Congrats are in order!
According to The HuffPo, Mormonism has made the big time as a target of organized atheism:
Mormon underwear has plans to attend the Democratic National Convention, and it won't be on a person.
The American Atheists' Center recently unveiled a planned billboard campaign "which exposes the foolishness of religion in the political landscape," according to a press release.
The billboards offer up exaggerated beliefs of targeted religions, including Mormonism, in order to make the case that atheism is "simply reasonable."
...The billboards serve to not just draw attention to atheism, but to the close ties religion has with the election this year.
"The election of our leaders in the United States is one of the most important decisions that we as citizens make. Allowing our judgment to be clouded by sheer silliness is unacceptable. We want to show the people of our country the foolishness of mixing religion with politics," the president of the organization says.Well alright! ("Looks like we made it,...") Considering the histories of the two persecuted groups, I almost don't know who to salute first!
I'm glad to see the "God is a space alien" line, just so we can kill any suggestion that Mormons are Christian in the manner most understand. Joseph Smith was an illiterate wing-nut, grabbing a bit from this religion, a bit from that belief, and mixing it all up as his 19th century occult-infested mind saw fit, so - in an effort to appear more normal - a lot of the woo is rarely mentioned by the "church" or it's followers, which is too bad because it can be some of the most fascinating parts. It won't get them elected president, the liars, but it beats the "golly-gosh" routine for imagery.
Anyway, now the effort to hide what they didn't want known is the most fascinating thing about it - good job, assholes.
BTW, remember that weak-assed ABC News special I told you about? Well, they had a segment on Mormon secrecy that basically attempted to say it was everyone else's fault, which is bullshit, but not what I want to talk about - here's what I want to talk about:
How is it an organization with so much secrecy is being allowed to maintain it?
I'm talking about - from above Mitt Romney on down - the LDS "church" is taking a we-don't-have-to-show-you-shit approach, and the media's response is simply "O-kay," like it's normal in a presidential race for the candidate and those behind his belief system to dictate the rules. To potentially have a president in a power-hungry cult (No, no - those "imposing" temples are to symbolize glory!) which is openly telling us they'll be maintaining secret communications - when we know they're politically active - is simply beyond the pale.
It also points to how - whether it's Obama in the last election or Romney in this one, or the mainstream press or the conservative blogosphere - based on political momentum, various people and groups weirdly get a pass from any reality check in a campaign year.
Mind you - it's not as weird as believing "God is a space alien" and wearing Mormon underwear - but as these things go, it's pretty-fucking-weird,…
As with many other things: follow the money.
ReplyDeleteThat church of theirs has some pretty powerful connections due to where they've spread their money (large amounts of that money), and money gets you connections, gets you power, gets you pretty much a pass on anything you want.
It's helped them to achieve their golly shucks pr image, which dupes average folks so -- which is also tied into the story of victimization they tell about themselves as well as the admonitions to not judge; people fall all over themselves to be nice and open minded to Mormons because they've been so terribly oppressed and we all have to live up to freedom of religion, right?...or so the story goes. It's helped them cover up their rather interesting connections for the most part too.
It's a perfect storm if you ask me.
PW
@EBL
ReplyDelete"If you are an atheist, aren't all religions nonsense?" - Yes, definitely yes!!!
"Why single out Mormons? I still do not get this prejudice you have against Mormons." - It's not just Mormons, it's all crazy cultlike new-age nonsense. (see first response)
Mormonism comes to the fore now because it is Romney's favorite silliness.
"I judge religions by how they act." - Mormons don't publicly reveal how they act or how they influence people. But for a start watch Harry Reid.
"Mormons may be secretive about their faith but so what?" - Their "religion" would fall apart under the eyes of critical thinkers, even members of their own cult. Most people do not wish to reveal their own stupidity.
EBL,
ReplyDeleteI judge religions by how they act.
And I 've pointed out enough examples of "how they act" that for you to call it a "prejudice" (when you know I've been all over everything) is kinda weird.
Mormons are coming to power in this country - that's "a big fucking deal." (Biden) But it's only happening because conservatives are desperate to get rid of Obama - you've said so, obliquely, several times yourself - so let's not pretend that, because of your desperation, I should now start describing them as something they're not.
They've carved out a theocracy in the desert by being a RUTHLESS people - ruthless to the rest of us at that - and all the "golly-gosh" bullshit can't change it. And don't give me that Islam line. A belief doesn't have to drive people on a killing spree to be the domain of assholes:
The Mormons LIED to steal Downtown Salt Lake for their main temple.
They LIED to get the 2000 Olympic Games.
They LIED to change the laws for their supplement and multi-level marketing industries.
And they'll LIE to say none of this is so.
You "judge religions by how they act"? Then judge, and in the context of giving them power - over us - unlike any they or we've ever known.
And as you ponder that last sentence, don't forget:
We're talking about a "church" that teamed with THE MAFIA.
"I judge religions by how they act."
JUDGE.
But, CE, you only attack Mormonism, rather than, say, religionists who believe a man born with no earthly father rose from the dead three days after being killed for our sins and then bodily ascended into heaven. Which is what Obama claims to believe.
ReplyDeleteSo you come off as anti-Romney at a time when that's about the dumbest position a conservative can take right now. Policy matters, not how you spend an hour on Sunday, or whenever Mormons to their temple thing.
Befinne,
ReplyDelete"But, CE, you only attack Mormonism,..."
Where in the world does that idea keep coming from?
Hell, I even go after atheists!
Folks, this is TMR, and there's over 6,500 posts here:
I'd strongly suggest you guys look further than the latest posts before you accuse me of leaving ANYBODY out of the line of fire,...
I'll admit I've only been reading you for 2 or 3 months. (And the parrot joke was one of the funniest things I ever read. Kudos.)
ReplyDeleteBut you must admit that Mormonism has been a particular focus during that time. I don't think I misjudge the number of attacks on Mormonism vs. attack on any other particular belief system. And during an election -- what I'm saying -- conservatives shouldn't be attacking the closest thing to a conservative in the race. Doing that helps the other side.
I want my 3 grandkids to have less debt to pay off after my own generation's crackpipe spending and borrowing. Obama isn't going to spend less. Romney will. Who gives a rat's ass about religion?
Befinne,
ReplyDeleteI'll admit I've only been reading you for 2 or 3 months. (And the parrot joke was one of the funniest things I ever read. Kudos.)
Thanks.
But you must admit that Mormonism has been a particular focus during that time. I don't think I misjudge the number of attacks on Mormonism vs. attack on any other particular belief system.
No - there's an election on - but, if you had accused me of never going after Mormonism before, I could pull up posts from the past on them as well. I also went after Obama and Rev. Wright during the last election (and four the past 4 years). I'm pretty "equal opportunity" about these things.
During an election -- what I'm saying -- conservatives shouldn't be attacking the closest thing to a conservative in the race. Doing that helps the other side.
And what I'm saying - what I've made abundantly clear - is my fellow conservatives "screwed the pooch" by picking a nominee I can't bring myself to support.
I want my 3 grandkids to have less debt to pay off after my own generation's crackpipe spending and borrowing. Obama isn't going to spend less. Romney will.
See, that's MY point:
Your generation keeps making mistakes but also demands I follow your lead.
I keep wondering why - if your generation is so accident prone - they won't get out of the way.
As far as I'm concerned, the conservative lack of enthusiasm shown John McCain in 2008 was the Republican's undoing, and - if they don't like ObamaCare - they should've considered that BEFORE they let Obama into office, back when he told Joe The Plumber - point blank - he was going to "spread the wealth around." Instead they stayed home, and left me holding the bag.
Now, this election, your generation has left my desires out again (Mitt Romney was "inevitable" remember?) and, once again, because I won't dutifully follow your wrong-headed lead, I'll be smeared as the bad guy? Oh, will the hypocrisies never cease?
Who gives a rat's ass about religion?
You've been here "for 2 or 3 months" and haven't figured out I do? If not, or if why is a mystery, let me make it plain:
This might come as a shocker to a member of the generation that brought us the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Charles Manson, The People's Temple, Scientology, and the spiritual stylings of Oprah, but I will have NO PART in helping turn the White House over to a cult member - even a Right-wing cult member - just as I refused a role in turning it over to a socialist.
See, unfortunately, in our representative republic - and for my entire life - your Baby Boom generation has had the numbers to make sure I'm not represented. And, as you said, the decisions they've made are bad. If you ask me, that includes this latest one, and I feel no need to make up for their mistake when it's clear that - until desperation set in - they could give a rat's posterior.
Now they have orchestrated not one but two losing propositions and demand I choose.
I refuse.
Accept the blame for that - and apologize - if not to me, then to your grandkids.
I - for one - have done them no harm,...
I'll do more than apologize -- I'll cast my vote for the guy most likely to reverse the disastrous track we're on.
ReplyDeleteYou mean the guy who enacted the blueprint for Obamacare as governor? Who is already making noises, along with his transition team picks, that he isn't keen on reversing the healthcare mandate? Who has already made noises that he won't really make serious cuts in spending? And is even thinking of expanding our military operations at a time when we cannot afford it? A guy who picked an Ayn Rand groupie for VP who is also trying to run as a true blue Catholic when the last thing we really need is more entanglement of religion and government?...and I say that as a person half in/half out of the ol' RC; I really don't want the affairs of state having to pass a religious test. See? The 1st can work both ways -- just as we have religious freedoms in this country and no canidate has to pass a religious test to hold office so too does no religious organization or movement get to call the shots.
ReplyDeletePW
...and I guess will just have to wait and see what happens with the Mormons, but from the example of Utah, well, not as though the warnings weren't there for all to see
PW,
ReplyDelete"from the example of Utah,..."
We'll get a whole lot of bright, shiny new jobs - at Del Taco,...
LOL!
ReplyDeleteOr we can all work selling Nu Skin and Melaleuca products to ourselves!
Whatta recovery it will be!
PW
You call Ryan an 'Ayn Rand groupie' and expect to be taken seriously?
ReplyDeleteYou can only vote two ways for the next president. Your decision can be based on the idiosyncrasies of your own pathologies or on reality. I'm voting against Obama, based on his real, really bad, 4 years.
Uh, no...I can actually vote at least 4 eays this election: Libertarians are on the ballot, I could write in, or I could vote for Thing 1 or Thing 2 (which I refuse to do). Or I could just not vote -- which is also an option.
ReplyDeleteSo quit trying to play that game; it's been tried already many times. I consider somebody trying that "you can only vote two ways" and "omg! Obama!" to be engaging in a bit of unreality...and possible some pathology of their own. I could say that you are in fact being blind to all the other options you have open to you and are in the process of selling out America with this lemminglike behavior of yours (and acting quite the little jackboot with your attempts to make everybody else play along to your tune or shut up...would you be the type to go further perhaps? there seems to be a lot of the rubber hose gang in both camps now -- that's how I know there isn't any difference anymore...all that really matters is getting to feel that lovely, satisfying crack of bones beneath a brickbat or a boot...it's so close they can almost taste it).
PW
Oh, and what else to you call a guy who gives out Atlas Shrugged to all his staffers for Christmas (not like it's desirable for its fluid prose or well rounded characters...or is practical like some nice socks), and have you read any transcripts of him talking? Please do it -- and mark how many times in how many of them something from Rand comes up, or just her name gets mentioned. I've seen drug addicts mention their hit of choice less in conversation. Can you say "obsession"? aka. groupie He'd probably have tried to get in her little club or whatever it was along with Greenspan back in the day if he could (and look what happened to Greenspan...or better yet what he happened on us).
I guess I wasn't clear earlier; you're unserious, not worthy of debate.
ReplyDeleteYour choice on the debate gig...but I'm serious as a heart attack.
ReplyDeletePW
Befinne,
ReplyDeleteYou can only vote two ways for the next president.
Dude, you're still doing it:
NOBODY has to follow your lead to be serious. You've already admitted to fucking everything up - embrace that. Stop accusing us of being the blind ones.
It just won't fly any longer,...
CE,
ReplyDeleteI said my generation spent and borrowed like crazy, and I'll take my percentage of the blame, despite my own votes, if you insist.
But you're only kidding yourself if you think the next president won't be either Obama or Romney, and that the difference doesn't matter, or that your vote doesn't matter.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/26/romney-rule-change-fight-on-convention-floor/comment-page-1/#comments
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, he's not at all like Barry.
Of course the trained seals are barking like they are told in order to get their sardines too.
There ya go, serious guy -- there is more than money/economy at stake (in fact, that could be the easiest thing to fix if people would just allow it).
And it very much involves not going along with the push to be a trained seal...or cult member. It very much entails what sort of America we want to leave for our kids (and trust me, if the big issues don't get taken care of, they won't see any money anyway...unless of course they happen to luck out and get in the inner circle, which is unlikely I bet).
PW
Befinne,
ReplyDeleteCE,
I said my generation spent and borrowed like crazy, and I'll take my percentage of the blame, despite my own votes, if you insist.
I insist. We're going to get nowhere in this country if the goal posts keep moving.
But you're only kidding yourself if you think the next president won't be either Obama or Romney, and that the difference doesn't matter, or that your vote doesn't matter.
Oh, I agree one of them will win, but we - the citizens - are going to be the losers, again, either way. Don't take my word on it, here's The Economist:
Competence is worthless without direction and, frankly, character. Would that Candidate Romney had indeed presented himself as a solid chief executive who got things done. Instead he has appeared as a fawning PR man, apparently willing to do or say just about anything to get elected. In some areas, notably social policy and foreign affairs, the result is that he is now committed to needlessly extreme or dangerous courses that he may not actually believe in but will find hard to drop; in others, especially to do with the economy, the lack of details means that some attractive-sounding headline policies prove meaningless (and possibly dangerous) on closer inspection. Behind all this sits the worrying idea of a man who does not really know his own mind. America won’t vote for that man; nor would this newspaper.
It's time to get real, Befinne:
Even if Romney wins, we're in for a slog.
And we're going to have to watch that guy - and his cult - like a hawk,...
CE,
ReplyDeleteOf course we're in for a slog. We owe $16 trillion. And as Mark Steyn has said, 'We have to repay $16 trillion just to get back to having nothing at all.'
My concern: debt. Religion, not so much.
CE,
ReplyDeleteDidn't mean to dismiss your concerns about Romney's religion; only to say that I worry about our fiscal condition more than anything else. If Romney's a nut job who'll rein in spending, standing against the most sober man in the world who'll increase spending, he's a nut job who gets my vote.
What makes you think he's going to rein in spending? More importantly, what makes you think he's going to do anything to get our economy back running in any semblance of what it will need to be in order to pay down the debt we already have? What exactly are his concrete plans? The Ryan plan? He picked Ryan to nail down the Catholic vote and draw in the Tea Party and some of the libertarians...he's never been definite that he'll go all in to get the Ryan plan passed. And to be honest, the Ryan plan is pretty pie in the sky in its forecasts -- it'll only work if everything goes right and nothing happens that might drive our spending, like, say, another war (which we haven't finished up with the last one, and what has Romney said about further military action?). To talk some economics here: if we don't get our real GDP up to 4% growth over the next 5 years we don't recover from the last recession (yeah, the last one...forget anything that comes down the pike later or even what's going on right now). That Economist article is a pretty good one; there are others out there that address this as well as the growing concern that maybe Mitt isn't so good with our country's economy as he was making deals at Bain or for the SLC Olympics (which were a bit cooked by the way, as mentioned on this site)
ReplyDeleteOh, got ya, we just have to take him at his word; we have to believe -- kinda like Joe Smith and the golden tablets that nobody saw (which points back to Romney's character -- because he believes Joe Smith straight up, makes you wonder but the stuff I'm talking about would hold if he was an Christian, a Hindu, and atheist...it's just all that plus the cult he belongs to, what a cherry on a shit sundae if you ask me). We have to believe because Republicans said he was "inevitable", that he was obviously a good leader in all areas because he was good at making money at Bain and some Olympics didn't completely crash and burn...oh, and he's got a telegenic family and is very involved in his faith (that was also part of it too, that was also part of the sell; read it myself on many blogs).
And I'm the one that isn't serious? People like me are the ones not being serious?
PW