Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

[Bloggingheads]

Mormonism is a cult, and not a moral one at that. Unlike what David claims, it's not just fundamentalists who have a problem with Mormonism. Hitchens isn't exactly a fundamentalist. People who believe that God told Joseph Smith that polygamy is OK, only to retreat in the face of opposition in Congress, are dangerously irrational.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing people's religions. David rightly pointed that out by bringing up Scientology. Would it be wrong to criticize Scientology, or Scientologists, especially when they are running for office? If you believe that Xenu used nuclear weapons against the overpopulated earth 4.5 billion years ago, I don't trust you on anything.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by apple

Mormonism is a cult, and not a moral one at that.

Sounds like any religion would disqualify a candidate in Hitchen's estimation, which is pretty much nothing new.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Sounds like any religion would disqualify a candidate in Hitchen's estimation, which is pretty much nothing new.

If you had actually read the article (or even just the subtitle), instead of seeing the name "Hitchens" and going on an ill-informed and defamatory rampage, you'd have seen that he dismissed the question of whether Mormonism is a cult is an irrelevant question. He merely took issue with the obscene history and beliefs of the Mormon (what I call a) cult.

[basman]

Originally Posted by apple

If you had actually read the article (or even just the subtitle), instead of seeing the name "Hitchens" and going on an ill-informed and defamatory rampage, you'd have seen that he dismissed the question of whether Mormonism is a cult is an irrelevant question. He merely took issue with the obscene history and beliefs of the Mormon (what I call a) cult.

I'm missing the reason for your high dudgeon here. Ms BH Harry's comment seems entirely equable and apt. I'd have made the same comment myself. Plus I think Hitchens is right as you've paraphrased him. But that's a fish with a different fin.

Itzik Basman

[TwinSwords]

Hey, I found a picture of apple:

[TwinSwords]

Oh, wait. Here we go.

Incapable of properly responding to arguments once again, my dear TwinSwords? All that logic and reason must be hard on you.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by apple

If you had actually read the article (or even just the subtitle), instead of seeing the name "Hitchens" and going on an ill-informed and defamatory rampage...

LOL. You have a rather loose definition of "rampage."

Has it ever occurred to you that you're completely hysterical? You drink a lot of caffeine? You must get tired of changing your shorts every 15 minutes.

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

LOL. You have a rather loose definition of "rampage."

Has it ever occurred to you that you're completely hysterical? You drink a lot of caffeine? You must get tired of changing your shorts every 15 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGKRSAwrkXo

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

LOL. You have a rather loose definition of "rampage."

Has it ever occurred to you that you're completely hysterical? You drink a lot of caffeine? You must get tired of changing your shorts every 15 minutes.

What a horrible dilemma! ...not being able to resist the sheer joy of beating up on apple but as an unsavory consequence, being in the position of defending me.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

What a horrible dilemma! ...not being able to resist the sheer joy of beating up on apple but as an unsavory consequence, being in the position of defending me.

LOL! Yeah, it was weird.

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

LOL. You have a rather loose definition of "rampage."

Has it ever occurred to you that you're completely hysterical? You drink a lot of caffeine? You must get tired of changing your shorts every 15 minutes.

It depends on the person. You must get tired changing your shorts every 15 days. Perhaps you should change that to once every 30 days, to save yourself the effort.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by apple

If you had actually read the article (or even just the subtitle), instead of seeing the name "Hitchens" and going on an ill-informed and defamatory rampage, you'd have seen that he dismissed the question of whether Mormonism is a cult is an irrelevant question. He merely took issue with the obscene history and beliefs of the Mormon (what I call a) cult.

Your definition of defamatory rampage is rather broad. I did read the article and as I perused Hitchen's objections to the craziness of LDS, I thought it wouldn't be much of a stretch to criticize any major religion in the US for things very similiar.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Your definition of defamatory rampage is rather broad. I did read the article and as I perused Hitchen's objections to the craziness of LDS, I thought it wouldn't be much of a stretch to criticize any major religion in the US for things very similiar.

Show me where Catholicism strongly favored polygamy and racism as late as 30 years ago. You'd be right about Southern Baptists or Muslims, but then again, no one has accused me of being too soft on them. As for "any major religion", no. Mormonism is closer to Scientology than it is to Catholicism.

[hilbert90]

You have got to be kidding. Catholicism still engages in horrifying practices. Forget 30 years ago. What about its obsession with contraception perpetuating the rampant spread of HIV in potions of Africa where it does mission work? What about the attempted systematic cover-up of child molestation? How easy it is to overlook what you don't want to see. Cult? I think so. The very fact that they have you so trained that you'll defend such an organization is proof.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by hilbert90

You have got to be kidding. Catholicism still engages in horrifying practices. Forget 30 years ago. What about its obsession with contraception perpetuating the rampant spread of HIV in potions of Africa where it does mission work? What about the attempted systematic cover-up of child molestation? How easy it is to overlook what you don't want to see. Cult? I think so. The very fact that they have you so trained that you'll defend such an organization is proof.

What hysterics. The Church doesn't believe in separating the sexual act from its purpose: That's "insane".

And child molestation has no doctrinal place in Catholicism. That's just the slander of callow hipsters.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

What hysterics. The Church doesn't believe in separating the sexual act from its purpose: That's "insane".

And child molestation has no doctrinal place in Catholicism. That's just the slander of callow hipsters.

I didn't see any mention of doctrine in Hilbert's post. What he did refer to was a "attempted systematic cover-up of child molestation" - and that certainly did occur. And... Believe me when I tell you: it's not insane; if I follow you (I'm pretty sure I do), then you have a terribly limited conception of the purpose of "the sexual act." (It's not singular, by the way.)

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

I if I follow you (I'm pretty sure I do), then you have a terribly limited conception of the purpose of "the sexual act."

I have said it before, so I won't say it again.

I will say, though, I am always curious about the real world situations of people how make such statements about sex. Are they/have they been married?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I will say, though, I am always curious about the real world situations of people how make such statements about sex. Are they/have they been married?

LOL Why would a man of the left assume marriage to be a prerequisite for familiarity with sex?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

LOL Why would a man of the left assume marriage to be a prerequisite for familiarity with sex?

I don't. But I will point out that I am also a Christian.

I was expressing curiousity as to whether you'd had a long term and committed relationship. marriage is but one example of that, but it's still the most common one.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I don't. But I will point out that I am also a Christian.

I was expressing curiousity as to whether you'd had a long term and committed relationship. marriage is but one example of that, but it's still the most common one.

I have had relationships, but am not currently in one. And I am not married. Nor am I Christian in anything other than a cultural sense.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I have had relationships, but am not currently in one. And I am not married. Nor am I Christian in anything other than a cultural sense.

You mentioned not being a Christian before I think. I was merely pointing out that I am one, and marriage is a sacrament in my religion, so it's going to be my "go-to" example of long-term committed relationships.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

I didn't see any mention of doctrine in Hilbert's post. What he did refer to was a "attempted systematic cover-up of child molestation" - and that certainly did occur.

He is addressing a doctrinal critique by apple with a non-sequitur then.

if I follow you (I'm pretty sure I do), then you have a terribly limited conception of the purpose of "the sexual act." (It's not singular, by the way.)

LOL Actually I have a scientific conception of the purpose of the sexual act (Writ large, requiring only singular reference). Recognizing that we gain other things from it (As an evolutionary device to encourage its use, better serving the primary function) doesn't change that fact. What, are you anti-science?

The Church simply takes that to the next level, recognizing this biological reality as a consequence of God's will. And God, not being one to act without purpose, is someone the Church feels has a pretty pivotal place in moral debate. Now, you may find that ridiculous. But as long as you require some generous, kindly, kid gloves talk about liberal shibboleths, you should show some degree of respect for real Catholics.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

LOL Actually I have a scientific conception of the purpose of the sexual act (Writ large, requiring only singular reference). Recognizing that we gain other things from it (As an evolutionary device to encourage its use, better serving the primary function) doesn't change that fact. What, are you anti-science?

How is this not the naturalistic fallacy? Since when does the evolutionary purpose of anything have normative weight?

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

How is this [idea that the purpose of sex is procreation] not the naturalistic fallacy? Since when does the evolutionary purpose of anything have normative weight?

You may be correct in calling this an instance of the naturalistic fallacy. I'm not well versed enough in philosophy to say. On the other hand, the idea seems to undergird environmentalism: The planet must be preserved at all costs.

One often gets the sense, too, that people who contend human ethics are merely an outgrowth of the evolutionary imperative--the species must perpetuate itself; cooperation and altruism are the best ways to do that --take great comfort from that notion, as it disposes of the idea that ethics might have a Transcendent Source.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

You may be correct in calling this an instance of the naturalistic fallacy. I'm not well versed enough in philosophy to say. On the other hand, the idea seems to undergird environmentalism: The planet must be preserved at all costs.

One often gets the sense, too, that people who contend human ethics are merely an outgrowth of the evolutionary imperative--the species must perpetuate itself; cooperation and altruism are the best ways to do that --take great comfort from that notion, as it disposes of the idea that ethics might have a Transcendent Source.

As to the first, most (not all, but most) environmentalists don't treat the preservation of the planet as an end in itself, but as a means to the end of maintaining the quality and quantitity of human life. Many people are environmentalists for religious reasons as well.

As to the evolutionary imperative. I don't think it's so much a desire to eliminate God, although it may be for some. Rather, it's a desire to take one's own moral preferences and deem them immune to disagreement and/or argument, by claiming that they are self-evident and/or already proven.



As to the specific notion that the self-evident/scientific/evolutionary purpose of people is produce more people, and as many people as possible.

At least in some forms, this is simply religion in a particularly impoverished and abstract form.

Rather than YHWH or Jesus Christ or Allah or the myriad other spiritual systems that have been around for millenia and served many people reasonably well, positing a divine being or principle that promotes a rich if flawed set of moral and ethics and who values (at least some, but often all) people in themselves, this "natural law" religion worships The Person That Can Never Be.

The as-yet-unborn who are the nominal ends of this religion are only means once they materialize, and the ends will shift to the next generation and the next. People are only ends in themselves as long as they don't yet exist, because once they exist, their purpose to produce more people who don't yet exist. Thus, people who matter in and of themselves are beyond an ever advancing window, never coming to be as valuable in their own right.

The other justification I suppose is that people matter in the aggregate not as individuals, which makes the object of worship The Human Race. But the notion that the preservation of us as a species depends on each of us producing as many people as possible is somewhat akin to working to ensure that our planet ressembles Waterworld on the premise that water is necessary for life.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

How is this not the naturalistic fallacy? Since when does the evolutionary purpose of anything have normative weight?

Since the topic is on the nature of a thing, and the centrality of that nature in how it functions. At least, that is the case with what you quoted.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

if I follow you (I'm pretty sure I do), then you have a terribly limited conception of the purpose of "the sexual act." (It's not singular, by the way.)

I think we knew this from prior discussions. And, yeah, it's not singular, even according to Catholic doctrine. (I think we should all recall that expert as he considers himself about religion, along with all things, there's no reason to see Sulla as emblematic of the Catholic Church. The Church has enough over the past almost 2000 years that people can criticize without adding that unfair handicap.)

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by stephanie

I think we knew this from prior discussions.

No hemming and hawing over making an actual declarative position statement when it comes to snark, eh?

[hilbert90]

As was pointed out, I was addressing the "morality" issue rather than the doctrinal issue. On the other hand, I fail to see how "doctrine" can actually be separated from people in positions of power in the church telling other people to cover something up and then they follow those commands. Sounds like official policy to me.

Maybe I'll take a different approach. The first "sign" of being a cult in the link above is that the LDS church has an ultimate leader who can dictate commands from God. The only other Western religion that exists with this property is Catholicism. In fact, the entire structure and hierarchy of the two systems is almost identical. In that sense I'd say that Mormonism and Catholicism are the most closely related rather than the least.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by hilbert90

As was pointed out, I was addressing the "morality" issue rather than the doctrinal issue. On the other hand, I fail to see how "doctrine" can actually be separated from people in positions of power in the church telling other people to cover something up and then they follow those commands. Sounds like official policy to me.

You're comparing a doctrinal structure which strikes moderns as offensive to criminal activities by people, not connected to doctrine. As such, it isn't really relevant, is it?

Maybe I'll take a different approach. The first "sign" of being a cult in the link above is that the LDS church has an ultimate leader who can dictate commands from God. The only other Western religion that exists with this property is Catholicism. In fact, the entire structure and hierarchy of the two systems is almost identical. In that sense I'd say that Mormonism and Catholicism are the most closely related rather than the least.

It isn't really intended to. Mormonism is supposed to be imitating the American government in its structure. I guess the similarity is that the American government, like the Catholic church, models itself after the Roman Republic in many ways.

As to that particular element of "cult", it is silly Protestant heresy transformed into psychobabble by "secular humanists".

Originally Posted by hilbert90

You have got to be kidding. Catholicism still engages in horrifying practices. Forget 30 years ago. What about its obsession with contraception perpetuating the rampant spread of HIV in potions of Africa where it does mission work?

You're talking about the approach which secular epidemiologists acknowledge leads to less AIDS? Perhaps opponents of faithfulness in marriage should be held to account for their role in spreading AIDS, in Africa and elsewhere.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

What about the attempted systematic cover-up of child molestation?

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).

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by apple

You're talking about the approach which secular epidemiologists acknowledge leads to less AIDS?

Please point me to the epidemiological evidence that urging people to be abstinent until marriage leads to a lower incidence of AIDS than does encouraging condom use.

Originally Posted by miceelf

Please point me to the epidemiological evidence that urging people to be abstinent until marriage leads to a lower incidence of AIDS than does encouraging condom use.

Harvard good enough for you? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032702825.html

So what has worked in Africa? Strategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks -- or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones. "Closed" or faithful polygamy can work as well.

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. The Catholic Church has more beliefs than only the ones about condoms - you can't separate them. If people were actually faithful to the Church's teachings, there'd be no spread of AIDS. It seems unlikely that people would obey half of the Church's teachings: violate the Church's teaching in every way, but suddenly become a fervent Catholic when it comes to using condoms.

[Sulla the Dictator]

LOL Good point.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by apple

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.

Originally Posted by miceelf

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]

Originally Posted by apple

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.

Originally Posted by miceelf

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.