or not knowing someone who is gay has exactly zero to do with my desire or their right to be treated equal under the law.
Try again.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 12:59 PM
So if the LDS church is so dysfunctional and backwards, why did they defeat the gay marriage proponents?
Quit blaming the mormons, or other religions and ethnic groups for this, and accept responsibility for the loss. You lost because you failed to make a convincing argument. Period.
All this mormon-bashing is totally hypocritical. To them the gay movement is just as strange. Gays really do not understand straight people after all.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 1:06 PM
Kurt, the LDS poured $25,000,000 into California to approve Prop. 8. That should have never happened. What part of that don't you understand?
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 1:20 PM
Why should that have never happened? Don't mormons have the right to lobby voters? How many millions were poured in by the gay marriage advocates, by Hollywood celebs for example?
So maybe the LDS church decided to support this, big deal! That is their civil right. They are new to this and may have made some technical errors. I expect they will create a for-profit lobbying organization for any future efforts. Again, big deal.
You may have lost this with or without the LDS church's involvement, because many straight people are naturally homophobic. That comes out in the ballot box.
If you want to win gay marriage, you need to get rational about what happened. People are not yet persuaded about gay marriage, this is true across the US. Shoving your views down people's throats, such as by intimidating straight people who feel that THEIR version of marriage is under attack, is hurting your cause.
Posted by: Sastra | November 17, 2008 1:25 PM
Kurt #1037 wrote:
Because they're powerful, and had money, and people. It's not mutually exclusive.
The argument against Proposition 8 rested on secular values of liberty, fairness, and law. These values are shared by religious and nonreligious alike. Religious minorities rely on the protection of the Constitution against majorities which wish to oppress them.
The counterarguments for Proposition 8 rested exclusively on religion, and how God and tradition "define marriage." The proponents all grounded their case in "my version of God is the right one, and it is my job to institute God's will on earth." That was the argument. God. If they are not right about what they think God wants, then they have no case.
Since they turned that into their legal argument, and brought it into the public square, then it's fair game to take it apart. They hurt real families. They hurt real people. They hurt real marriages. None of this hypocritical "protecting marriage" nonsense. They were protecting a nonexistent right to write sectarian religious beliefs into secular law.
There is nothing hypocritical about going after the churches. And not just the churches, but the theology itself -- which is how they justified what they did. It's no more unfair than attacking a business which implemented policies which hurt innocent people. Some of the businesses which made major contributions to this unjust version of Jim Crow laws are being boycotted.
If the churches want to be power players in politics, then they can't claim sanctuary.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 1:29 PM
Kurt, every church has a right to tell those who attend what their position is. What churches should not do, and they should be taxed if they do, is to go out to the greater public at election time to try to sway elections. This is part of the social compact that keeps government out of churches.
Now, if no money was given, you would have a point. But money from the LSD was used, which makes their participation immoral. That is what we are pointing out.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 1:29 PM
Prop 8 should of never gotten on the ballot.
It's not PRO anything. It's anti gay. Period.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 1:42 PM
Well, money from other churches was also used, so why single out the LDS? Because in fact they are well organized and they made a difference perhaps? Isn't this all just a lot of sour grapes?
I take your points Sastra, and I think you have a good case, I am sure that will be argued in the courts eventually. But what a ridiculous way to settle this problem in a democratic society.
If you can not convince a majority that YOUR views are right, then what leads you to believe that your views are in fact superior.
OK, my personal opinion is that both sides here have failed to create honest discourse on a difficult and complicated topic, a change to our social rules. The pro-gay marriage side is trying to prove their case by legal argument and emotional appeal, and the anti-gay marriage side is resorting to religious arguments and fear tactics. Neither approach will produce a rational discussion. So it will simply be a lifestyle war, and the strongest side will win. That is not right.
Also, FWIW, the LDS are definitely the underdogs in this fight, they are a small minority in California, a small part of the vote. To say that they have out of state support is ingenuous, given the out of state support for the pro-gay marriage side. The fact is that you were soundly defeated by the underdog, your own polling showed this. This did not happen because they had more money or better ads. It happened because straight people do not understand gay people, and the ONLY solution to that is education, not intimidation, name calling, boycotts, and other pressure tactics.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 1:45 PM
Gays really do not understand straight people after all. - Kurt
What a profoundly stupid thing to say. Most gays have two straight parents, other straight relatives, straight friends. Hell, they even understand straights who are anti-gay bigots - they come across them often enough.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 1:55 PM
No Nick, that is not at all profoundly stupid, it is dead-on accurate. Having straight parents, friends, etc, does not lead to understanding of straight people by gays. By the same token you would have to argue that straight people who have gay children must therefore understand their gay children. Do you believe that is true? I know from experience it is patently FALSE in many cases.
This is the real heart of the matter, in my opinion, which is informed by experience. Many gay people in fact think they understand straights, but they do not. I believe that until gays learn how to educate straights about their situation, they will never win.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 2:03 PM
By the same token you would have to argue that straight people who have gay children must therefore understand their gay children. - Kurt
Not so at all - because many gays spend much of their lives concealing the crucial fact of their sexual orientation from their parents, siblings, friends. Straights seldom need to do this to their gay relatives or friends.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 2:10 PM
Keep trying Nick. I would agree that gays are more familiar with the beliefs and habits of straights due to their usually growing up with straights. However, even in cases where the gay person does not conceal their orientation, or later in life in cases where the family bonds remain strong, there still is a lack of understanding. And that is made more obvious by the backlash right now against people who voted against gay marriage.
It just does not work, gays really do not understand straights any better than straights understand gays because each type of brain functions differently. Yes, you are right about many gays understandably concealing their sexual orientation, but that is not universal, and after they come out of the closet their straight friends and family can never know what it is really like to be gay.
Posted by: Sastra | November 17, 2008 2:10 PM
Kurt #1043 wrote:
Because the majority already agrees with the basic ideas and principles behind the case to be made for civil gay marriage. They are allowing their religious beliefs to blind them to their own values. Just as they would not want sharia laws imposed on them, they should not do a similar thing to another. Civil marriages should not have to obey religious guidelines.
This wasn't straight vs. gay. It was secularists vs. theocrats. Many Christians who are against gay marriage, and believe that being gay is a sin still voted against Proposition 8. Why? Because they understood that they are both American citizens and Christians. As American citizens, they should not deny fair rights to minorities just because they don't like them. And, as Christians, it is not their duty to try to prevent other people from committing sins by instituting legal measures. It is their duty to try to prevent other people from committing sins by helping them to convert to Christianity, so that they may be changed in their hearts.
At least, that is how I, an atheist, understand it.
Catholic churches, Mormon churches, and evangelical churches all poured money and power and religious justification into passing a law that revoked rights for a despised minority. To call them "the underdogs" here is puzzling. I don't see how you can have it both ways -- the majority spoke, but they were the underdogs.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 2:18 PM
Kurt, one of the Redhead's high school classmates, a great clarinetist and pianist, was gay. He told his parents, and his father's reaction was so intense the poor teenager killed himself. That reaction on the part of the father is not atypical. You have no idea on how bad many gays have it once they come out. They are often tossed out of house and home, and disowned. Fortunately, the severe stigma that used to be on gays is lessening, and one day may go away. Until you understand the level discrimination gays face, your comments sound bigotted. All gays want is to be accepted the way god made them.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 2:21 PM
If gay people understood straights, they would understand that revulsion to gay lifestyles is natural for straights. It is not a form of bigotry or hatred or homophobia. It is not learned. It is just the way straights are designed, it is in THEIR genes, it natural for straights.
For the gay community now to single out a minority religion that happens to have some clout, is just sour grapes at losing the vote. Are you incensed that some other group can manipulate the media better than the gays? This whole backlash is juvenile. Get into the 21st century for crying out loud.
There will be another day, another vote, another judicial decision, this will drag on, and on, and on, until someone with some influence realizes that the missing ingredient is not a lack of funds, pressure tactics, or lobbying influence. The missing ingredient is understanding.
If I were to advise the gay community on how to win this, it would be to start a long-term PR campaign to educate the public about what it is like to be gay, about what it means to have a committed relationship, about what it is to be a minority denied equal marriage rights.
Every political action the gays take can and will be countered. There can not be a political victory for a problem that at its core is a lack of understanding. This is an educational problem, not a political problem. Win the educational battle, and the political battle will also be won.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 2:28 PM
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008
If gay people understood straights, they would understand that revulsion to gay lifestyles is natural for straights. It is not a form of bigotry or hatred or homophobia. It is not learned. It is just the way straights are designed, it is in THEIR genes, it natural for straights.
Yay! It is the gay panic defense! The straights cannot help it. Those faggots are just too disgusting. I will remember to tell straight people who are not homophobes that they should be running in horror from me.
This may be a bit simple, but civil rights are not up to elections.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 17, 2008 2:30 PM
The single dumbest thing I've read this week.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 2:34 PM
Until you can convince a majority that gay marriage is a civil right, it IS up to elections. But would be far simpler to convince straights.
And this is not a gay panic defense, it is not a defense at all, it is just the way things are. And illustrates my point that gays do not understand straights. How ironic, the gay community insisting they are genetically gay and then denying the possibility that some people really are naturally turned off by gays. That is exactly what gays do NOT understand about straights, no matter how many they have been around.
The straight people you talk about who are not homophobes have decided not to be homophobes, they are more 'enlightened' but most of them did not start that way. And my point is that this is what is required, education of straights. Not by being dramatic and throwing tantrums, but by being rational and presenting clear explanations of what life is like being gay.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 2:35 PM
Kurt, the first rule of holes is when it gets too deep, stop digging. Time to stop digging. Your bigotry is showing.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 2:35 PM
If gay people understood straights, they would understand that revulsion to gay lifestyles is natural for straights. It is not a form of bigotry or hatred or homophobia. It is not learned. It is just the way straights are designed, it is in THEIR genes, it natural for straights. - Kurt
Good grief. Don't you know anything about the many cultures that have accepted homosexual behaviour? Look up the "Sacred Band" of Thebes for a starting point.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 2:38 PM
Kurt the "majority" didn't approve of interracial marriage either.
Stupidity is often a majority opinion.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 2:43 PM
" If gay people understood straights, they would understand that revulsion to gay lifestyles is natural for straights. It is not a form of bigotry or hatred or homophobia. It is not learned. It is just the way straights are designed, it is in THEIR genes, it natural for straights.
Rev...> The single dumbest thing I've read this week.
Oh really? And what evidence do you have that this is false? Have you been inside a straight person who was repulsed by homosexuality? I can not understand why gay people who are repulsed by the idea of sex with a member of the opposite gender can not make the mental connection that straight people are naturally repulsed by the idea of sex with someone of the same gender. Do you honestly believe that straight people who feel that their form of marriage is under attack are psychopaths? Get real, they are living what is natural and normal to them, just as a gay person is.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 2:48 PM
Kurt, stop digging yourself into the bigotry hole. Most of us got beyond our fear of gays years ago. Why can't you? Do you have a hangup about gay feelings? Many of those with latent feelings tend to be the most vocal bigots. As I said, time to stop digging and just quit posting.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 2:48 PM
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008
And this is not a gay panic defense, it is not a defense at all, it is just the way things are. And illustrates my point that gays do not understand straights. How ironic, the gay community insisting they are genetically gay and then denying the possibility that some people really are naturally turned off by gays.
Damn, I have to let all the straight people I know who are not homophobic that there is something wrong with them. It is in THEIR GENES! They should be sickened but they are not.
Funny how reality is not conforming to Kurt's mindset.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 2:49 PM
damn uppity gays...
Kurt, news flash, marriage isn't about sex.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 17, 2008 2:54 PM
Kurt really is setting the stupid bar to heretofore unseen levels.
I'm straight. I don't feel any revulsion at all towards homosexual behavior -- it doesn't particularly interest me, and that's all. What two men or two women do together does not influence in the slightest what I find stimulating about heterosexual behavior.
Do you find yourself repulsed, as a heterosexual man, by what heterosexual women find arousing? Viva la difference, I should think. There are all kinds of sexual behaviors, some that I don't like at all, some that I seek out...and my menu of turn-ons will be different than someone else's. If you are repulsed by the fact that we don't have a uniformity of desire in all people, then you need to move to a different planet.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 2:54 PM
Kurt,
What makes you think gays in general are "repulsed by the idea of sex with a member of the opposite gender"? Even for those who are repulsed by that idea for themselves, why do you think they would be repulsed by the idea of two other people of opposite genders having sex? I'm straight - I don't fancy other men. For myself, the idea of sex with another man is a turn-off. But I don't find the idea of two other men, or two women, having sex with each other, repulsive. If you have weird hangups of this kind, please don't project them onto other people, OK? It's not nice.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 2:56 PM
Steve, I agree that the majority can be stupid, and maybe that is the case with gay marriage, but depends on who you ask. Why can't you people get this point? This is not about civil rights, it is about understanding, and the lack of it in the conservative straight community. The civil rights issue will not make sense to the conservative straight community until they understand homosexuality better. They have some totally wrong views about it.
Nerd, Bigotry? IS that some type of debate tactic? Do you think my argument that the gay marriage movement should be using educational tactics right now instead of political name calling shows some type of bigotry?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 3:01 PM
Kurt, anything that deprives a class of people from full civil rights is bigotry. So opposition to gay marriage is bigotry. Deal with it.
Posted by: CJO | November 17, 2008 3:02 PM
Have you been inside a straight person who was repulsed by homosexuality?
I'll take "Maybe there was a better way to put that" for 800, Alex.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 17, 2008 3:03 PM
Wow you just keep getting dumber.
First I'm not gay.
Second While I'm not attracted to men or sex with men I am not repulsed by the idea of two men loving each other, getting married or even raising children nor them having sex. Yes man and man sex isn't something I'm attracted to but that doesn't mean that their lifestyle (whatever the hell that means) repulses me.
The thing that is very apparent by your post is that you like others of your type are focused on the sex much more than anyone who thinks rationally about he situation. As a married person I can verify that sex is but a part of marriage. This is about the rights of people to be treated equally under the law and be joined as partners in the same way that every other free person in this country can be.
Dislike of a them is a learned response. It is not "in their genes". Claiming that it is is hilarious.
Um no you made the claim that homophobia is a genetic trait you need to prove it.
The fact that someone is repulsed by two people loving each other is what is repulsive.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 3:07 PM
Kurt. They believe on a religious foundation that gays are an abomination...
You can't argue with that. You can only fight that stupidity. Prop 8 was based on fear, ignorance and bigotry.
Not because straights think gay sex is icky.
You're argument is stupid. The gays are fighting for there rights and equal treatment under the law. Prop 8 denies equal treatment. We did away with separate but equal along time ago.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 3:11 PM
OK, so if I disagree with any of the rhetoric, I must:
A) be a closet gay and thus an outspoken bigot
B) not really understand what straight or gay people think
Get a grip people. I know many gay people, have a gay sibling, and have my own hangups. I am in a good position to say what I am saying, and I believe it is accurate.
Gays do NOT understand straights, and they may win a few battles, but will not win this war until they learn to teach rather than contend with their opponents.
Posted by: Sastra | November 17, 2008 3:14 PM
Kurt #1050 wrote:
Uh -- I don't think "revulsion against gay lifestyles" is necessarily a natural response on the part of heterosexuals. It may be a natural response for some heterosexuals. And exaggerated responses could very well be culturally learned.
However, let's grant that, for the sake of argument, you're at least partially correct. Recent studies on subliminal or subconscious racial attitudes have demonstrated that people from both races tend to instinctively associate positive properties with white faces, and negative properties with black ones. It appears to be true even for people who sincerely believe themselves to be without racial prejudice. Whether this is genetic or cultural -- or both -- is hard to parse out. There also appears to be a strong propensity to pick partners who look like you. So there may be a natural tendency for straights (especially straight males) to feel repulsed by the details of male sodomy. An instinctive "ick" response.
So what? I don't think this matters to the argument. Many -- or at least some heterosexuals -- are "turned off" by the idea of gay sex. Or sex with someone of another race. But not everyone who doesn't find sex of a certain kind appealing wants to ban it. Many people are perfectly comfortable letting icky couples do icky things when it comes to sex, love, and marriage. I have always rather assumed that gay couples find heterosexuality a turn off. I don't call that bigotry. I doubt they would consider it bigotry either.
What makes the difference? Add in religion, and turn it into Natural Law. You run into conflict with civil liberties when people take their natural tastes as a sign of what Nature "intends." They have a God-given instinct which translates into a God-given mandate. Black people repel them. God must have made them inferior. They have intuitions that anal sex is gross. God must forbid it.
So "education of straights" on what it is like to be gay will make no inroads against a religious argument. The only way to deal with a religious argument is to
1.) insist that the government is secular, the society contains people of all faiths and none, and therefore views which are grounded in religious 'insights' must remain in religious venues
2.) undermine religion, decimate its arguments, and take away public respect for it
Or both.
Posted by: Walton | November 17, 2008 3:15 PM
This wasn't straight vs. gay. It was secularists vs. theocrats. Many Christians who are against gay marriage, and believe that being gay is a sin still voted against Proposition 8. Why? Because they understood that they are both American citizens and Christians. As American citizens, they should not deny fair rights to minorities just because they don't like them. And, as Christians, it is not their duty to try to prevent other people from committing sins by instituting legal measures. It is their duty to try to prevent other people from committing sins by helping them to convert to Christianity, so that they may be changed in their hearts.
I agree entirely (albeit that I don't personally view homosexual conduct as sinful). I believe in a separation of law and morality; it isn't the proper role of the state to impose religious or moral values on its citizens via the use of coercive force. Such things ought to be entirely a matter of individual conscience. I have no right to judge my neighbour for what relationships he chooses to enter into, or which god he chooses to worship. Whether I approve or not, I have no right to impose my will on him; and if I were to do so, I would be depriving him of his free moral choice, something to which every person is naturally entitled. Hence why I support same-sex civil marriage (albeit that I recognise the legitimacy of religious groups' objections to it).
This is good evidence for why democracy, while valuable, is not the be-all and end-all of a political system. Even if the majority of people in a given jurisdiction believe in a certain religious doctrine or sectarian moral teaching, they have no right to impose it on everyone via the coercive agency of the state; which is why most constitutional systems, rightly, protect certain rights against the tyranny of the majority.
As a (broadly) consistent libertarian, I would argue that the same should also apply to property rights; even if the majority of people wish to nationalise my business or deprive me of my wealth, they should not be entitled to do so, any more than they can impose religious beliefs or moral standards on me. Everyone has a basic right to security and liberty of the person and property, limited only to the extent necessary to avoid interference with the security and liberty of others. This is why personal freedom and economic freedom ought to go hand in hand.
Posted by: llewelly | November 17, 2008 3:39 PM
Kurt:
If you're turned off by gay sex - so what? Just don't download gay porn when you're trying to get it on. How hard can that be?
Banning gay marriage can't help you avoid this turn-off. It's just a matter of self control.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 3:54 PM
How ironic, the gay community insisting they are genetically gay and then denying the possibility that some people really are naturally turned off by gays. - Kurt
The evidence that sexual orientation is largely innate derives from measurable differences in the brain; and the failure of attempts to "reprogram" gays. There is no equivalent evidence that homophobia is genetically influenced. See the difference? (I know the answer to that question, but what can you do?)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 4:12 PM
Kurt, either god made gay people gay, or god doesn't exist and evolution likes gays since their aunts have more children.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 4:21 PM
People aren't scared of gays, they are scared of the unknown. For those who can't imagine what it's like to be gay, the fear is understandable. But this isn't the issue, the issue is whether they should have equal rights under the law. How is them getting married going to affect the marriages of heterosexual couples? To me, it's about the same way as them having sex affects my ability to have a sexual relationship. i.e. not at all.
The problem is that the "moral" authorities think it's in the best interest of society to push their view of reality on others. The mormons funding the church was a clear sign of religion interfering with the state, and they did it purely because they are an intolerant religion. Their argument amounts to "I have nothing against blacks, but marriage is between two white people as consecrated by God." Just because you say you are tolerant, it doesn't mean you are. The Mormons can preach they are tolerant until the cows come home, but while they are meddling in the affairs of the state to push their own agenda on a secular population, they cannot claim it.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 17, 2008 4:21 PM
Kurt, all you have to do to see the bigotry implicit in your claims is to replace 'male marrying a male' with 'black male marrying a white female' (or vice versa).
Every single 'defence' you have presented for why people fought so hard for Prop H8 is exactly the same as why they fought so hard to keep miscegenation laws on the books - their revulsion at something they'd been taught was wrong.
And it's just as bigoted and wrong now as it was then.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 4:33 PM
Nick - yes, there is some research evidence of a genetic element in homophobia.
Verweij et al (2008) used the Australian Twins Registry (ATR) to examine whether there might be a genetic component to "negative attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality (homophobia)". As many other studies have found, women were less likely to hold homophobic beliefs than men, but in contrast with previous studies, no significant effect of age was found. Additionally, the study concluded that homophobic attitudes were "substantially inherited" and that "social environmental influences are relatively minor." However, the strongest effect size came from events outside the family home: "unique environment."
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 17, 2008 4:39 PM
"And it's just as bigoted and wrong now as it was then."
Ah, but until you can understand the mind of the bigot (who was born bigoted, of course), then it's your fault that you don't have rights.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 4:43 PM
Kurt,
Give the full reference please. Given the enormous changes in social attitudes over the past few decades, it's hard to see how the claim of "substantial" genetic influence could possibly be supported.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 4:49 PM
The youth vote in California was overwhelming for gay marriage, far better than any other demographic. It's not about being repulsed by gays or not, it's about tolerating a different lifestyle choice.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 4:50 PM
Sastra says: So "education of straights" on what it is like to be gay will make no inroads against a religious argument. The only way to deal with a religious argument is to
1.) insist that the government is secular, the society contains people of all faiths and none, and therefore views which are grounded in religious 'insights' must remain in religious venues
2.) undermine religion, decimate its arguments, and take away public respect for it
Or both.
**Kurt says: I agree with much of what you said in that post, but disagree that religious arguments can not be defeated by reason and logic. So apparently that makes me a bigot in this discussion, people here are preaching to the choir, and are intolerant of different viewpoints, so who is the bigot? My point is simply that religious people WILL respond to rational, well-reasoned scientific presentation of facts, and that has not been done well by the pro-gay marriage community. The LDS church for example, a most conservative group, has changed their positions on other issues in the past, such as their exclusion of blacks from the priesthood. The Baptists also had to reverse their stand on blacks in many of their churches that were exclusively white until the 1960s. And now both are strong advocates for racial equality, in fact most members of the LDS church are now outside the US, many are in poor countries among varying ethnic groups. They changed, a lot. Trying to destroy religion as an institution just to get your way on a single political issue is delusional, in my opinion. Might as well kill off everyone who disagrees with you while you're at it, hello, are we in reality here?
What I see happening in this issue is a form of premature politicization of gay marriage. You need to go back to the part of the political process where you make your case. The case has never been made in the public square, where are the public debates, the prime-time programs dissecting the issues from a scientific viewpoint, etc? This is just a big heated argument and will end the way they usually end, with nobody really winning.
Again, gays need to accept that they must go through the same process as everyone else when they want to change major social policies. Step 1: collect the facts, conduct the research, etc. Step 2: make a strong argument in the public square. Step 3: debate with your opponents and continue with 1-3 until the majority of people agree with you. Step 4: have a vote and change policies. You are trying to collectively skip right to the last step, so of course are just creating a battle. Do the due diligence and I believe you will win, because you have a better argument, but make the argument, not chaos.
And to those who say, 'but we have argued in the public square', lots of media portrayal of gays is not adequate. Will & Grace is nice, but it will not persuade people logically, at least not conservatives, blacks, etc.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 4:54 PM
Since when does that happen? Democracy is about winning popular support, not about being right. It's only been a recent thing that homosexuality has been an acceptable lifestyle choice, and even then it's still not accepted by a large minority. It's got nothing to do with evidence.Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 4:58 PM
Nick: For the full abstract on that study go to Pubmed and find abstract# 18347968
Also, another related study is #8772014, that one connects homophobia with homosexual arousal in people in denial. OK might look like that contradicts my argument, but actually given that homosexuality appears to have genetic elements, it actually is supportive.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 5:04 PM
Kel,
I agree, democracy is not exclusively about evidence. But evidence certainly can not hurt the cause. And besides, I am only trying to make one point, and that is that it is smarter, easier, and probably cheaper, to persuade people than to force them to change their views about this topic. Even strongly religious people will eventually be persuaded, there is already evidence of that as some of the more liberal religions have changed their views.
So if you want to persuade people, you need to go through that process, or something like it. And if people are persuaded, there will be little trouble getting laws passed.
But if you don't care, and just want to duke it out until someone wins, fine, but personally I think that is a rather stupid approach when you have the better argument.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 5:05 PM
Kurt,
Do you really think the LDS and the Baptists changed their attitudes to race because of scientific evidence? How astoundingly naive! The Civil Rights movement, and anti-racist legislation, forced them into it: the costs of refusing to change were made too high, so they changed.
BTW, do you have the full reference to that paper? It's bad form just to give first author name and date. It could even suggest to some people that you haven't actually read the paper, and are just repeating something you've been told. I know, I know, no trust in the world these days, is there?
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 5:09 PM
Kel,
I agree, democracy is not exclusively about evidence. But evidence certainly can not hurt the cause. And besides, I am only trying to make one point, and that is that it is smarter, easier, and probably cheaper, to persuade people than to demonize them and try to force them to change their behaviors. Even strongly religious people will eventually be persuaded, there is already evidence of that as some of the more liberal religions have changed their views.
So if you want to persuade people, you need to go through that process, or something like it. And if people are persuaded, there will be little trouble getting laws passed.
But if you don't care, and just want to duke it out in the courts and blogs and press until someone wins, fine, but personally I think that is a rather stupid approach when you have the better argument.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 5:14 PM
The last thing that persuades people is evidence, how are you going to convince anyone who thinks homosexuality is an abomination to God that it's an acceptable lifestyle choice? Social attitudes change over time through exposure and tolerance. We as a society tolerate homosexuality much better than 30 years ago, but there is still a long way to go. And it doesn't help when people tie the issue to sin. What's moral for one religion should not be imposed on a secular society; hence the outrage against the Mormons for interfering.Ultimately we can't force change and attitudes will do so on their own as there's more exposure for that alternate way of life. But those organisations that stand in the way of change are always going to be vilified.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 17, 2008 5:21 PM
Kurt wrote:
You need to learn what bigotry is. It is not bigoted to oppose viewpoints. Paedophiles, for example, have the viewpoint that it's okay for them to have sex with children. Do you think it's bigoted to deny them that right?
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 5:26 PM
Nick,
The LDS and Baptist churches usually follow social trends, they do not lead in them. And so they were responding to the entire change of the racial equality movements of the time. They also had to wait until the people in their congregations were ready to accept the blacks, and I believe both churches lost members when they changed policies regarding blacks.
I would not say they were forced to change as much as they were forced to accept the social changes around them. I was not intending to say that science played a major role in that, although re-reading maybe that is how it looked, but rather that even the most conservative religions eventually can change.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 5:31 PM
There's a difference between them being against it and providing large amounts of money to go against it. They are actively shaping society with their influence. They may follow social trends, but they are doing their damn best to ensure this social trend doesn't change.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 17, 2008 5:43 PM
Not really. It's not really relevant to the point you're making, but strictly, paedophiles are sexually attracted to children. Their attitude to their paraphilia -- whether they consider it right or wrong -- or whether they actually rape children or not doesn't make them any more or less of a paedophile; it may, of course, make them more or less of a problem, or more or less of a criminal, but if they're sexually attracted to children, they're paedophiles. I don't know anything about the psychopathology of paedophilia, but the definition as I understand it seems to admit the possibility that there are paedophiles who don't have the viewpoint that it's OK for them to have sex with children.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 5:56 PM
Kurt@1088,
Sure they can. And they'll do exactly the same over gay rights when the percentage of anti-gay bigots in the population drops low enough. That will happen, but the way to speed it up, is to make it quite clear that that bigotry is not going to be accepted, and is going to cost those indulging in it. That's what the Civil Rights movement did, that's what LBJ (for all his evil Vietnam policy) did. That's what turning the heat on the LDS is for - to make an example of them. They chose to make themselves a target, they're going to bloody well regret it. Demos, lawsuits, letters to the papers, insults, mockery, being rude to their missionaries - any peaceful way to get it into their bigot-blocks that this was a big mistake.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 6:01 PM
Kurt, you can't even reach out of hole with your shovel now. All your dirt you throw up is falling back down you. Rule one of holes. When you're in too deep, stop digging. Take a break from posting here.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 6:20 PM
Bigotry = being intolerant of views that oppose yours. A bigot is a close-minded person. That is what is going on here with some responses (not all).
Nick, I agree with you on one point, the resistance to full gay rights by certain churches will probably stop once anti-gay sentiment diminishes enough in the general population. Do you really think that demos, lawsuits, letters, insults, mockery, being rude to missionaries, is the way to lower anti-gay sentiment in the population? Is that what worked in the civil rights movement? I remember civil rights as a mostly peaceful resistance movement, with legal demonstrations. What you are proposing sounds like something else. I think this type of behavior will only prolong the conflict that the gay movement is hatefully trying to start right now. A better approach would be to try and change the minds of people by presenting the facts intelligently, and presenting the science in a persuasive manner. That works for Madison Avenue, and I believe it would work for this movement. How is that a bigoted viewpoint? I sense a lot of anger on this list, and rash responses to being disappointed. If people continue with that thinking, I think this will apply... You will sew what you reap. I am as far from bigoted as it gets on this issue, we have the same goal. I just see a different pathway to get there.
Posted by: Kurt | November 17, 2008 6:25 PM
ok, I meant 'you will reap what you sew.' Brain is tired, I guess it is time for a break from this. Good luck everyone.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 6:30 PM
No, actually you didn't.
Sew = attach using thread
Sow = put seeds of grain into the ground, which are reaped when they are ripe
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 19, 2008 8:24 PM
Bigotry = being intolerant of views that oppose yours. - Kurt
WRONG! If someone says to me "Jews are evil, they should all be killed", you bet your fucking LIFE I'm going to be intolerant about it. If you think that's bigotry, you're at best a halfwit. You also appear to have problems with reading comprehension: I specified "peaceful means". (Although incidentally, if you don't remember what an impact the riots of the late '60s had in advancing the civil rights cause, you weren't around or you have a very selective memory.) And calling "bigotry" because you're losing the argument is just contemptible.