#How to respond to anti-Mormon arguments

[trberman]

Weaponizing Social Media: How Toxic Apologetics Threaten Faith and Testimony of Latter-day Saints

Photo by Sander Sammy on Unsplash Navigating Faith in the Digital Age: Defending Truth Against Online Attacks In an era where social media amplifies criticism and contention, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints face an increasing wave of digital opposition. From historical distortions to modern ideological pressures, faith is often put on trial in the court of public…

[demoisverysexy]

I'm sorry but "Warnings for ... anti-Mormonism" The Mormon religion is a fucking cult and countless ex Mormons have come out to say as much. It's abusive, controlling, and horrifying. Don't you dare act like being against a cult deserves to be in the same warning as ableism.

Putting aside the fact that this ask implies that you have been searching through my blog for dirt on me, I have some thoughts. You say there are "countless" ex-Mormons who say that Mormonism is a cult. How many exmos is that? I know ex-Mormons who say it isn't a cult. They left because of legitimate grievances they have with the church, grievances which I largely agree with, but they insist it isn't a cult despite those issues they have. Which ex-Mormons should I be listening to? The ones who agree with you or the ones that agree with me?

My issue with this ask is how deeply uncurious and unserious it is. I have talked about why Mormonism isn't a cult before at length. I have talked about my issues with the religion, and have criticized aspects of it publicly. I have engaged publicly in interrogating and living my life in a way that neither betrays my principles nor Mormonism. How well I have done in that regard is not for me to say. But what I can be sure of is that you don't care about that. You're here because you're mad because I chewed you out about your bad take about Brandon Sanderson, as you demonstrated in your second ask:

There are a few things of note here. First of all, in the first sentence alone you made it obvious that your concern about me being Mormon isn't real. You're concern trolling me. You care far more that I dared to disagree with your weird take on the quality of Brandon Sanderson's writing than you care to actually bring up anything meaningful about the harm Mormonism has caused in the world as an institution. You're attempting here to sabotage my character and not actually address my beliefs and positions. You don't care, and that is why you move the goalposts both for your statement about my beliefs on Mormonism (me believing Mormonism isn't a cult becomes me "acting like anti-cult is bad"), and your shifting of your own position.

Let's talk about your original post for a moment, shall we. When you, the curator of a sideblog centered around A Song of Ice and Fire (hereafter referred to as ASoIAF), decide to make a post making fun of fans of Brandon Sanderson's books, how are we supposed to interpret this? Typically online when we make fun of the fans media online, we are not merely passing judgement on the fans themselves, we are implying that the fact that they enjoy the specific media they are fans of is an indicator of their stupidity in some way (e.g. Marvel fans, Swifties, etc). So while, in your initial post, it is true you said nothing textually about the quality of Sanderson's writing, by throwing Sanderson's fans under the bus, you were implying that Sanderson himself has done something to incur our ire as well. Then on top of that when I said in response to your post with "Question: why the fuck are we dragging Sanderson in all this? Not everything has to be game of thrones dude," you replied hyperbolically that you were going to break into every fan of Sanderson's writing and replace their copies of the Stormlight Archive with a box set of ASoIAF. Which implies much more strongly that you have a negative perception of Sanderson's writing compared to Martin's. The fact that after I responded with my post dressing you down, you went on to tag me in the notes of your own post passive aggressively, and then send me two anons vagueing me about my takes on Mormonism that you never bring up specifically indicates to me that you don't have an argument, not really. You're just mad, and you want an excuse to not like me. It's been a full day since I reblogged your post, and you decided to send me these asks. Don't you have anything better to do?

At the end of the day, a lot of the anti-Mormon sentiments (bigoted sentiments, as opposed to sentiments merely critical of actual problems within the church) comes down to laziness. When someone hates someone or something, there is a strong temptation to no longer think of the object of their hatred as worthy of study or speculation or even scrutiny. Any bad thing that is said about the object of one's hatred can be accepted and not questioned. It's useful in affirming your hatred, after all. And because of that, Mormonism itself is cast as a reason to dislike someone, as opposed to their actual bad actions.

I have done bad things in the past on tumblr. Publicly too. I'm sure you could find them if you went digging. But if you were to do that, I don't think you would be doing yourself, or me for that matter, any good. You would be no closer to seeing me, to hearing me, to understanding my way of seeing things and what makes me tick. When you view me merely as an opponent, as an obstacle in your story as opposed to somebody with a rich and complicated life, you impoverish your own experience and it becomes impossible for you to change me in a way that matters. If I am wrong to be Mormon, your attitude is the last thing I need. If you can't respect my human decency, please at least leave me alone. You have nothing to gain in obsessing over me because I disagreed with you about fantasy novels.

[sickslickman]

Welcome to the Table States

Been thinking of doing this for a while, just a cast list for Welcome to the Table by main, major recurring, minor recurring, and guest spots. Let me know if I missed anyone. Also I don’t know sports teams worth a damn, so if I don’t name the state’s jerseys as they should be, that’s why.

Main cast:

(These are characters that premiered in the first episode and appear in most if not all of the episodes. Note: unless otherwise mentioned, all characters in this series are portrayed by Ben Brainard)

DC: The District of Columbia. Runs the meetings. Acts as the leader, but occasionally the shady side of politics comes out of him. Trying desperately to keep his sanity amid the virus, BLM, and everyday American life. His appearance goes from wearing a polo shirt to a suit and tie. Appears in every episode.

Call: “I’m about to do something drastic!”

Florida: The Sunshine State. The Mr. Hyde to DC’s Dr. Jekyll, he is all for absolute chaos and fun over order and following guidelines, and basically comes to the meetings solely to ruin DC’s day. Knows how to call every state because everyone eventually moves to Florida. His appearance is usually a tank top, shorts and a bucket hat. Believes that the coronavirus is a hurricane (or a tropical storm, it varies from day to day). Appears in every episode.

Call: “Duval!”

Texas: The Lone Star State. Usually represents everything the conservative side stands for (guns, politics, religion, women’s rights, big government, you get the drill). His appearance is a red button down shirt and a black cowboy hat. Appears in most episodes.

Call: Sing lines from “Who Put All My Ex's in Texas” by Willie Nelson

California: The Golden State. Usually represents everything the progressive liberal side stands for (abortion, anti-police, anti-fascism, anti-confederacy, BLM, you get it). His appearance is hipster based with beanie and thick-framed glasses. Appears in most episodes.

Call: “Hey Human Torch!” (Unknown if that’s official call or if it just worked because of the wildfires currently ongoing in California)

New York: The Empire State. Tends to be gruff, abrasive and sometimes hostile with his arms almost always folded. Politically is sort of the middle ground between Texas and California; mostly would rather be doing anything else. His appearance used to be a winter coat and hat but has since switched to a Giants jersey. Appears in most episodes.

Call: Unknown at this time, but does react when someone claims their pizza is better.

Major Recurring:

(These are states that make frequent appearances and/or have a strong presence)

Louisiana: The Pelican State. Florida’s best friend and main partner in crime. Very laid back. Only character that speaks with a Cajun accent. His appearance was initially a bucket hat and suspenders with no shirt, but has gradually shifted to wearing LSU gear. Loves daiquiris and gators. Appears in most episodes. His premiere episode is the most watched episode of the series.

Call: “Who dat? Who dat?”

(Note: At this point he has appeared in as many episodes as the main cast, considering bumping him up to main.)

Georgia: The Peach State. Always acts like he just got out of bed, and is almost never seen without a mug of coffee. His appearance has gradually shifted from pajamas to Panthers gear. About as chaotic as Florida, but more out of being dim-witted than out of desire for chaos. Appears in many episodes.

Call: Unknown at this time

West Virginia: The Mountain State: The only state to appear in the pilot episode that is not a main character. Appears very infrequently. His appearances usually involve following coronavirus guidelines and his usage of the word “f***.” Initially dressed in Amish clothing, he has since changed to a Mountaineers football shirt and hat.

Call: Unknown at this time

Washington: The Evergreen State. As the American spread of the coronavirus originated in Seattle, he is almost always coughing but passes it off as “allergies.” Usually wears a dark short-sleeved button down and hipster glasses with ear buds. Appears in several episodes.

Call: Unknown at this time

Massachusetts: The Bay State. Appears frequently and loudly. Has a love-mostly-hate relationship with New York. Tends to be a very abrasive and loud voice of reason. His appearance has gone from a Celtics jersey to a Bruins one.

Call: “Is that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck?”

Utah: The Beehive State. His appearance is a dress shirt and tie and he usually carries a Bible. He is a Mormon and very religious. Has an antagonistic relationship with Florida, who constantly belittles him and inquires about his multiple wives (which Utah does not do anymore). Appears semi-frequently.

Call: “I wish someone were here to tell me about my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!”

Kentucky: The Bluegrass State. Usually wears a dress sweater and carries a picture of Governor Andy Beshear with him everywhere. Tends to be a voice of reason and one of the least problematic states at the table, which is surprising given who his senator is. Appears semi-frequently.

Call: Pronounce “Louisville”

The Carolinas: Both make frequent and strong appearances, and both have a rough relationship with Florida. Both wear T-shirts reflecting their states.

South Carolina: The Palmetto State. Likes to remind Florida of the Jameis Winston crab legs incident. Gets annoyed if you say his barbeque is trash. Loves college football and is always talking about Clemson.

Call: “Carolina BBQ is trash!”

North Carolina: The Tar Heel State. Although he has only appeared in the series fairly recently, he has already become a recurring character. Loves barbecues and basketball. Tends to get hit with a lot of natural disasters.

Call: “It’s bo time!”

Colorado: The Centennial State. Wears a blue T-shirt and a ski hat with goggles. Is usually high all the time and constantly talks about weed. Appears semi-frequently.

Call: Howl like a wolf

Alaska: The Last Frontier. Has only appeared a couple of times but has made a strong impression. Wears an “Alaskan grown” shirt and winter hat. Speaks in a slow but patient voice. Likes to be left alone. Has a friendly rivalry with Texas on account of size. Is a little weird but friendly enough.

Call: None. He is always there. Like Batman.

Minor Recurring:

(These are for characters that are more like supporting characters. Note that although several of these states have had episodes focusing on them, their overall presence is less than that of the major recurring)

Indiana: The Hoosier State. Has only appeared twice. Has trouble coming to terms with Mike Pence’s alleged homosexuality. Not much else notable about him.

Call: Sing the Indiana Jones theme (Although he would prefer “Hoo hoo!”)

Pennsylvania: The Keystone State. Appears semi-frequently but is mostly a slightly less abrasive New York or Massachusetts. Wears an Eagles jersey in most appearances. Constantly asking for a drink. Constantly asking people to choose between Wawa or Sheetz.

Call: “We are!”

Wisconsin: The Badger State. Wears a giant foam Swiss cheese hat on his head. Is perpetually drunk. Argues in favor of the rights of the people (although not always in the best ways). Hates Illinois and especially the Bears.

Call: “Anyone need anything from Quik Trip?”

Illinois: The Prairie State. Mostly just known for Chicago and not much else. Wears a Cubs jersey and hat. Seems rather old fashioned and does not like alcoholics. Everyone in his state seems to hate each other. Hates Wisconsin and has arguments with New York in regards to who makes better pizza.

 Call: Unknown, but seems to react to someone insulting the Bears.

Ohio: The Buckeye State. Loves skyline chili and wine at two o’clock. Begins just about every sentence with “ope.” Used to dress like a rapper wannabe, but now dressed in Ohio State gear. Hates Michigan and given the chance would kill him himself.

Call: “O-H!”

Michigan: The Great Lake State. Wears a Lions jersey and hat and brings a bottle of Vernors with him everywhere. Hates Ohio and wants to beat Ohio State at football.

Call: “Liberate Michigan!”

New Mexico: The Land of Enchantment. Appears very infrequently. Speaks Spanish on top of English. Is intelligent to a degree but will throw down if necessary. Mostly talks about cultural things. Wears a blue hoodie-looking sweater.

Call: Unknown, but responds when someone claims to have better green chili.

Mississippi: The Show Me State. Claims to be the “Harvard of the South.” Carries a water bottle with him wherever he goes. Gets into arguments with California over Confederate momentos.

Call: Unknown at this time

Alabama: The Cotton State. Mostly appears in the weekly recap videos. Represents the philosophies of the Deep South. Not much else known about him.

Call: Unknown at this time

Arizona: The Grand Canyon State. Appears mostly as a semi-frequent character in the weekly recap videos. Not much else is known about him.

Call: Unknown at this time

Missouri: The Show Me State. Appears semi-frequently in the weekly recap videos. Not much is known about him other than he likes barbeque and has a feud with Kansas over Kansas City.

Call: Unknown at this time

Oklahoma: The Sooner State. Appears mostly in the weekly recap videos but has made other appearances too. Tends to be rather sarcastic and blunt, but is prone to overreaction at times. Hates Texas.

Call: Unknown at this time

Tennessee: The Volunteer State. Appears mostly in the weekly recap videos. Tends to be high-pitched and melodramatic.

Call: Unknown at this time

Oregon: The Beaver State. Appears mostly in the weekly recap videos. Was very active during the BLM protests and was vocal against the use of police brutality and unmarked abductions.

Call: Unknown at this time

Minnesota: The North Star State. Appears mostly in the weekly recap videos. Was very active during the BLM protests and in support of defunding police and reallocating resources. Tends to be a voice of reason.

Call: Unknown at this time

Connecticut: The Constitution State. Has only appeared a few times in the weekly recap videos. Tries to avoid dealing with Florida as much as he can.

Call: Unknown at this time

Maryland: The Free State. Wore a T-shirt in early appearances but is now decked out in crab gear in recent ones. As abrasive as a northern state, but with as much pride as a southern one. Early episodes had a running gag of Maryland’s issues regarding coronavirus tests.

Call: “Anyone have any Old Bay?”

The Dakotas: Appear infrequently. Only have about thirty-six people among both of them.

North Dakota: Has only appeared a couple of times. Not much is known about him.

South Dakota: Has appeared more often than his brother, but usually only talks about the Sturgis Bike Rally. Also is trying to fight meth.

Call: “Who’s the better Dakota again?” (will call both of them)

Iowa: The Corn State. One of the biggest running gags in the series is that no one seems to know where he is or how to get in touch with him. Tends to come and go from meetings whenever he sees fit.

Call: Unknown at this time

Background characters:

(Characters that only appear once or have no real significance to the series)

Nevada: The Silver State. Has only appeared once. Dresses like a Vegas dancer.

Rhode Island: The Ocean State. Has only appeared once to discuss his name change.

New Jersey: The Garden State. Has only appeared once. Doesn’t like it when New York keeps visiting him.

Wyoming: The Equality State. Has only appeared once when Florida insulted his name.

Nebraska: The Cornhusker State. Has appeared a couple of times but has had no real significance.

Kansas: The Sunflower State. Has only appeared a couple of times. Tends to feud with Missouri over Kansas City.

Idaho: The Gem State. Has only appeared once(?).

Arkansas: The Natural State. His only real appearance was in the poker episode when everyone told him he couldn’t play on account of he never shuts anything down and can’t weigh in with anything.

Delaware: The First State. Has only appeared twice. Like the state itself, nothing of significance has yet been noted.

Virginia: The Old Dominion. Has only appeared a couple of times, and his only notable role was in the mask debate.

States that still have not made an appearance:

Montana

Vermont

Maine

New Hampshire

Hawaii (Note that Brainard has stated he wishes to find a Hawaiian native actor to play this character.)

Other characters in this series:

CDC: The Center of Disease Control. Originally played by Ben Brainard, the role has since been taken over by comedian Drew Lynch. An overworked, underappreciated man who tries to get the states to adhere to coronavirus regulations. He has a bad stutter and has not slept in weeks. He may be being kept alive purely on coffee and good intentions.

International DC: Played by Elana Rose. Has only appeared once. DC’s sister and the international relations part of the federal government. She’s not very good at her job and tends to act very “mean girl.”

Mother Nature: Played by Liz, aka “lozclaws”. The goddess of earthling weather. Has an on-again off-again relationship with Florida.

Claire: Also played by Liz. Mother Nature’s...roommate? Mother? Not entirely sure. Tries to be a voice of reason to a pair with very little reason between the two of them.

The National Guard: The national army. Has only appeared twice, once to bodyguard Maryland, the other to discuss the BLM protests.

The 3rd Amendment: The third amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Only appeared once. It was very confusing.

Virginia: Kentucky’s sign-language interpreter. Only appeared once. Was deeply offended by Florida (as we all are).

Greg the Sound Guy: The guy who handles the audio and holds the mic boom for the show. Only appeared twice. Probably doesn’t get paid enough.

[lenjaminmacbuttons]

yknow i thought it was having queer kids that turned my mom into a liberal but now im watching her have a facebook argument with her sister about abortion and

mom condemns the current situation of, depending on the state, women in unsustainable pregnancies having to be reviewed by a legal panel before receiving the medical care (ie abortion) that they need. aunt says a legal review for consideration of human life is justified. mom says a traumatizing, invasive overreach for a woman already sure to lose the child is heartless.

aunt says she herself would be willing to go through that trauma to save even one child. Mom says aunt is in no danger of going through that trauma.

When my mother was pregnant with my youngest sibling, Penelope, she had a stroke--pregnancy causes blood to clot more easily, and her preexisting vulnerability to migraines thinned the veins to the brain. She actually had two strokes, and on the second they had to induce labor, and Penelope was born a little premature. Mom and baby are doing just fine now (pea is now 11 and will not stop murdering me in among us, which hurts my feelings but im proud of them), but the permanent effect is that for the sake of her life Mom can’t ever get pregnant again--even though she’s told me she would want to if she could.

In this Facebook argument, my mother reminds her sister: “You're not at risk of experiencing this, so what you're saying is that you're willing to put others through this trauma. The fact of the matter is that it could be me. Pregnancy for me would be a death sentence. Can you imagine? You'd be okay with that?”

My aunt hasn’t responded to that.

and like, these aren’t opinions my mom has had forever. i remember when I was a kid my mom dutifully addressed empty red envelopes to barack obama as an anti-abortion message, complete with ultrasound pictures of me and my siblings as fetuses. but that was before penelope was born. so maybe those strokes are what changed her mind.

but even so, she kept changing her mind on more and more topics after that, for more and more reasons. she started fighting against homophobia and transphobia after my brother and I each came out. she started fighting against poverty and racism when she became a teacher and found herself caring for kids from all different backgrounds, especially when we became a foster family for a couple of those students. and through each of those channels, she was introduced to groups and leaders and educators who informed her how to fight even harder (Mama Dragons, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, Black Lives Matter Utah, etc)

i don’t know what the point of this post is. maybe it’s calling myself out for being narcissistic thinking I was what kickstarted my mom’s radicalization? maybe it’s driving home that politics really is a life-or-death topic, and that you can’t just abstain from it or stick to tradition and expect things to turn out fine. maybe it’s driving home that sticking to conservative tradition is going to end up wrong every time, on every topic.

Because politics are literally and intentionally what govern our lives and conservative tradition has absolutely no room for reality and for empathy. It just doesn’t want to see it.

[nerdygaymormon]

If you have time, do you mind writing a post about the history of Family: A Proclamation of The World. I would like to know more about what was actually going on at the time. So many people say that they envisioned the problems are society would have before it was even a problem, but I don't believe that. I know some people claim this political document is doctrine because we sustain all the apostle as prophets, seers and revalators. I also have heard that it is not doctrine. Thank you!!

This is a good ask.

I’m going to detail the efforts to get gay marriage legalized in Hawaii and the Church’s opposition. I will also drop in other notable happenings that occurred during this time. These things led the Church to issue the proclamation.

———————————————————————  

If we go all the way back to 1980′s, several cities and states were dealing with gay rights (anti-discrimination ordinances) and same-sex marriage.

Aug 1984 - Elder Oaks writes a memo (which gets leaked a few years later) outlining his recommendation for how the Church should oppose anti-discrimination laws and also same-sex marriage. He puts forth “secular” arguments that can be used in opposing legislation.

1986 - The annual Utah Gay and Lesbian Festival is begun

In 1988 the Church hired a marketing agency in Hawaii to monitor and promote the Church’s stance on gay issues. One reason for choosing a firm in Hawaii was to separate the church’s name from the legislative efforts the firm was undertaking.

n 1989 Denmark became the first country in the world to legally recognize same-sex unions, calling them “registered partnerships.”

1990 - For the Strength of Youth pamphlet is published and in the “Sexual Purity” section it says “the Lord specifically forbids … sex perversion such as homosexuality”. It continues “homosexual and lesbian activities are sinful and an abomination to the Lord” and “unnatural affections … toward persons of the same gender are counter to God’s eternal plan”

Oct 1990 - Utah’s first pride march is organized by BYU shock-aversion therapy survivor Connell O’Donovan. The marchers go right past the Salt Lake temple.

Dec 1990 - 3 same sex couples applied for marriage licenses in Hawaii. Hawaii’s marriage law doesn’t specify anything about the sex of the people getting married. The Hawaii Attorney General’s office was asked for an opinion. The opinion is that under the United States Constitution the right to marry is fundamental, but only for different-sex couples.

Mar 1991 - Elder Jack Goaslind, church young men president, stated that the church would withdraw from the Boy Scouts of America if homosexual youth were allowed to join.

Apr 1991 - Citing the Hawaii Attorney General’s opinion, the marriage licenses were denied to the three couples.

May 1991 - A lawsuit, later known as Baehr v. Miike, was filed asking for the same-sex exclusion to marriage in Hawaii be declared unconstitutional. Hearings took place in September. The court considered whether Hawaii constitution’s right to privacy included a right to same sex marriage and decided that it did not.

May 1991 - The play Angels in America debuts in San Francisco and goes on to Broadway, winning Tony Awards. The play features a gay Mormon in a mixed-orientation marriage.

Oct 1991 - The circuit court ruled against the three couples, but it wasn’t that simple. The court found that under Hawaii’s equal protection clause, denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples constituted discrimination based on sex and declared that the state is required to justify this discrimination under the standard of strict scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny means when it comes to infringing on a constitutional right, the government has to show it has a compelling interest that requires it to do so (some examples include national security, or preserving the lives of a large number of people). The law to achieve this compelling interest has be to crafted to be very narrow, not overly broad in what it addresses. And the law has to use the least restrictive means to achieve the purpose.

The couples who lost the case announce they’re going to appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court.

________ 

Elder Donald L. Hallstrom was serving as a Regional Representative. You may not be familiar with that term because the calling of Regional Representative is now known as Area Authority Seventy.

Elder Hallstrom was reading the local paper’s coverage of the trial, dismissal and appeal. If the Hawaii supreme court takes the case, same-sex marriage could become legal in Hawaii. Elder Hallstrom makes sure his priesthood leaders are aware of this possibility.

Nov 1991 - The church responded with a letter to be read in all congregations from the First Presidency titled “Standards of Morality and Fidelity” which talks about the “sacred nature of procreative powers” and the “divinely appointed roles of men and women.” It also said “sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife…within the bonds of marriage.” And that “homosexual and lesbian behavior” is sinful and those people could face church discipline.

Although the letter is signed by all three members of the First Presidency, President Ezra Taft Benson was in very poor health and was rarely seen in public after 1989. 

________

April 1992 - In General Conference, Elder Boyd K. Packer says that animals don’t mate with other animals of the same sex, so humans who do so degrade themselves below animals.

1992 - The Church publishes the pamphlet “Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems” for ecclesiastical leaders. This booklet says that homosexual thoughts and feelings can be overcome and in some cases, heterosexual feelings emerge that lead to marriage.

Oct 1992 - The Hawaii Supreme Court heard the case.

April 1993 - Norway approves registered partnerships, becoming the 2nd country to legally recognize same-sex couples

May 1993 - The Hawaii Supreme Court issued its ruling. The court said if the state government wants to forbid same-sex marriages, it needs a compelling reason. Otherwise, limiting who a person may marry is sex-based discrimination and unconstitutional under Hawaii’s constitution which forbids any laws that discriminate by sex.

The high court sent the case back to the circuit court to issue a new decision based on whether the state can demonstrate a “compelling public interest” in denying marriage to same-sex couples.

The court gave the state legislature time to take action.

May 1993 – Apostle Boyd K. Packer gives an address at a meeting of the All-Church Coordinating Council and refers to homosexuality as one of the three major social problems that represent a danger to members.

Oct 1993 - Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ talk in General Conference says that “there are many political, legal, and social pressures for changes that confuse gender and homogenize the differences between men and women“.

Jan 1994 - The next Hawaii legislative session begins.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Catholic church decided to work together to influence the outcome of bills aimed at keeping marriage only between a man and a woman. Many “experts” were sent to Hawaii to testify, lobbyists were hired and worked behind the scenes.

The Hawaii legislature has competing bills to ban same-sex unions but none are successful because the Senate and House are unable to agree. They House versions of bills were more conservative than would pass in the Senate.

The legislature also creates the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law to study the issue of granting benefits to same-sex couples.

Feb 1994 – The First Presidency issues a letter that says the church is opposed to same-sex marriage. The statement says, “We encourage members to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender.”

April 1994 - Elder Packer gives a conference address that mentions “those confused about gender” and “that changes in the laws around marriage and gender threaten the family.”

May 1994 - President Benson passes away and Howard W. Hunter becomes president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

June 1994 - Sweden approves registered partnerships for same-sex couples

Feb 1995 - After another year of working with legislators, attorneys and others in Hawaii, the church announced it would file a petition in the Baehr case to “protect freedom of religion to solemnize marriages between a man and a woman under Hawaiian law.”

In the petition, the Church argued that if same-sex marriage was legalized, (1) it feared the state would revoke its minister’s licenses to marry couples. (2) the church would face lawsuits claiming its ministers discriminate based on sex as to whom they will marry. (3) the Church can help the Attorney General present a more complete case because the state had limited time & resources.

Nov 1994 - Elder James E. Faust gave a speech at BYU where he says that homosexuality is not biological or inborn and that same-sex marriage would unravel families and the fabric of human society.

Feb 1995 - The LDS church recruits members to work with and donate to Hawaii’s Future Today as a way to oppose efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in Hawaii.

March 1995 - President Hunter dies and Gordon B. Hinckley becomes president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

March 1995 - The court rules that Church can’t intervene in the Baehr case because the no law requires a minister to perform every marriage. The state simply permits ministers to perform marriages, and they choose which to do. The church may face frivolous lawsuits, just like any individual or entity. The state of Hawaii is capable of presenting its case without the church.

Mar 1995 - Elder Dallin H. Oaks begins work on an article on same-sex attraction that will be published in October. In the article, Elder Oaks says that the concept of “homosexual” or “lesbian” as a kind of person is incompatible with LDS theology. Rather the terms should be reserved for use as adjectives that refer to kinds of behavior.

1995 - LDS Family Services publishes the manual “Understanding and Helping Individuals with Homosexual Problems” in which is says “There is sufficient scientific research and clinical evidence to conclude that homosexuality is treatable and preventable.”

Mar 1995 - Utah passes the country’s first Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which says it will not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states

Apr 1995 - The Hawaii legislature rewords the state statute on marriage to say one man and one woman.

Sept 1995 - The Hawaii Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law is disbanded after an attempt to appoint Mormon & Catholic members to the Commission. It was seen as a violation of the separation of church and state. A second 7-member commission is set up using a different procedure.

Sept 1995 - The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles presents a joint “Proclamation on the Family.” This is read by President Hinckley in the General Relief Society Broadcast

The proclamation seems to be primarily based off of Elder Packer’s conference talk from 1993.

———————————————————————  

I was a student at the Church schools in Rexburg & Provo from Jan 1993 to June 1997. The Church’s efforts to sway the legalization of marriage in Hawaii was covered frequently in the school newspapers.

We have had at least one apostle say that when the Family: A Proclamation of The World was issued, people were commenting that this is all common sense and why would they need to publish this.

Perhaps some people did say those things, but those people were not paying attention.

———————————————————————

The FanProc is a summary of LDS doctrine. People who say that the proclamation isn’t doctrine typically mean it hasn’t been voted on and officially declared scripture.

Anyone who says this proclamation isn’t important because it’s not officially doctrine are kidding themselves. It is referenced in general conference more than the scriptures and hangs in the homes of most married couples of the church.

[theholidayslingerlikebadperfume]

I wish people understood the difference between ignorant and stupid because it'd really solve a lot of issues in communication. I wish I could say things like "I believe you have to be at least a little bit ignorant to believe in religion, but especially mormonism" and people would understand what I'm getting at without having religious people feel like I'm attacking them OR insulting them. This can be applied to a lot of things- white privilege, racism, sexism, etc- but I wish we'd start calling out the ignorance in statements, not the stupidity or whatever morally loaded word we usually throw at people.

I'm not saying not to ever insult bigots, especially if they respond with strawmans, but in general I wish people understood what ignorant meant.

Ignorance: lack of knowledge or information.

In fact, I'd rather be called ignorant than stupid when I'm being uninformed by things. Idk, it just feels like calling something ignorant is way better because all you're saying is they lack information or knowledge. That's such an easy fix!!!

It's such an easy fix to not be ignorant. You just... learn.

But stupidity, that implies a fixed quality about a person. It implies they can't learn a concept and sometimes it can be very effective when a person is too far gone and you're trying to mitigate harm. Pointing a person and calling them a moron signals to other people "this behavior is not okay." It allows stigmatization of bigotry to flourish because everyone else, normal people who are ignorant, they will be swayed by your arguments if they're logically sound.

For ex: recently, I had a terf reply to a post where I said terfs are stupid for defining womanhood as oppression because it doesn't work historically and he responded with some long rant about how women are in fact and universally have been oppressed for being female. This is a fruitless debate to get into because I am starting a position where my fact based opinion just inherently requires you to start at the position I want you to start at.

It is in fact reality to say that women have never been universally oppressed. By responding to that with a "actually they HAVE" is just wrong and racist. Everyone who is more knowledgeable than the replier knows that, I don't have to say African women pre colonization were not oppressed in general. Anti-racists just know that.

At that point, when someone responds with factually inaccurate opinions, they're not willing to learn so a debate with them just causes more trouble than it's worth. What is effective to other people however is seeing a strong reaction to that ideology. The goal at that point is to renounce their lies with an insult and block.

By insulting the lie, you make it known to your audience that you won't tolerate that lie being told. It also normalizes strong reactions to bigotry without moral judgment because sometimes you have to be mean in order to protect your loved ones.

Anyways, I say all this to say: ignorance is not stupidity. It is ignorance and it is your job to handle be called ignorant from time to time. You do that by listening to information being presented and realizing you're not going to be the smartest person in the room everytime.

And when people say "racism is born out of ignorance" learn what that means. Obviously u can sub racism with any word here but my point stands. When The sentence says is not "racist people are stupid" it's "racism comes from a lack of knowledge."

I just wish more people understood that without having to constantly tell people to look up definitions of words.

[rumandtimes]

I Don’t Trust Atheists on TV

__________________________________________________

Winfred Thoroughfare

Assoc. Reasonable Man Contributor

There’s something unsavoury about television personalities in general, but especially those that address the topic of religion. As a reasonable man, I don’t trust religious personalities on television at all, but I couldn’t say that I distrust overt atheists any less or believe in them any more than the commercial evangelists.

The Call To Atheism

For an out-and-out atheist to take to the stage and the limelight, they must have some sort of mission. Namely, to sell their book, but on the back of that goal they have a supplementary objective: the destruction of religion. TV atheists usually don’t espouse the benefits of one religion over another and typically hate them all. Their goal is to destroy world religion. But as most of them in the English-speaking circuit come from the United States or England, they usually set their targets for Christianity, making little distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism, but viewing Protestantism as slightly more evolved because it can in certain cases be more secular, and usually making no distinction between Orthodoxy and liberalism, since such a divide is unimportant to the U.S. / U.K. audience.

While they are no worse than idiots spreading religious lies and falsehoods to a closed loop of believers on TV, televisions atheists are often consumed by their particular egos and in propagating the achievement of their respective book. Even atheists who feign humility will go on and on about how humble they are, and take the stage to speak of how they do not care for recognition. The companionship of atheism and egoism is likely, probably because the atheist feels as if there is a thousand-year-old tradition spanning human existence up into the majority of the present population, yet they alone in their limited group of intellectuals have solved the ultimate problem: that the big, existential lie of monotheism does not exist.

Everyone knows it’s not so simple. It is an easy matter to prove that any religious text is demonstrably false, and every religious tradition is inconsistent and inane more often than not. But that does not negate the purpose religious has in society, which is not a historical or scientific one, but a bluntly cultural function that often guides socioeconomic behaviours.

Christianity in the United States, for instance, is a markedly isolationist, greedy, and self-indulgent religion; it exists to justify the biases of the congregant, not to challenge a sense of conformity or growth. While American Christians might take umbrage with that observation, pointing to charitable works by their millions of churches and blanket ideals of amicability, religion in America is more often an economic identity or a regional heritage than a calling to a universal standard, and the threat of hell to the nonbeliever out-levers the embrace of opposing factions to a ubiquitous degree.

The Mormons, who may call themselves the most American sect of Christianity (as they claim Jesus was an American) prioritise charity, discipline, and humility for the congregant — all which could be viewed as selfless virtues. But, of course, the Mormons are also extremely strict about social habits such as embracing all forms of abstinence, and their charity comes as a cloak over the dagger of proselytisation and attempts at conversion. Humility on the individual level may be cooperative, but at the institutional level it plays a part in enforcing conformity and obedience from the top down. Charity comes with expectation, discipline comes with sacrifice, and humility comes with ceding control. While it may be hard for a believer of such transactional and oppressive religion to hear, there are forms of Christianity that ask the believer to give up nothing, and instead revel in what there is to gain in following ‘the one true way.’

While religions are often polluted and poisoned by administrative strangling of the freedoms of their lower communities, all religions at their centre have a commentary about the nature and purpose of life, a narrative on the conquest of death, and a guide to live a happier and better existence. Most people are not blind to the corruption of the global clergy, but are happy to ignore and accept the nonsense in return for the community and spiritual gains, or at the very least, the illusion of these comforts. The evangelist atheists underestimate this along with the capacity of their audience whom they ostensibly hope to convert, and underestimate the mortal terror most people have of death and living a useless life.

To broach this fact, many TV atheists speak to the fact that they don’t care what a person believes or how they find comfort, so long as it falls within the cliche utilitarian principle that it does not harm another person. For these atheists however, that is a hard definition to make, because they are very much building a public profile and a career on exterminating religion because they view religion as necessarily irrational and damaging.

Take the prominent TV atheists, while all of them are somewhat fading as of late: Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Stephen Fry, Daniel Dennett, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Nye — it is difficult to trust any of them on the topic of religion. Not because they can easily and conveniently poke holes in religious structures, as we all can, a child can grasp the paradoxes and mistruths of a religious story or text, but because they do not offer an alternative set of mind.

Becrying a problem and then failing to point to a solution helps no one. How will religion die? Where is the answer to that question? They avoid this question. Yet, to the TV atheist, questions of god are easy: Is God all-good? Of course not, because the world is a place that is not all-good. Is God anthropomorphic? Of course not, expecting the creator of the universe to resemble humankind is a clear limit of human hubris and egocentrism. Is God real? Of course not, there is no evidence that a god exists, and all religious accounts we have are clearly incorrect, so there is more reason not to believe and remain atheist or at the very least agnostic than there is reason to believe, therefore any god does not exist. Everyone but the deepest and most repressed religious fanatic has asked themself these questions and come to these rather obvious conclusions, and they didn’t need to map it out in a lengthy book to do so. Yet, still, to the vast majority of people it simply does not matter.

If you meet a Christian on the street and become upset that this man could believe in such a stupid, corrupt, and repressive religion as the Christian church, what will you do? Tell him that the church is corrupt? He will respond that the message of Christianity is dependent on Jesus, who is perfect, not the church, which may well be corrupt.

What if you tell him that Jesus did not exist? Or that Jesus was just a man, and not a deity or demigod as the Christians claim? He will respond that it is irrelevant, because the Bible is a narrative handed down through the generations and not a book of current events, and he values the heritage of traditions set forth in the Christian faith, regardless of the perception nonbelievers have of the Bible, and regardless of whether the account of Jesus exactly correct or not the message of Jesus is real, and that is all that matters.

What if you tell him the message of Jesus and the Bible is inconsistent and self-contradictory? He will respond that it is the duty of a good Christian to see the true, all-good message of the Bible by picking out the good parts as scripture, and ignoring the bad parts as a list of examples of traps of sin not to fall for.

Any argument you throw at this man about the history, epistemology, or philosophy of the Christian faith are irrelevant, because all he cares about is the end result: a belief that Christian teachings will guide a good life, and holding an absolution from the fear of death. Atheists can spout off their nonsense as much as they want, but unless they have a good alternative on how to live a meaningful life and how to not fear death, nothing they say actually focuses on the points at hand. And it is these two questions atheists routinely fail to address.

The TV atheist would tell you to live a life that feels good and helps others, and to accept the inevitability and futility of death. Not only are such statements callous and almost entirely incompatible with human psychology, they are easily criticised through quite valid complaints against hedonism and fatalism. Just as easily as religion in practice falls prey to the atheist attack, atheists’ advice in practice also can quickly fall flat. If religion is a lie, it is a lie that helps the individual live their life.

Atheists are brought back to their initial debate: If god (a higher, infinite purpose) doesn’t exist and if believing something doesn’t hurt anyone else, there is no use in changing the world as it is. But religion is an exception, because while it may help the individual, it hurts society, therefore there must always be a separation between church and state. Yet atheists are forced to reconsider the fact that religion is actually bad for society, and if it indeed isn’t at least worse than the alternative, then to consider the problem that promoting atheism actually trips the lines of not hurting others.

If atheists are spreading anti-religious rhetoric because they know religion to be false and consider it useless or redundant, but in so doing break the spirits of religious people, they are causing harm to others with out of a personal grudge or for the purpose of a vanity project. And if it turns out that human beings start to feel hollow and morbid in the broad absence of religion, or a replacement of religion, and the atheists are not able to provide that replacement, then they will have dismantled a potentially essential part of society, not only in transgression of their values of utilitarian freedom of ignorance and freedom of belief, but also to the detriment of many disillusioned peoples’ lives.

TV atheists would tell you that religion actually does not offer people anything, and everyone would be better off without believing in myths and lies, but people believe in existential lies all the time. The whole of human existence is based upon illusion, not least of which the illusions of the senses and the illusions of consciousness. Religion may be false, religion may be stupid, but by the very rules atheists set for themselves about what is acceptable for other people to believe, religion does not cause enough harm to justify an atheist making a highly public profile and international campaign in favour of destroying religion.

Atheism is not the same as education, as, again, many religious people are fully aware of the gaps in their religion already, but they choose to ignore them. That is an informed decision to remain ignorant of a problem, which is very different to being ignorant of that problem in the first place. Atheists setting out to teach Christians the truth about Christianity because they want to look so informed has a reverse effect of making the atheist look foolish and narrow-minded. Once atheists are making arguments about the weakness of religious thought, it is no longer an educational session but is just that, an argument, and if TV atheists are utilitarian as they claim then they should recognise there is no utility in arguing a moot point. Even is a religious person lapses from a religion based on being persuaded by arguments, they might change their nominal identity and retract support for a religious movement, but are their core values and daily routines really all that likely to change. They are the same person, but they just no longer check the “Catholic” box on registration forms, and now they will attend annual atheist book signings instead of attending weekly mass (which one could argue is a downgrade in practical social terms).

Many of the complaints atheists have are also complaints religious people have: Corruption in churches, mosques, temples, and synagogues; Vapidity of religion in politics; Deviation of contemporary religious teachings from the revelation of ancient religious texts; The failure to modernise the message of some religious doctrines on a regular basis. These are not religious failures, but social failures, and as the religious person would be quick to point out, religion is the solution to social ills, not the cause.

An atheist arguing with a believer about society, where religion is the solution to one person and religion is the problem to the other person, won’t get anywhere. It would be much more useful to actually argue solutions. Bill Nye arguing religion in the objective that undermining Christianity would somehow bolster Darwinism was misplaced; he should have stuck to solely explaining evolution rather than argue with someone who refused to listen to what he was saying based on irrelevant defiance of facts. That is not a religious problem — as many, if not most, Christians embrace evolution (not to mention, many nonbelievers refute evolution on baseless grounds) — it is a problem of dealing with an idiot. Tracing the gospel of Jesus will never advance that conversation, because that was not the question at issue, and Nye should have seen through and restrained himself from the red herring. Just because an idiot wants to invoke a “religious exception” to facts does not mean it is worthwhile to focus on the appeal to religion, as the tantrum against facts is the real point of contention.

TV atheists going off about religion in public sounds more like TV religionists than not. They both have a message to sell for their own sake, usually a financial or even spiteful incentive to push those ideas, and are driven above all by an egoism of hearing themselves speak a correction to the flawed masses while reaffirming just how right they are and how their own rules do not apply to themselves. In short, they want attention.

An instance I completely lost all possibility of respect for Richard Dawkins is when he gave a televised speech and took questions from an audience. All the audience were likeminded to him, as you might imagine the kind of draw to a commercial book promotion for a text Dawkins had authored and was willing to sell and sign for a price. There was no ‘reaching the masses,’ only an atheist author playing an atheist crowd, or — as they say — preaching to the choir. One spectator asked Dawkins a moral question, a chance for Dawkins to build a moral philosophy to replace the absence of modern religious guides to life, and that question was, shockingly, if gay incest was morally acceptable and even healthy. Disturbingly, Dawkins agreed with his pervert fan and said that it was okay, specifically for a lesbian mother to have sex with a lesbian daughter, or for lesbian sisters to have a long-term or exclusive sexual relationship.

A perfect example of how TV atheists will say anything to sound contrarian and build up a stir while playing their fanbase, and of how completely devoid of the human condition their thinking is. Having sex with a family member, or against an imbalance of power, is not solely wrong because it could lead to genetic diseases or questions of parenthood as Dawkins assumed. Those are costs to be reckoned after the fact. But it is wrong in the conception of the act because it violates the family structure and destroys the development of a normal and healthy life if a parent views their own child as a sex toy to be groomed into adulthood, and it violates the requirements of happiness and satisfaction in consent if there is a power imbalance in a purposefully mutual relationship.

While the loser in Dawkins’s audience obviously didn’t realise it, there is a need in human relationships to have a bond on a personal level, to have an unconditional bond on a parental level, and to have a familial bond on the sibling level (including cousins). People’s relationships are not just sexual.

Promoting incest in the presence of contraception or homosexuality as Dawkins did in an offhanded comment is disgusting and disturbed, because such a broken system would be harmful to the people involved on a social, biological, and individual level, depriving them of the value of having a family. Viewing each person as a sexual object, and each household as a harem in the process of self-breeding where people have no worth outside of being violated by their close kin, not only undermines the first and most major drive that people have in forming new relationships despite the risk with new people but it also corrodes the safety and security of life at home. There is a reason that most people don’t have an urge to have sex with their family members, and where it does happen occasionally it has never in the history of any human society on Earth been viewed as most normal and best long-term option.

Just because people consent to something does not mean it is good for them, and two lesbian siblings having sex with each other could only lead to disaster (or is likely the product of some previous disaster), no matter whether Dawkins and his acolyte have given them the go-ahead. As pornographic as it might feel to have sex with a sibling to the Dawkins-brand of utilitarian, such a perversion of biology could never compare to the fulfilment of going out into the world and meeting someone who cares for you on a purely sexual level without destroying the deeper relationship you have with a sibling for the rest of your life after the hormones wear off.

Most people know that hooking up with an ex or a co-worker is a bad idea, yet Dawkins is telling people to go for their mom if she’s into it and they bring a condom. And as a biologist, hiding behind the title of biology to push evolution as a trojan horse for atheism, Dawkins should — should — have immediately noted that such a stance is evolutionarily unsustainable if adopted to any real degree, and that it comes off as somewhat homophobic and ill-informed to acquaint doing gay stuff with doing incest and then say it’s cool only because “they can never have children.” Gay people are not black holes of morality, nor are they dead ends of evolution, which Dawkins neither said nor implied, yet that was implied by what he said.

Perhaps tellingly, Dawkins and fan completely failed to understand the fact that sex is a behavioural more than a procreative act — another misconception about human nature Dawkins ironically shares with the church. As a general rule, as well as an absolute rule, say no to incest.

While that’s Dawkins, and maybe people never respected him anyway, the other TV atheists have a repetitive air to their talks of wasting their time (Bill Nye), pushing an ulterior agenda (Sam Harris), going on a pointless rant (Stephen Fry), flattering their own ego (Richard Dawkins), suffocating people with the obvious (Daniel Dennett), being generally unsufferable if not all of the above (Christopher Hitchens), failing to properly contextualise the issue (Neil deGrasse Tyson), or acting out as a contrarian (Bill Maher). If being reasonable is the only goal of the TV atheist, they ought to reason out the fact that religion does play a role in people’s lives, and solving the issues of child rape or poor education or genocidal conflicts are not as simple as saying, “abolish the church,” because the church is a manifest if flawed representation of religion, and religion itself is not responsible for those atrocities.

If anything, religion is a meaningless term — especially in hyper secular and materialist societies like the United States, Britain, European Union, China, and Russia — and especially in hyper dogmatic societies such as Pakistan, Iran, Tanzania, Israel, and Argentina. Religion means whatever the religious person wants it to, and that is not due to ignorance as the TV atheists believe, but is actually by design.

People convert religions, lapse, mutate, and protest their teachings in accordance with their own beliefs. Just because this happens behind the scenes and in silence for most people does not mean the internal doubts and realignments do not take place. And at the end of the day, religion is still there, because people need a sense of purpose and a reason to live their lives, and because most people (unlike the impenetrable exterior of the common TV atheist) don’t want to die — and the concept of death includes aging, being outperformed by rivals, feeling useless, losing a sense of purpose or time, feeling regret over memories, and facing the unknown in both the present and the future.

Religion helps people by telling them lies. Such as in America, American-Christianity telling people everything happens for a reason, telling people that god has an individual purpose for them, telling people that money does not corrupt but instead empowers, telling people that they are guaranteed to live forever in a perfect existence after the first inevitable death which they already know is coming, telling people that they can never be alone because god is always with them, telling people if they do the right thing the right thing will happen for everyone in the end. No one in their right mind could live in a world where they did not believe each of these things were true, regardless if religion is what gets it to them.

Having a handful of rich, famous, and disillusioned men complain about the idiot commoner rejects reality, or complain that the idiot commoner is being scammed by the insidious clergyman, because they just won’t accept that their lives are meaningless, and that there is no plan, and that there is no afterlife, is — frankly — mean-spirited, impractical, dishonest, harsh, and somewhat insane. Atheists may have qualms with the rabbinic tradition, but what is the harm whatsoever in a Jewish person believing that they have a calling in life and suspending disbelief is something challenges that identity? That does not mean that religion cannot or should not be reformed constantly, but the TV atheists need to start asking what is their calling, and what truly does it mean to be religious.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

The next broadside in the culture wars arrives on the Supreme Court’s doorstep Tuesday in the unlikely form of a Colorado bakery owner named Jack Phillips. Phillips is a devout Christian who closes his shop on Sundays and refuses to take business that he says violates his religious beliefs — including making cakes celebrating Halloween, atheism and “any form of marriage other than between a husband and a wife.” In doing so, he is defying his state’s anti-discrimination law, and the Supreme Court will now hear oral arguments on whether he has the right to do so.

The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, represents a pivotal new legal strategy for the Christian conservative movement grounded in religious liberty claims rather than arguments that the law should reflect their values. But it’s also a sign that the Christian right — which once professed to speak for America’s “moral majority” — is tacitly conceding a loss in its long-standing battle over gay rights. While religious conservatives have consistently cast themselves as at odds with dominant liberal, secular forces, this case indicates that they are beginning to adapt to life as a true cultural minority.

“Christian conservatives used to try to promote traditional morality for everyone, but now there seems to be a recognition that they just aren’t going to win over the culture,” said Andrew R. Lewis, a political science professor at the University of Cincinnati. “So they’re going to the courts to argue that they’re vulnerable like other minorities and they need protections from the broader culture.”

Resistance to gay rights was one of the Christian right’s earliest and most successful rallying cries, and opposition to same-sex marriage has been a galvanizing issue for the constituency since as early as 1993, when a Hawaii court struck down a gay marriage ban and Christian conservatives rushed to implement same-sex marriage restrictions around the country.

Christian right leaders like James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed frequently cast Christians as a group victimized by a cabal of secular liberal elites intent on dethroning traditional religious values. But rather than seeking to carve out space for these values within the secular mainstream, as Phillips is doing, they used this rhetoric to urge Christians to help turn back the tide. This broader strategy made sense, given that opposition to gay marriage was common among religious Americans at the time, although white evangelicals’ antagonism was particularly vehement: In 2001, only 13 percent of white evangelicals, 30 percent of black Protestants, 38 percent of white mainline Protestants and 40 percent of Catholics were in support.

After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court invalidated the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2003, Christian conservatives struck back with anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives during the 2004 presidential election. But despite these short-term gains, support for same-sex marriage rose exponentially among Americans across the board over the following decade. Today, there are only three religious groups — white evangelical Protestants, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses — where a majority of adherents oppose same-sex marriage. And the U.S. Supreme Court essentially shut down the legal paths to opposing gay marriage when it found in 2015 that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.

So now, Phillips and his attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal organization, are making a two-pronged argument focusing on the rights of religious minorities. (Neither has so far been persuasive in the lower courts.) One is that forcing Phillips to bake a custom cake for a gay wedding violates his religious freedom under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment; the other is that it violates his free speech rights as a self-described “cake artist” who would be forced to endorse a ceremony that he finds immoral.1

Phillips’ lawyers aren’t the only ones making this case. The issue of “religious liberty” has become an increasingly high priority for the broader conservative Christian population, particularly white evangelical Protestants, who are overwhelmingly politically conservative and traditionally seen as the core of the Christian right. Surveys by the Barna Group, a research organization that focuses on Christian trends, found that the number of evangelicals (white and nonwhite) who said that religious freedom in the U.S. has become restricted over the past decade rose from 60 percent in 2012 to 77 percent in 2015. Similarly, according to the Pew Research Center, while only 18 percent of white evangelical Protestant churchgoers reported that they had heard about attacks on religious liberty from the pulpit in recent months in 2012, a survey from 2016 found that 43 percent of white evangelicals said they had recently heard clergy speak in defense of religious liberty.

This preoccupation with religious liberty appears to have cemented evangelicals’ conviction that they are uniquely likely to be victimized as a result of their religion: A Public Religion Research Institute survey from earlier this year found that although Americans overall were twice as likely to say there was a lot of discrimination against Muslims than they were to say there was a lot of discrimination against evangelicals (66 percent vs. 33 percent), 57 percent of white evangelical Protestants believe there is a lot of discrimination against their own group, while only 44 percent said the same for Muslims.

Many white evangelicals see themselves as targets

How respondents in different religious groups view discrimination against Christians and Muslims

THERE IS A LOT OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST … CHRISTIANS MUSLIMS White mainline Protestants 30% 63% White Catholics 26 64 White evangelical Protestants 57 44 Nonwhite Protestants 40 75 Religiously unaffiliated 23 77 All Americans 33 66

Source: Public Religion Research Institute

White evangelical Protestants are also alone among religious groups in their support for the particular religious exemptions they seek. A PRRI survey released in February found that even religious minorities that have won landmark free speech and religious liberty cases in the past, like Jehovah’s Witnesses (an overwhelming majority of whom also say that homosexuality should be discouraged), oppose allowing small-business owners to refuse to provide products or services to gay and lesbian people. Even when asked specifically about wedding vendors in another PRRI survey, white evangelical Protestants are the only religious group in which a majority say the business owner should be allowed to refuse service to gay couples.

Wedding vendors and nondiscrimination laws

How respondents in different religious groups view requirements for wedding-based businesses to provide services to same-sex couples

YES, THE BUSINESS SHOULD BE REQUIRED NO, NOT IF IT VIOLATES THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS White mainline Protestants 44% 49% White Catholics 55 41 White evangelical Protestants 29 65 Black Protestants 56 40 Hispanic Catholics 73 19 Non-Christian religions 64 33 Religiously unaffiliated 65 31 All Americans 53 41

Source: Public Religion Research Institute

Steven Brown, a professor of political science at Auburn University who has studied the Christian right’s use of the courts, said that cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop are taking the language of rights pioneered by liberal groups over the course of the 20th century to demand even more sweeping protections for religious groups than courts have granted in the past.

“This is very different from other cases, where you had Jehovah’s Witnesses saying they couldn’t be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance in schools,” he said. It’s also a separate situation, Brown said, from instances when Christians argued that a public school or state university violated their free speech rights by restricting the activities of religious student clubs, since “those are government actors and the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect citizens from government overreach.”

“The question here is whether a Christian baker who purports to serve the public gets those protections,” Brown said. “That could lead to a dangerous place where anyone can essentially say, ‘I won’t serve your kind.’”

And then there’s the question of whether “religious liberty” is merely a cover for anti-LGBT discrimination — as some have contended — or whether with cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop, Christian conservatives are shifting to a strategy based on religious pluralism.

It turns out that both may be true. Barna’s polling shows that evangelicals are increasingly concerned about protecting their own values and way of life, even at the expense of others’: The number of evangelicals who agree that traditional Judeo-Christian values must be given preference in the U.S. rose from 54 percent in 2012 to 76 percent in 2012, while the number of evangelicals who agree that no one set of values should dominate the country declined from 37 percent to 25 percent over the same period.

But Lewis’ research also indicates that as they come to terms with their own status as a cultural minority, Christian conservatives may be more accepting of other groups’ First Amendment rights. In a recent book, Lewis developed a scale to measure support for free speech claims by various unpopular groups and found that evangelicals’ support rose significantly between 1976 and 2012.

Along with other political scientists, he also devised an experiment to measure whether exposure to claims about religious rights (like wedding vendors’ ability to opt out of same-sex weddings) increased respondents’ tolerance in general. He found that after being presented with arguments for religious exemptions, white evangelical Protestants reported more favorable views of groups like Muslims and atheists. “As they begin to make their own rights claims, it seems that evangelicals may actually become more tolerant of other groups,” Lewis said.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in this case, the struggle over religious exemptions won’t end anytime soon. Some legal scholars have already argued that although a baker’s participation in a wedding ceremony may not be significant enough to trigger a free speech exemption, a wedding photographer or singer might have a better case.2 And even if Phillips wins, future litigation will likely be needed to work out exactly who can claim religious exemptions, and from which laws.

“Even with Republicans in power in Washington, Christian conservatives have lost one of their biggest battles,” said Daniel Williams, a professor at the University of West Georgia who studies the Christian right. “At issue in this case now is just how much of their agenda they’ll be able to preserve.”

[nicholemhearn]

Libertarian Origins, Libertarian Influence, and the Ruling American Right

At the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, Ilya Somin has responded to my recent essay on the way libertarian antipathy to democracy has influenced the small-government, free-market right. Somin’s gracious and thoughtful reply is most welcome. However, I’m afraid he has misunderstood my argument and the scope of my claims. I’m sure this is as much my my fault  as his, so I’m grateful for the opportunity to clarify.

My argument, as Somin reconstructs it, is that libertarians are hostile to democracy due to an “absolutist conception of property rights,” this hostility has “infected the mainstream Republican right,” and has become “a major factor in [the right’s] undermining of various key norms of liberal democracy.” But this is totally wrong, Somin argues, because libertarian skepticism about democracy isn’t driven primarily by property rights absolutism, and “it is not a significant contributor to the pathologies of the conservative right.”  

Somin does not dispute that libertarians are generally skeptical of and often hostile to democracy. It’s agreed on all sides that libertarians tend to be down on democracy.  The contested questions then are “Why?” and “How much influence have libertarian anti-democracy ideas had on actual Republicans?”  

I’m largely unmoved by Somin’s response. First, he somewhat misstates my view about the source of libertarian hostility to democracy. Second, Somin’s implicit theory of influence is overly intellectualized and unreasonably demanding, which allows him to wave off otherwise undeniable libertarian influence on Republican politics.    

My argument is not, as Somin says, that property-rights absolutism drives libertarian democracy skepticism. This actually gets my diagnostic narrative backwards, which is why Somin’s response seems to me orthogonal to the argument I tried to make. That said, my argument wasn’t as clear as it might have been. I failed to clearly distinguish my story about the genealogy or history of certain libertarian ideas, on the one hand, and, on the other, the influence of those ideas in our political culture. I’ll try to clear that up.

But Somin and I are also running into a different confusion around the usage of “libertarianism” and “classical liberalism.” I’ll clear this up first.

Classical liberalism versus libertarianism: semantics and substance

I’ve told a historical story, which Somin doesn’t really address, that tries to say something about what distinguishes libertarianism from classical liberalism. In my story, there’s speciation in the intellectual lineage. Libertarianism branches off from classical liberalism, and the speciation event is the emergence of property-rights absolutism. It’s true that, as a matter of history and political sociology, classical liberals and libertarians continued to make common cause, and that, as a matter of linguistic usage, it became common to refer to classical liberals as “libertarians.” But in the context of a historical claim that a radical view about the inviolability of property rights accounts for the emergence of libertarianism as a philosophical and political stance distinct from classical liberalism, it begs the question to casually lump classical liberals and libertarians together.

Somin writes:

In modern times, the two most significant libertarian critics of majoritarian democracy were economists F.A. Hayek and James Buchanan (one of the founders of public choice theory). Neither of them favored absolute property rights either. Buchanan even advocated a 100% inheritance tax. Wilkinson tries sidestep this by classifying Hayek and Buchanan as “classical liberals” rather than “libertarians.” But whatever terminology we use, it is pretty obvious that Hayek and Buchanan’s ideas (combined with more recent works flowing from the same traditions) are the most influential bases for most modern libertarian skepticism about democracy. And these theories are not based on any notion of absolute property rights.

I’m not sidestepping anything by labeling Hayek and Buchanan “classical liberals” rather than “libertarians.” I’m saying that they aren’t libertarians in  the sense I’m interested in, precisely because they aren’t property rights absolutists.

Cleaving libertarianism from classical liberalism at the property rights joint is neither historically nor philosophically arbitrary. Consider this passage from Samuel Freeman, a distinguished liberal political philosopher:

It is commonly held that libertarianism is a liberal view. Also, many who affirm classical liberalism call themselves libertarians and vice versa. I argue that libertarianism’s resemblance to liberalism is superficial; in the end, libertarians reject essential liberal institutions. Correctly understood, libertarianism resembles a view that liberalism historically defined itself against, the doctrine of private political power that underlies feudalism. Like feudalism, libertarianism conceives of justified political power as based in a network of private contracts. It rejects the idea, essential to liberalism, that political power is a public power, to be impartially exercised for the common good.    

I resisted this for a long time, but I’ve come around to Freeman’s view. The implications for classical liberal/libertarian relations are profound. If Freeman’s right, classical liberalism isn’t simply a “soft” or less “principled” version of libertarianism. Rather, the distinction is that classical liberalism is a form of liberalism and libertarianism isn’t.

Now, I don’t think the distinction is really so starkly binary as that, since there’s a range of more-or-less strict views about the (in)violability of property rights.  Still, it remains that classical liberalism is in conversation with the dominant liberal view (which Freeman calls “high liberalism”) on the question of the status of economic rights and liberties in a way that libertarianism is not. Should we grant economic liberties the same legal protections afforded to civil and political liberties, and thereby further restrict the scope of democratic choice by expanding the list of basic rights? Classical liberals say “Yes.” High liberals (e.g., Rawlsians like Freeman) say “No.”  

Absolutist rights-based libertarianism isn’t really part of this conversation at all. It’s effectively an argument against liberalism and the legitimacy of liberal political institutions, which is why it’s so confusing that the folk taxonomy lumps libertarianism and classical liberalism together,  and sets them against standard left-liberalism. The dispute between liberalism and hardcore libertarianism concerns whether it’s possible to justify democratic political authority at all. The dispute within liberalism, about the status of economic rights and the legitimate scope of democratic decision-making, is much smaller than that.  

From this perspective, Somin and I both are firmly on Team Liberal. Our philosophical differences are actually exceedingly small. We both disagree with “high liberals” like Freeman more than we disagree with one another. And we disagree with liberals like Freeman less than we disagree with, say, Ron Paul.  Likewise, Jason Brennan, author of Against Democracy, who I mentioned at the outset of my essay as an example of a libertarian democracy skeptic, isn’t libertarian, in this sense, either—as he has explained himself. Brennan, like me, is an updated classical liberal—he uses the term “neoclassical liberal.”

Political labels are confusing, and I encouraged confusion about labels myself by identifying Hayek and Buchanan as classical liberals rather than libertarians, in accordance with my historical theory about the emergence of libertarianism, but followed common usage at the outset of my piece when I identified Somin, Brennan, and Bryan Caplan as libertarians, despite the fact that none of them are property rights absolutists.

This is confusing, but I don’t think it is fundamentally confused. Brennan and Caplan (I’m a little less sure about Somin) are very culturally libertarian, in much the way that some atheists are culturally Jewish or Catholic of Mormon. And that’s why it makes sense to see their books as libertarian critiques of democracy, despite the fact that none of them is a property rights absolutist, and none of them argues from notably libertarian premises.

Each of these books is based, in one way or another, on the voter ignorance literature, which doesn’t really have an ideological valence. What’s interesting is that libertarians or ex-libertarians (starting with Jeffrey Friedman at Critical Review), already relatively disenchanted about democracy, were first to latch onto the deep implications of profound public obliviousness, and laid out the dire picture with a sort of told-you-so glee. Standard liberals, burdened with a romantic attachment to an idealistic vision of democracy, have fought these implications kicking and screaming, and are only now starting to square up, rather morosely, to the bleakness of the picture.

Political philosophies exist and develop in time, and political movements and identities are social and historical. Classical liberals and libertarians have been involved in the same institutions, going to the same meetings, and attending the same parties since libertarianism got off the ground. This has libertarianized the views of classical liberals a good deal. Moreover, many new-style classical liberals, like me, came through radical libertarianism, which has continued to shape our views both as a foil and as a filter through which we can’t help but continue to experience the world.

Influence is complicated. You can change your mind without changing your heart. Doctrinal communities structure our thoughts, sentiments, and group attachments long after we’ve strayed from orthodoxy or left the group. It’s impossible to understand how political ideas influence political culture without understanding this.

What drives libertarian antipathy to democracy, again?

I strongly agree with Somin that classical liberal ideas have been a very influential source of libertarian skepticism about democracy, but these ideas aren’t distinctively libertarian. I also agree that, in elite academic and legal circles, classical liberal democracy skepticism is much more influential than radical rights-based libertarian democracy skepticism. No one doubts that Hayek and Buchanan are classier than Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, and less likely to be sneered at in a university seminar room. But this doesn’t imply, logically or empirically, that radical libertarian democracy skepticism has not had a big influence on the political culture of the right.  

Classical liberals have always opposed unconstrained majoritarian democracy. Madisonian anti-majoritarianism is a pervasive background influence on American liberalism, left and right. My genealogical/historical argument is that the specifically modern classical liberal fear of democracy was rooted in the worry that unconstrained democratic majorities, in the grip of radical socialist ideals of economic justice, would redistribute their way into penury and tyranny. Hayek is the representative figure here. His worries about democracy’s vulnerability to dangerous ideological fads motivated his constitutionalism and his conservative-ish defense of the independent political authority of the common law and established social norms against romantic majoritarians. This work has been enormously influential, and I’m a huge fan. (That I generally agree with Hayek’s view of democracy didn’t come across to some readers.)  

The next step in my story, which I’ll expand on here, is that other, even more vehemently anti-socialist classical liberals, such as Isabel Patterson and Ayn Rand, were animated by the exact same worries, but feared that refurbished classical liberal anti-majoritarianism was too morally and rhetorically insipid to stem the surging red tide.

Hayek thought that, in order to survive, liberalism needed to be updated and refreshed for the modern era. But Hayek frankly acknowledged that the fate of the liberal order ultimately depends on vagaries of public sentiment, and he visibly struggled with the problem of how to make liberalism as inspiring as socialism without dishonoring the complexity of truth. If you’re worried about the survival of liberal capitalism, this is unnerving.

Rand took the problem of inspiration and moral passion head on. She developed a radical, individualist moral and political theory expressly designed to neutralize radical socialism, sold it to the masses by weaving it into thrilling anti-collectivist propaganda, and insulated it from criticism by packing it all inside a cult of reason.

So, again, my claim is that modern classical liberal worries about democracy largely motivated absolutist theories of property rights, like Rand’s, which created a new political philosophy distinct from classical liberalism. The initial political point of libertarian property rights theory was to serve as a countervailing cultural force to the idea that leveling redistribution is a requirement of justice, and to popular myths about the unique authority and legitimacy of unlimited majoritarian sovereignty.

This is the sense in which Somin is wrong to say that I’m arguing that property rights absolutism drives libertarian democracy skepticism. On the contrary, I’m arguing that classical liberal democracy skepticism drove the adoption of property rights absolutism, which launched libertarianism as a distinct ideology.

The gospel according to Murray Rothbard

I’ve suggested that the theory of rights in Rand’s fiction and nonfiction was the, um, fountainhead of libertarianism as a distinct philosophy and political movement. Her influence has been enormous. The opinions of millions, including some extremely powerful people, have been shaped by her books. But much of Rand’s influence has been indirect, flowing through the almost mind-boggling sway of Murray Rothbard. Pausing to detail the various channels of Rothbard’s influence will help make my claim about the influence of libertarianism on the ruling American right much less abstract.   

Rothbard, effectively Jesus to Rand’s John the Baptist, created the orthodox, hardcore libertarian catechism by sprinkling Rand’s absolutist rights-based individualism with a pinch of secularized Catholic natural law doctrine and fusing it to Ludwig von Mises’ economic theories. As Jacob Levy recently noted, a smart historian looking to spin a gripping dark yarn about the influence of libertarian ideas on the American right would pass right over James Buchanan, a high-minded scholar’s scholar, and fix on Rothbard, an obscure but colorful figure who has exerted extraordinary influence on American political culture at every level of brow. high, middle and low.

On the high-brow side, Rothbard directly influenced the great Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick. Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which made hardcore libertarianism academically respectable, was a Rothbardian defense of the minimal state again’s Rothbard’s own anarchism. Untold thousands of undergrad and grad students have been exposed to libertarian ideas through Nozick’s reputable version of Rothbard and Rand.

At the cultural middle, Rothbard was a major influence on the billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, who co-founded the Cato Institute with Rothbard and Ed Crane. According to David Gordon, Koch “met Rothbard and was so impressed with him and his ideas that he decided to endow an organization to promote libertarian theory and policies.” More than a few of us here at Niskanen worked at that organization for more than a few years. It is not without influence.

On the low-brow side, Rothbard

[rickriordanrevamp]

Please hold all “Carlisle is a Doctor” comments until my Renessme wasn’t vaccinated post

Anyways I’m chapter 14, as I’m sure all you twihards remember, Bella asks how vampires came to be and Edward responds with:

“Well where did you come from? Evolution? or creation? Couldn’t we have Evolved in the same way as other species, predator or pray? Or, if you don’t believe that all this could have just happen on its own , wich is very hard for me to except myself...” on page 308

Now that on its own isn’t a very convincing argument but taking into consideration that ‘all this could have just happened on its own’ is Anti-evolution  rhetoric and that Stephanie Meyer is Mormon (no offense to Mormons full offense to Meyer) it’s easy to read this as Edward not believing in evolution and also I think it would be funny if that were true

In conclusion I can’t wait until midnight sun where Stephie either doubles down and confirms my crack theory or has to back pedal on this subtext thank you for coming to my ted talk

It’s 2020, midnight sun is coming out, twilight is trending, let’s talk about how Edward Cullen implies he doesn’t believe in evolution.