More on Romney's Mormonism - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Detroitdad · 12-21-2006, 05:33 AM

I hold no sympathy whatsoever for this guy's viewpoint. In fact I am amazed that Slate printed it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2155902

Mocking the religion of another grows tiresome very quickly, you'd think from this dude's surname and allusions to his own religious background would have keyed him into that, but you would be wrong.

il Padrino Ute · 12-21-2006, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

I hold no sympathy whatsoever for this guy's viewpoint. In fact I am amazed that Slate printed it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2155902

Mocking the religion of another grows tiresome very quickly, you'd think from this dude's surname and allusions to his own religious background would have keyed him into that, but you would be wrong.

Blatant bigotry on that guy's part. Amazing.

If he mocked Judism the way he mocked Mormonism, he'd be out of a job.

Anybody up for doing a bit of research on this guy's ancestors? My daughter enjoyed her experience the last time she did baptisms for the dead.

SeattleUte · 12-21-2006, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

I hold no sympathy whatsoever for this guy's viewpoint. In fact I am amazed that Slate printed it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2155902

Mocking the religion of another grows tiresome very quickly, you'd think from this dude's surname and allusions to his own religious background would have keyed him into that, but you would be wrong.

Simmer down. This is the crux of the article:

"Objecting to someone because of his religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage, race, or gender. Not applying a religious test for public office, means that people of all faiths are allowed to run—not that views about God, creation, and the moral order are inadmissible for political debate. In George W. Bush's case, the public paid far too little attention to the role of religion in his thinking. Many voters failed to appreciate that while Bush's religious beliefs may be moderate Methodist ones, he was someone who relied on his faith immoderately, as an alternative to rational understanding of complex issues."

He's absolutely right. Beyond that, are you saying he's not allowed to say that Joseph Smith was a transparent fraud if that's his honest opinion? It's not religious bigotry to say that any more than is Waters saying Judiasm will evaporate. Weisberg as much as says that nor does he believe Moses parted the Red Sea. Really what he's saying is that he'd vote for any Christian or Jew who despite his faith is enlightened enough to recognize Moses didn't part the Red Sea. Weisberg's problem with Mormons is they really do believe that kind of far fetched stuff, and he doesn't want someone who holds those beliefs to be president. There's nothing wrong with that opinion, any more than, as he notes, someone here saying they'd never vote for an atheist. It's the same thing.

Really no one here should be accusing Jews of a persecution complex. Mormons are the ones always playing the religious bigotry card. It's usually nonsense, as I've noted here before.

SeattleUte · 12-21-2006, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Blatant bigotry on that guy's part. Amazing.

If he mocked Judism the way he mocked Mormonism, he'd be out of a job.

Anybody up for doing a bit of research on this guy's ancestors? My daughter enjoyed her experience the last time she did baptisms for the dead.

Nonsense. If an Orthodox Jew who believes literally in the story of Noah's Ark ran for president Weisberg would make a similar critcism against him and no one would fire him. (He's a Jew in case you didn't notice. By the way, there are many Orthodox Jews who believe the OT stories to be literally true even though Waters hasn't met them, and Judaism is flexible enough that you can reject the literal truth of those stories and still be recognized by many non-Orthodox Jews as religous.)

il Padrino Ute · 12-21-2006, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Nonsense. If an Orthodox Jew who believes literally in the story of Noah's Ark ran for president Weisberg would make a similar critcism against him and no one would fire him. (He's a Jew in case you didn't notice. By the way, there are many Orthodox Jews who believe the OT stories to be literally true even though Waters hasn't met them, and Judaism is flexible enough that you can reject the literal truth of those stories and still be recognized by many non-Orthodox Jews as religous.)

I'm not surpriesed you think that's nonsense, you agree with the guy.

I'm not saying he can't say what he thinks. I'm just pointing out that it's always ok to bash Mormons, but never ok to do the same to Jews.

Think I'm wrong? Send a letter attacking teh beginnings of Judaism to the NY Times and let's see what happens - if it gets printed.

All-American · 12-21-2006, 06:29 AM

You know something, Seattle? I'm getting just a little tired of you always bagging on Waters. The guy sets this place up as a place for friendly gathering and discussion, largely on his own dime, and you view your right to free speech as an obligation to belittle him and anybody else who believes anything YOU don't.

The issue I have with you, as I (and apparently others) do with Weisberg, is not that you don't have a constitutional right to believe as you do or speak out regarding your beliefs. The issue I have here is that the two of you mock and belittle things held sacred to others, all in the name of free speech. You have every right to believe that Mormonism is a blatant fraud, as does Weisberg. The fact that you CAN speak out does not necessarily mean that you SHOULD.

Every time you override civility in order to practice your rights, you lose credibility. You begin to sound like the Slate does in this article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2155745/?nav=ais

non sequitur · 12-21-2006, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

You know something, Seattle? I'm getting just a little tired of you always bagging on Waters. The guy sets this place up as a place for friendly gathering and discussion, largely on his own dime, and you view your right to free speech as an obligation to belittle him and anybody else who believes anything YOU don't.

The issue I have with you, as I (and apparently others) do with Weisberg, is not that you don't have a constitutional right to believe as you do or speak out regarding your beliefs. The issue I have here is that the two of you mock and belittle things held sacred to others, all in the name of free speech. You have every right to believe that Mormonism is a blatant fraud, as does Weisberg. The fact that you CAN speak out does not necessarily mean that you SHOULD.

Every time you override civility in order to practice your rights, you lose credibility. You begin to sound like the Slate does in this article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2155745/?nav=ais

How is SU bagging on Waters? Did I miss something. Just because someone doesn't believe in Mormonism doesn't mean they are belittling Mormonism. Are you belittling Catholicism when you refuse to believe it is divinely inspired? Do you belittle Hinduism? Islam? Buddhism? I just don't understand why it's a breach of civility to acknowledge that you don't share the same beliefs as someone else. What am I missing?

All-American · 12-21-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur

How is SU bagging on Waters? Did I miss something. Just because someone doesn't believe in Mormonism doesn't mean they are belittling Mormonism. Are you belittling Catholicism when you refuse to believe it is divinely inspired? Do you belittle Hinduism? Islam? Buddhism? I just don't understand why it's a breach of civility to acknowledge that you don't share the same beliefs as someone else. What am I missing?

To simply acknowledge your differing views is fine. Seattle seems to go out of his way to specifically point out how Waters is deluded, off-base, ill-informed, or just wrong. Seattle notes, for example, that "there are many Orthodox Jews who believe the OT stories to be literally true;" did adding the words "even though Waters hasn't met them" somehow stengthen his argument? There are plenty of other examples where Seattle goes out of his way to sling a little extra mud Mike's way. It just isn't necessary.

I have tried not to belittle the beliefs of others when they were not my own; I have also tried to encourage others whose beliefs concurred with mine own to show similar restraint towards other ways of thinking. I should hope that such efforts would be reciprocated.

MikeWaters · 12-21-2006, 12:23 PM

I am not familiar with Weisberg's body of work. He is one of the connected, socially elite of America (son of Lois Weisberg in Chicago, featured in the book "The Tipping Point". So to some degree, people like him can mock religion, because they have never participated in it, and don't understand it.

I don't worry about SU. As someone that takes every Mormon success as a punch in the stomach, he will be doubled over for much of the rest of his life.

He is as predictable as they come. It would be funny to see SU and Weisberg at the same cocktail party talking to each other. Watching SU try to convince Weisberg that Mormonism is even more pathetic than he thinks. "Trust me, I was there!"

FarrahWaters · 12-21-2006, 01:34 PM

What about Weisberg's argument that the belief in the "whopper" of the Joseph Smith story is so much different that mainstream Christians believing in such miracles as the parting if the Red Sea and the virgin birth of Christ? "But Mormonism is different because it is based on such a transparent and recent fraud." Wow, can't argue with such logic there.

12-21-2006, 05:33 AM	#1
Detroitdad Resident Jackass Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Roswell, New Mexico Posts: 1,846	More on Romney's Mormonism I hold no sympathy whatsoever for this guy's viewpoint. In fact I am amazed that Slate printed it. http://www.slate.com/id/2155902 Mocking the religion of another grows tiresome very quickly, you'd think from this dude's surname and allusions to his own religious background would have keyed him into that, but you would be wrong.

12-21-2006, 06:29 AM	#6
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	You know something, Seattle? I'm getting just a little tired of you always bagging on Waters. The guy sets this place up as a place for friendly gathering and discussion, largely on his own dime, and you view your right to free speech as an obligation to belittle him and anybody else who believes anything YOU don't. The issue I have with you, as I (and apparently others) do with Weisberg, is not that you don't have a constitutional right to believe as you do or speak out regarding your beliefs. The issue I have here is that the two of you mock and belittle things held sacred to others, all in the name of free speech. You have every right to believe that Mormonism is a blatant fraud, as does Weisberg. The fact that you CAN speak out does not necessarily mean that you SHOULD. Every time you override civility in order to practice your rights, you lose credibility. You begin to sound like the Slate does in this article: http://www.slate.com/id/2155745/?nav=ais __________________ εν αρχη ην ο λογος Last edited by All-American; 12-21-2006 at 07:02 AM.

12-21-2006, 12:23 PM	#9
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I am not familiar with Weisberg's body of work. He is one of the connected, socially elite of America (son of Lois Weisberg in Chicago, featured in the book "The Tipping Point". So to some degree, people like him can mock religion, because they have never participated in it, and don't understand it. I don't worry about SU. As someone that takes every Mormon success as a punch in the stomach, he will be doubled over for much of the rest of his life. He is as predictable as they come. It would be funny to see SU and Weisberg at the same cocktail party talking to each other. Watching SU try to convince Weisberg that Mormonism is even more pathetic than he thinks. "Trust me, I was there!"

12-21-2006, 01:34 PM	#10
FarrahWaters Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,122	What about Weisberg's argument that the belief in the "whopper" of the Joseph Smith story is so much different that mainstream Christians believing in such miracles as the parting if the Red Sea and the virgin birth of Christ? "But Mormonism is different because it is based on such a transparent and recent fraud." Wow, can't argue with such logic there.