Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7194)

miceelf 12-02-2011 08:34 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 233283)
Faithful polygamy, my ass! But I do agree with the rest of this statement, and I'm sure that as a Christian, you will to.

...

Mind you, I don't agree with my position as you phrased it. However, it simply isn't correct to suggest that the Catholic Church's position is actually helping the spread of AIDS.

If I understood correctly, the article claimed that changing some bad sexual practices was more productive than condom distribution. However, and this is part of my fault for not being clear, what it DOESN'T say is that advocating the avoidance of condom use is somehow a useful strategy.

apple 12-02-2011 08:44 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233291)
If I understood correctly, the article claimed that changing some bad sexual practices was more productive than condom distribution. However, and this is part of my fault for not being clear, what it DOESN'T say is that advocating the avoidance of condom use is somehow a useful strategy.

Nope, that's true. However, the claim was that the pope's position on condoms leads to the spread of AIDS, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence that it does. Condoms are of limited usefulness anyway (in Africa):

In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa.

People need to refrain from polygamy, promiscuity and adultery to prevent AIDS. Genitalia-chopping and condoms are not a viable strategy, though condoms can be a somewhat of a help, as the article states. However, as long as the population is having sex like madmen, the availability of condoms will not prevent the AIDS-rate from skyrocketing.

miceelf 12-02-2011 08:52 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 233294)
People need to refrain from polygamy, promiscuity and adultery to prevent AIDS. Genitalia-chopping and condoms are not a viable strategy, though condoms can be a somewhat of a help, as the article states. However, as long as the population is having sex like madmen, the availability of condoms will not prevent the AIDS-rate from skyrocketing.

See, this is the problem with Green's logic. He is saying that promotion condom use hasn't been effective because people don't consistently use condoms. I fail to see how the same can't be said about the promotion of monogamy.

badhatharry 12-02-2011 11:55 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 233131)
Show me where Catholicism strongly favored polygamy and racism as late as 30 years ago.

I said crazy beliefs not the same crazy beliefs.

apple 12-03-2011 07:35 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233296)
See, this is the problem with Green's logic. He is saying that promotion condom use hasn't been effective because people don't consistently use condoms. I fail to see how the same can't be said about the promotion of monogamy.

Not everyone is monogamous? It's true. But in relatively healthy cultures, the overwhelming majority of monogamous couples do not cheat. So that takes a large portion of the population out of the STD equation. Say 70% of the sexually active population. I believe that this provides a far better degree of protection, than if 70% of people were using condoms relatively often, even if such efforts succeeded (and Green claims that they don't). That would mean that the virus has a clean chance of spreading through 30% of the population, and a reasonable chance to spread through the 70%. Unworkable.

Remember that to be monogamous requires the omission of adultery, while using condoms actually asks (poor) people to do something: buy condoms, not forget to use them correctly. It's a hell of a burden. On the other hand, not committing adultery is the moral and easy course of action.

miceelf 12-03-2011 08:48 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 233363)
Not everyone is monogamous? It's true. But in relatively healthy cultures, the overwhelming majority of monogamous couples do not cheat.

By definition, monogamous couples do not cheat. But whether they should or not, between a quarter and a half of married couples here cheat.

hilbert90 12-05-2011 12:36 AM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 233270)
Yes, what happened was terrible, but the wrongs have been fixed - and at no point did the Catholic Church actually endorse child molestation, which is unlike another religion, which worships a child molester as the best man who ever lived (who actually molested someone much younger than priestly child molesters).

Hmm...it seems you have called Jesus a child molester. I'm not sure you meant to do that, because if you ask a Mormon who they worship (or who the best man who ever lived was) they will definitely say Jesus.

stephanie 12-05-2011 12:02 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hilbert90 (Post 233486)
Hmm...it seems you have called Jesus a child molester. I'm not sure you meant to do that, because if you ask a Mormon who they worship (or who the best man who ever lived was) they will definitely say Jesus.

You must be new around here.

miceelf 12-05-2011 12:10 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 233507)
You must be new around here.

LOL

hilbert90 12-05-2011 09:53 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Why do you say that?

stephanie 12-06-2011 11:42 AM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hilbert90 (Post 233568)
Why do you say that?

Long history of apple posts that indicate that he's not talking about Jesus or even Mormons in the comment to which you responded.

apple 12-06-2011 07:28 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233318)
I said crazy beliefs not the same crazy beliefs.

Show me crazy Catholic beliefs that are comparable to claiming that blacks are inferior to whites as late as the 1970s.

apple 12-06-2011 07:31 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233377)
By definition, monogamous couples do not cheat. But whether they should or not, between a quarter and a half of married couples here cheat.

I've seen numbers closer to 20%, and I hope they're more likely to be accurate. What would you prefer (in terms of AIDS prevention), a culture where 75% of people are monogamous, or a rotten culture where people are not monogamous, but in which 75% do use condoms? Even assuming perfect condom usage and occasional adultery, I'd prefer the former - while only taking AIDS prevention into account, and not the morality of being monogamous.

hilbert90 12-07-2011 03:14 AM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Transubstantiation (how is this not cannibalism?), condom use, the possibility of someone being "fully human and fully God" at the same time, a God needed to sacrifice himself to himself to atone for a curse he himself put on people, a virgin can give birth, gay marriage, should I continue because this isn't hard...?

I should probably point out that the 1970's weren't some beautiful happy time of equality. At least the LDS church officially did away with that. No other church comes to mind of having official statements doing away with racism. I don't know if this is true or not, but they claim the first black LDS priest was Elijah Abel in 1832. The first black catholic priest was in 1886 and he was rejected from all US seminaries and had to go to Rome to be ordained.

Sulla the Dictator 12-07-2011 04:15 AM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hilbert90 (Post 233773)
Transubstantiation (how is this not cannibalism?),

Because it isn't really happening? Polygamy, on the other hand, isn't a symbolic act.

Quote:

condom use, the possibility of someone being "fully human and fully God" at the same time,
Not controversial in religions.

Quote:

a God needed to sacrifice himself to himself to atone for a curse he himself put on people,
It isn't a "curse", it is to free the people in question from the consequence of their sin, their violation of the covenant.

Quote:

a virgin can give birth,
Not a big deal.

Quote:

gay marriage, should I continue because this isn't hard...?
They've got that one right.

What makes faith grounded in antiquity more tolerable is that it is reasonable, in an age shrouded by time, to postulate miraculous happenings.

It is less reasonable to do it in the 19th century, because we know the things described didn't happen, and it insults our intelligence. Indeed, doesn't the Book of Mormon postulate the existence of war elephants in North America? LOL

Quote:

I should probably point out that the 1970's weren't some beautiful happy time of equality. At least the LDS church officially did away with that. No other church comes to mind of having official statements doing away with racism.
You should do more research. The Catholic Church was far ahead of the curve on matters of race, and indeed was the first European entity to denounce slavery and the slave trade. Heck, even Pius XII had an encyclical against racism and segregation.

Quote:

I don't know if this is true or not, but they claim the first black LDS priest was Elijah Abel in 1832. The first black catholic priest was in 1886 and he was rejected from all US seminaries and had to go to Rome to be ordained.
How ethnocentric. The first black priest was not in 1886. The church has been active in Africa for 2,000 years. There were people with black skin acting as priests in Egypt, for instance, within a century of Christ's death. In Ethiopia, for about 2,000 years.

Anti-clerical types rarely bother to learn about the Church they're attacking.

Florian 12-07-2011 04:24 AM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hilbert90 (Post 233773)
Transubstantiation (how is this not cannibalism?), condom use, the possibility of someone being "fully human and fully God" at the same time, a God needed to sacrifice himself to himself to atone for a curse he himself put on people, a virgin can give birth, gay marriage, should I continue because this isn't hard...?

For sheer absurdity, I know of no belief more absurd, or more historically pernicious, than the belief held by Catholics and Protestants for centuries, that the descendents of the Jews who killed (the Jew) Jesus are guilty of a crime...... without which there would have been neither a Christ (χριστός, translated from the Hebrew משיח maschiah, messiah) nor a religion bearing his name.

O felix culpa..... or credo quia absurdum?

It rivals the most absurd and pernicious beliefs of Islam, of which Apple never tires reminding us.

thouartgob 12-07-2011 06:22 AM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 233777)
For sheer absurdity, I know of no belief more absurd, or more historically pernicious, than the belief held by Catholics and Protestants for centuries, that the descendents of the Jews who killed (the Jew)

These days it's the christian fundamentalists accusing jews of being anti-semetic for complaining about Israel. What a shock that medieval mindsets beget medieval mindsets begets ...
Quote:

It rivals the most absurd and pernicious beliefs of Islam, of which Apple never tires reminding us.
Allah be praised, apple seems to be able to master the myopic scope of the average fundamentalist.

Amanda Marcott playfully suggested that christian fundamentalists really are jealous of Mormons for their adherence to the more conservative aspects of their faith. I wonder if the same could be said for one fundamentalists ( christian ) being envious of another fundamentalists ( muslim ) purity in such matters of faith ?

miceelf 12-07-2011 09:36 AM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 233776)
It isn't a "curse", it is to free the people in question from the consequence of their sin, their violation of the covenant.

This is true of some forms of Christianity, but the concept of Original Sin isn't about people's own violations of covenants.

I actually agree with you about the reasonableness of some people's discomfort with Mormonism and other modern creations, like scientology. I would also agree with you that if we are talking about historical problems with race, it's kind of silly to defend LDS while attacking Catholicism. Whenever the first LDS Black priest was, there was a more than a hundred year ban on Black priests, ending in 1978. Brigham Young also declared that the divine penalty for interracial marriages ("the mixing of the chosen seed with the seed of Cain") was to be instant death.

LDS have made dramatic changes in policy and practice around race and more power to them. But this is a huge glass house from which to throw stones about historical racism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_p...ter-day_Saints

badhatharry 12-07-2011 11:08 AM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 233776)
Because it isn't really happening? Polygamy, on the other hand, isn't a symbolic act.

polygamy is an accepted form of marriage in many religions.

Quote:

The first black priest was not in 1886. The church has been active in Africa for 2,000 years. There were people with black skin acting as priests in Egypt, for instance, within a century of Christ's death. In Ethiopia, for about 2,000 years.
Still no women as priests in the Roman Catholic Church...

Do you really think it fruitful to play this religion is better than that religion?

miceelf 12-07-2011 11:57 AM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233794)
Still no women as priests in the Roman Catholic Church...

Not an advantage of the LDS over Catholicism, assuming one is in favor of the ordination of women.

stephanie 12-07-2011 12:00 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
apple said to show "crazy Catholic beliefs" comparable to 1970s Mormon beliefs that related to matters of public policy.

I think probably apple needs to define the question a little better (I think I'm agreeing with badhat here, in fact), but the answers submitted in response (with the exception of harry's on women priests) don't seem to fit at all.

More significantly, however, I fail to see why objectionable Mormon beliefs in the 1970s relate to the fitness of Mitt or Huntsman for the presidency. It's entirely possible for people to be in a religion without agreeing with all the beliefs thereof, let alone all the beliefs the religion held in the past. If the Mormons were still maintaining the views or had done so recently enough for Mitt or Huntsman to interact with them as adults (and perhaps that's the case -- I'd have to check the timeline), then it might be interesting to see how they did. It's not that different than considering the actions of politicians who grew up in segregated America and in churches that were largely segregated at the time. The Southern Baptist Conference, for example, had its own issues, but Jimmy Carter's personal actions were considered, not those of his denomination.

AemJeff 12-07-2011 12:02 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233801)
Not an advantage of the LDS over Catholicism, assuming one is in favor of the ordination of women.

It's not relevant to your point, but oughtn't we treat that assumption as default?

miceelf 12-07-2011 12:08 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 233805)
It's not relevant to your point, but oughtn't we treat that assumption as default?

Here?

no.

stephanie 12-07-2011 12:09 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233786)
This is true of some forms of Christianity, but the concept of Original Sin isn't about people's own violations of covenants.

Yeah, it's not understood as a curse (at least not in the forms of Christianity I'm familiar with), but it's also not about individual sin.

It also doesn't strike me as especially weird -- it basically comes down to an explanation for humans acting contrary to their own understandings of morality, to what's in their best interest, to what's more in line with love for others. Sure, you don't need some theological explanation for this, but it's not really a radical claim to say that humans do all this. I think the argument is simply whether it makes sense to imagine an alternative that could have existed and, if so, whether it's unjust for us to be the way we are rather than the hypothetical way we would have been. But I wouldn't want to be presumptuous and try to justify the ways of God to man or anything. ;-)

stephanie 12-07-2011 12:10 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233807)
Here?

no.

Heh.

miceelf 12-07-2011 12:12 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 233808)
It also doesn't strike me as especially weird -- it basically comes down to an explanation for humans acting contrary to their own understandings of morality, to what's in their best interest, to what's more in line with love for others.


I don't think it's weird at all, I just didn't think that Sulla's explanation covered the issues people have.

I actually believe in original sin, but I can see the problems with the way people think and apply it, and I can see why people might object to it, especially given the way it's been dealt with at different points in time.

AemJeff 12-07-2011 12:17 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233807)
Here?

no.

I think we we're looking at the should/ought fork here. :)

badhatharry 12-07-2011 12:18 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233801)
Not an advantage of the LDS over Catholicism, assuming one is in favor of the ordination of women.

I didn't say that it was. Whoever I was responding to was saying how retrograde it is that LDS didn't allow black priests until such and such date.

This is all so meaningless, comparing religions. To me it's like asking if white curtains are better than pink ones. Of course I'm starting from a place that's different from yours.

miceelf 12-07-2011 12:22 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 233812)
I think we we're looking at the should/ought fork here. :)

Well, even then, I was thinking pragmatically as in "(if we want to make the most accurate prediction about human behavior,) oughtn't we to?"

Is the goal Truth or Justice?

stephanie 12-07-2011 12:23 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233810)
I don't think it's weird at all, I just didn't think that Sulla's explanation covered the issues people have.

Oh, I didn't think you were arguing it was weird; I was just commenting.

badhatharry 12-07-2011 12:23 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233807)
Here?

no.

The Catholic Church has a very substantial set of reasons for not allowing women into the priesthood. Thems the rules. "Should' has nothing to do with it.

miceelf 12-07-2011 12:24 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233813)
This is all so meaningless, comparing religions. To me it's like asking if white curtains are better than pink ones. Of course I'm starting from a place that's different from yours.

I agree in general about comparing religions as a whole. I am much more comfortable comparing specific religious beliefs and practices.

Is female circumcision as bad as infant baptism seems different than the red/white curtains question.

Do Black people have souls, ditto.

But I'll bite. what place am I starting from and how does it differ?

AemJeff 12-07-2011 12:37 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233815)
Well, even then, I was thinking pragmatically as in "(if we want to make the most accurate prediction about human behavior,) oughtn't we to?"

Is the goal Truth or Justice?

Fair enough. Excellent point, in fact.

stephanie 12-07-2011 12:47 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233818)
I agree in general about comparing religions as a whole. I am much more comfortable comparing specific religious beliefs and practices.

Is female circumcision as bad as infant baptism seems different than the red/white curtains question.

Do Black people have souls, ditto.

It's where it overlaps into public policy questions. Whatever one thinks about Original Sin or the Trinity and how many gods there are, I don't see how that's a public policy question. Religions have weird beliefs (I say as someone who rather likes religion and weird beliefs and wouldn't want to rationalize them). It makes no sense to debate whether X belief is weirder than Y belief, as if that should matter in the assessment of candidates.

But when it comes to beliefs that fundamentally contradict accepted beliefs that are relevant to public policy issues (i.e., certain groups of people are inferior), that would seem relevant. But there it makes sense to look at the individual's actual beliefs. I mean, even if one thinks that gay marriage is a crucial issue and would not support someone who is anti-gay marriage, it doesn't make sense to just be against Mormons (and Catholics and Evangelicals) based on their religion. It makes more sense to see what the person believes vs. what the person's opponents believe and what the person thinks is appropriate re the law.

badhatharry 12-07-2011 12:49 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233818)
I agree in general about comparing religions as a whole. I am much more comfortable comparing specific religious beliefs and practices.

Is female circumcision as bad as infant baptism seems different than the red/white curtains question.

Do Black people have souls, ditto.

But I'll bite. what place am I starting from and how does it differ?

Well, at the most basic level, you believe in God. You also believe that religion has some kind of connection to God. I don't believe in God. I think of religion as a cultural artifact. I think religion is interesting and rich and valuable but that value has nothing to do with the existence of God.

Also, I agree that some religious practices are abhorent and should be avoided at all cost.

miceelf 12-07-2011 12:51 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233821)
Well, at the most basic level, you believe in God. You also believe that religion has some kind of connection to God. I don't believe in God. I think of religion as a cultural artifact. I think religion is interesting and rich and valuable but that value has nothing to do with the existence of God.

Also, I agree that some religious practices are abhorent and should be avoided at all cost.

Ah, thanks.

miceelf 12-07-2011 12:55 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 233820)
I mean, even if one thinks that gay marriage is a crucial issue and would not support someone who is anti-gay marriage, it doesn't make sense to just be against Mormons (and Catholics and Evangelicals) based on their religion. It makes more sense to see what the person believes vs. what the person's opponents believe and what the person thinks is appropriate re the law.

I guess. I might at least be interested in how the person reconciles the two.

And aren't there limits?

Suppose someone is a member of Christian Identity or Fred Phelps' outfit. At the very least one would want to know how they reconcile their public policies with the official Christian Identity belief that WASPs are God's chosen people.

In short, as I said elsewhere, the LDS has made great strides in terms of race. And I don't think it's an issue WRT Romney or Huntsman. BUT, if someone else, for whom race is an issue, wanted to know why they were voluntarily members of a church, in adulthood, whose official policy was the Black people should be limited in status within the church because they bore the mark and curse of Cain, I don't think it's an unfair question to ask.

Don Zeko 12-07-2011 12:58 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233821)
Well, at the most basic level, you believe in God. You also believe that religion has some kind of connection to God. I don't believe in God. I think of religion as a cultural artifact. I think religion is interesting and rich and valuable but that value has nothing to do with the existence of God.

Also, I agree that some religious practices are abhorent and should be avoided at all cost.

I had no idea that my beliefs were so similar to yours on this.

miceelf 12-07-2011 12:59 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 233824)
I had no idea that my beliefs were so similar to yours on this.

Don't feel bad, I found an area of significant agreement with Sulla.

;-)

thouartgob 12-07-2011 01:04 PM

Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233786)
This is true of some forms of Christianity, but the concept of Original Sin isn't about people's own violations of covenants.

I actually agree with you about the reasonableness of some people's discomfort with Mormonism and other modern creations, like scientology. I would also agree with you that if we are talking about historical problems with race, it's kind of silly to defend LDS while attacking Catholicism. Whenever the first LDS Black priest was, there was a more than a hundred year ban on Black priests, ending in 1978. Brigham Young also declared that the divine penalty for interracial marriages ("the mixing of the chosen seed with the seed of Cain") was to be instant death.

LDS have made dramatic changes in policy and practice around race and more power to them. But this is a huge glass house from which to throw stones about historical racism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_p...ter-day_Saints

Lets not forget when Bush spoke at Bob Jones University in 2000. At that time they forbid interracial couples. Didn't allow those "seeds of Cain" into the university till 1971 I believe.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.