How can I be sure

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

How about this: SU is correct, we would like to have a worldwide government where secular law is identical with religious doctrine (assuming we can ever figure out what the heck that is, but that's for another thread). The goal of life is to live consistently with God's will. The goal of our church is to help us do this. The goal of our missionaries is to help others do this. The difference between our goals and SU's imagined disaster is that we want to do so by persuasion and not coercion.

Thank you. So once you have peacably obtained power in this manner, and dismantled republican institutions, created your worldwide Mormon government, and dissent arises, then what? See, like sharks monotheistic religions must move forward and seek to consume and dominate. And becuase they claim superior morality and knowledge they can't tolerate dissent within their prisincts. But aren't we getting pretty sophomoric here? I think this is obvious. Any Mormon claiming his faith doesn't aspire to cover the earth and dominate it, at least in the abstract, by coersion or persuasion or whatever, is being silly. Of course it does.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

It doesn't surprise me that he would include Mormonism in his book. With our unique and recent history, we are certainly low-hanging fruit.

I listened to an extensive interview with Hitchens the other day about his book. Picking on religion is a pretty simple task. History is full of atrocities commited in the name of God. He is articulate, persuasive, and an excellent story-teller. But he hardly presents a balanced view. And he is prone to exaggeration and sensationalism. It's a great way to get those books moving off the shelves.

The part I read about Mormonism is pretty poorly done, and he's not saying anything new or innovative anywhere in the book, I'm sure. Actually, I think this is a curious time to be sounding the alarm about religion. Religion has never been in so much trouble, so marginalized. As for radical Islam, I just don't see it as being nearly as fearsome as communism or fascism. It is too medieval, too backward, too debilitated by its own poison.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Thank you. So once you have peacably obtained power in this manner, and dismantled republican institutions, created your worldwide Mormon government, and dissent arises, then what? See, like sharks monotheistic religions must move forward and seek to consume and dominate. And becuase they claim superior morality and knowledge they can't tolerate dissent within their prisincts. But aren't we getting pretty sophomoric here? I think this is obvious. Any Mormon claiming his faith doesn't aspire to cover the earth and dominate it, at least in the abstract, by coersion or persuasion or whatever, is being silly. Of course it does.

It will never happen, but it is what we strive and aspire to. This is far from your original point and, quite honestly, I am not sure what point any of us have needed up making.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Thank you. So once you have peacably obtained power in this manner, and dismantled republican institutions, created your worldwide Mormon government, and dissent arises, then what? See, like sharks monotheistic religions must move forward and seek to consume and dominate. And becuase they claim superior morality and knowledge they can't tolerate dissent within their prisincts. But aren't we getting pretty sophomoric here? I think this is obvious. Any Mormon claiming his faith doesn't aspire to cover the earth and dominate it, at least in the abstract, by coersion or persuasion or whatever, is being silly. Of course it does.

You are making large leaps in logic here, SU. You are assuming that since most religions (including Mormonism) want to convert the masses that they necessarily want to destroy republican principles in the process. Why the correlation? In the days of the early church when virtually everyone in the community was a Mormon, Joseph Smith stressed the importance of protecting the religious freedom of non-Mormons, precisely because he understood that religious persecution, no matter what the source, was wrong.

In fact, given the Mormon position that the Constitution is inspired and that we believe in being subject to kings, rulers, etc., you could even argue that if Mormons were in charge of everything, they would seek to bolster constitutional principles (and Mormons believe that constitutional principles will "hang by a thread" until the church helps prop them back up again) and spread republican ideals.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You are making large leaps in logic here, SU. You are assuming that since most religions (including Mormonism) want to convert the masses that they necessarily want to destroy republican principles in the process. Why the correlation? In the days of the early church when virtually everyone in the community was a Mormon, Joseph Smith stressed the importance of protecting the religious freedom of non-Mormons, precisely because he understood that religious persecution, no matter what the source, was wrong.

In fact, given the Mormon position that the Constitution is inspired and that we believe in being subject to kings, rulers, etc., you could even argue that if Mormons were in charge of everything, they would seek to bolster constitutional principles (and Mormons believe that constitutional principles will "hang by a thread" until the church helps prop them back up again) and spread republican ideals.

Yes, I'm hypothesizing that any religion unrestrained by secular, replublican institutions that have greater popular support and power than such religion will undergo a sort of mutation into a totalitarian ruler.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Yes, I'm hypothesizing that any religion unrestrained by secular, replublican institutions that have greater popular support and power than such religion will undergo a sort of mutation into a totalitarian ruler.

Ergo Romney is Hitler.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Ergo Romney is Hitler.

Come now. I never said that. Anyway, I doubt he's a believer in his heart of hearts.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Yes, I'm hypothesizing that any religion unrestrained by secular, replublican institutions that have greater popular support and power than such religion will undergo a sort of mutation into a totalitarian ruler.

You are really all over th e place on this one.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Come now. I never said that. Anyway, I doubt he's a believer in his heart of hearts.

No, you never said that. You just asked for some sort of confirmation that he won't do to America what Hitler did to Weimar Germany.

You're really at your best tonight.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

...Christopher Hitchins writes a book about how religion poisons everything...Hithcins believes religion poses a menace to liberty tantamount to fascism and communism..

Thus saith Christopher Hitchins and so it shall be.