Comments

There Are 115 Responses So Far. »

1. 1 Comment by logical on 12 December 2007:

   Looks like that Miss Oprah/by the way,who I used to respect a lot/
   doesn’t think that we shell choose for the President a good,honst, smart man but that color matter more than personality….very strange!?

2. 2 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 12 December 2007:

   I think Obama and Oprah are alike–black enough to seem a little earthy and cool, and to make their white followers feel enlightened, but not black enough to seem scary or stupid. Oprah can be annoyingly touchy-feely, but at least she encourages her listeners to read books (!) and has started a school in S. Africa with her own money. As long as her foray into politics remains brief and bland, it won’t hurt her much.

   A number of polls show Obama ahead in Iowa and NH, although in Iowa Hillary’s supporters are probably more experienced and more likely to show up at caucuses. You can’t exclude Obama breaking Hillary’s cloak of inevitability. It seems incredible that any party would nominate a candidate as inexperienced as he, but remember Mencken to the effect that no one every lost money because he underestimated the gullibility of the American public.

   What’s remarkable is that all the candidates seem to have political feet of clay. It’s almost as if none can possibly win.

3. 3 Comment by Red Phillips on 12 December 2007:

   The political dilemma that Obama faces is that he can’t win a lot of Democratic primaries, esp. in the South, without getting a large percentage of the Black vote. But the Black vote is currently supporting Hillary. Why this is is a very interesting question.

4. 4 Comment by robert m. peters on 12 December 2007:

   The desire to type and post some profound profundity is indeed great; however, Dr. Fleming has left little to be said, save for an “amen” to his words.

   As an afterthought, I can say that given the nature of the women in my family – from wife, to mother, to daughter, to aunts and cousins – there is no need to destroy any TV sets. I am sometimes a bit suspicious that my aging Catahoula Leopard, Miss Samantha, might watch some TV while we are at work, but she is far too intelligent to watch Oprah. If she does watch television in our absence, it would most likely be a critical viewing of “Animal Planet.” Given the nature of her breed, she is probably partial to programs about pigs. Here, I must admit, I struggle to bring this narrative back to the topic on which Dr. Fleming would have us comment. Saved I am, however, with the word “pigs” from the previous sentence. Obama will become President of the United States when pigs can fly. There!

5. 5 Comment by robert m. peters on 12 December 2007:

   Mr. Phillips at #3

   My answer is that the portion of the antebellum black code, particularly as it was articulated in the French version in Louisiana, a version in which those in servitude had to be cared for until they passed from thie world, was never repealed and has been and remains well ensconced in the Democratic Platform and has become through civil rights legislation etched into statute as an entitlement which is, in turn, well guarded by the Democratic machinery currently controlled by the Clintons. Obama must wrest this control from the Clintons.

   The Republicans are, of course, in a bit of a dilemma. They once controlled in much the same way the black vote; however, it slipped away from them, some say, beginning with the 1927 Flood which is another story. How will they get this block of votes back without alienating the other sheep whom they have stolen, namely “conservatives” who have believed the Republican lies about embracing and acting on issues of social conservatism.

6. 6 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 12 December 2007:

   Dr. Fleming was on target. I only would add that any culture that would make billionaires of Oprah Winfrey, Martha Stewart and Vince McMahon(All-Star wrastlin’) is sick and probably incapable of repair.

7. 7 Comment by Chris Hewlett on 12 December 2007:

   I think it says a lot about Oprah that she went 10,000 miles away and started a school in Suid Afrika. I wonder if she ever considered Louisiana, West Virginia or maybe Mississippi where she was raised.

8. 8 Comment by TJF on 12 December 2007:

   Oprah Winfrey and Vince McMahon and Jerry Springer (along with Donald Trump, Ray Krock, Larry David and so many others) are among the most significant Americans of our time. They have mucked around in the darkness and filth of the American soul and found gold. McMahon and Springer in particular have a kind off Satanic genius. I keep thinking of writing a series of pieces called either “Jeryy Springer’s America” or–and this would really be in bad taste–”Jerry’s kids,” but I get more pleasure from sticking to ancient and Medieval history.

   In this connection, let me recommend a silly-profound movie that only Andre Navrozov and I seem to understand: “The Girl Can’t Help It,” starring Edmond O’Brien, Tom Ewell, and Jane Mansfield. It also features performances of early rock/RB musicians such as Gene Vincent, Eddie Cochran, Fats Domino, Little Richard, Eddy Fontaine, and the Platters. Hint: the tone-deaf gangster played by O’Brien becomes a rock star. To quote a later performer, “Ain’t that America?”

9. 9 Comment by Red Phillips on 12 December 2007:

   Dr. Fleming, I am very curious what you think of the Romney speech and Pat Buchanan’s praise of it. But maybe you have refrained from commenting so far for a reason.

10. 10 Comment by Sid Cundiff on 12 December 2007:

    Americans make the mistake that Europeans don’t: To think that “race” is more important than class. In fact, sometimes ethnic identity (not the same things a “race”) is indeed more important than class. Witness the German proletariat in August 1914. And what is more, sect is more powerful than both ethnos and class. Witness the Flemings and Walloons in 1830.

    1. Class more important than ethnos: As a retired school teacher, I witnessed many “white” teens judging certain First Blacks as heroes to be imitated. That is because both judged themselves in the same class, the class Marx hated the most, the Lumpenproletariat.

    2. Ethnos more important than class: Lots of First Blacks who are bourgeois, petty bourgeois, and proletariat, and all the West Indians and Africans with whom I have discussed the matter, have told me sotto voce that they have the same repulsion to Lumpenprole Blacks as everyone else does. They just think that to say so publicly would make them Orio. Marva Collins, Robert Woodson, Bill Crosby, Shelby Steele, and Juan Williams (West Indian) are the exception.

    3. Sect more important than ethnos and class: Madame Winfrey, Mr. Obama, Nurse Ratched Hillary, Huckabee, et al. attend the same and dominate church of American, be it Liberal Protestant, Novus Ordo Catholic, or Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Pentacostal/Dispensationalist. That is, they attend McChurches with “worship” that offers (1) confirmation of their supposed assured salvation because of their unquestioned moral purity (Wars for Righteousness), (2) hyped sensations, (3) hyped emotions to the point of frothing, (4) no historical tradition save the English Ranters, and (5) some really swell entertainment (John Bunyan on the electrical bass). The clergy in this church are really entertainers and celebrities, who sell their personalities in place of preaching the Gospel. Huckabee stands in the pulpit, La Winfrey in the confessional. McChurchianity (or Californianity) embraces all American classes and most American ethnic groups. It is uniquely American and the product of American déracinément(look that word up!). And politics, folks, is now and always has been (i) “the systematic organization of hatreds” (Henry Adams) and (ii) a function of religion (Numa Fustel de Courlanges).

11. 11 Comment by John C. on 12 December 2007:

    “I think it says a lot about Oprah that she went 10,000 miles away and started a school in Suid Afrika. I wonder if she ever considered Louisiana, West Virginia or maybe Mississippi where she was raised.”

    Good point. I will never understand why someone would go to the trouble to help people on the other side of the world, only to ignore those who reside on the other side of the tracks. Either way, I rarely trust the motives of celebrity “charity”, since it is often a self-serving ploy to boost publicity. The moment one of these clowns donates time at the local soup kitchen and doesn’t call their publicist beforehand will be the first. And let us not forget about the tax deductible donations, which will buy them some good pub without the need to lift a finger. Genius.

    Regarding Obama, I agree that this is a bad move. This may help him gain support from black females*, but when (and correct me if I’m wrong) has this vote ever been decisive in a national election? I’d have to think that the widely ignored, but still relevant “white male” vote usually decides the fate of a candidate, especially if you consider that their wives typically vote in like manner. Pandering to O’s legion of sycophantic hyenas (many of whom probably won’t vote, or lack the opposable digits to vote) seems like a pretty half-baked idea.

    In the end, I still don’t think this was nearly as ridiculous a stunt as Obama’s appearance on Ellen Degenerate’s show. As he walks on the stage, he begins to dance; showing the world that he’s rocking the rhythm and sex appeal of a sheet of drywall. Wow.

    *Black females, not black males. I’m pretty sure black guys hate Oprah too. It’s not a race thing, it’s a guy thing. In fact, I’m certain there’s not a straight man on this planet that wouldn’t run her over with a bus if the opportunity presented itself.

12. 12 Comment by Djordje on 12 December 2007:

    Oprah had to go out of country to start her own school. If she opened up shop in the south it would be a tacit admission that the federal public school juggernaut is doing a lousy job serving the populace, and particularly blacks.

13. 13 Comment by Tim Manning, Jr. on 12 December 2007:

    I’m not going to analyze how the Columbia SC tv news channels reported on the event, but… And, no I didn’t go out of my way over the weekend to check up on the events at Williams-Brice Stadium. Living in Columbia SC, the way I heard this talked about was when our local reporters were doing stories on black people chowing down on their Bojangles fried chicken out of buckets on the asphalt out in the USC Gamecock tailgating area. The stereotyping—for better or for worse—was so obvious that I don’t know how the reporter kept a straight face.
    Of course, I witnessed the out-of-towner frenzy that invaded over the weekend. Apparently, Obama likes to hire good looking white girls: http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=1382. And every reporter spent a few days leading up to the event talking about the “last-minute” change in plans, in which they claim that so many people were rsvp’ing that they had to move from the indoor arena to the football stadium.

14. 14 Comment by Lord Jebb on 12 December 2007:

    Sid said,

    “attend the same and dominate church of American, be it Liberal Protestant, Novus Ordo Catholic, or Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Pentacostal/Dispensationalist. That is, they attend McChurches with “worship” that offers (1) confirmation of their supposed assured salvation because of their unquestioned moral purity (Wars for Righteousness), (2) hyped sensations, (3) hyped emotions to the point of frothing, (4) no historical tradition save the English Ranters, and (5) some really swell entertainment (John Bunyan on the electrical bass).”

    The only thing I would add is a theology borrowed from the Beatles that teaches that the future, progress, democracy and more military technology is “gonna make everything all right.” As Bill Clinton always said to loud American applause, ” We can do better.”

15. 15 Comment by TJF on 12 December 2007:

    Added to the editorial:

    Worse news for Obama is that a poll taken after the show indicates that while 1% of respondents thought Ms Winfrey’s endorsement made them more likely to vote for him, 14% said it made them less likely.

    Romney’s speech is what I expected: Religion is a very good thing except it should make no difference to a man’s politics and thus to his morals. Most of it was simply absurd, meaningless actually, as when he said he believed in his faith–which means he believes that he believes. I might have guessed he did. When otherwise intelligent people speak gibberish it is because they are lying.

    Anyone who knows anything about Mormonism is aware that they hold no significant distinctively Christian beliefs. with. Period. Yes, they say they believe that Our Lord is the son of God but through, shall we say, the ordinary means of procreation–a disgusting blasphemy. They also say, as Huckabee has pointed out, that Christ is the brother of Lucifer. Ask a Mormon some time about what he expects to be doing on the planet he gets and whether he has informed his wife of the secret name by which he can be found in his next life. It is a wierd Judeo-gnostic sect based on what appears to be a fantasy novel, written in an illiterate form of Jacobean English and purloined by the water witch Joseph Smith. I would respect Romney more if he would simply come clean and telll the world some of the entirely wacky things that Mormons believe. Why are there no Mormon scholars? Because Mormons believe lies and if they start to find out truth, they become ex-Mormons. As for me, I’d vote for an agnostic immoralist like Giuliani long before I voted for a Mormon. The mere fact that the call us “gentiles” reveals how they really regard Christians: as unwashed enemies of their “faith.”

    Why go on? I once naively asked a Mormon assistant why we couldn’t sink sectarian differences and shake hands on the Apostles Creed. He informed me politely that Mormons agreed with nothing in the Creeds. Not even, I persisted, that God is creator of heaven and earth? No, because they think that “God”–some kind of organic superman who worked his way to the godhead–merely shaped a preexisting universe. Wow, I answered, a giant leap backward from the profound insight of creatio ex nihilo. No wonder my assistant–who had almost become a physicist but chose English, where there are no standards of truth– did not like George Gamov!

    I would rather not speculate on why some Christians appear to be more loyal to the GOP than to their professed faith. All I can say is that while individual Mormons may be good people and some of them may even rise to the level of Christian heretic, their strange cult should preclude any Christian, Jew, agnostic, rational atheist from voting for them.

16. 16 Comment by logical on 12 December 2007:

    I just do not think that the point should be:black,white,yellow,…the point should be:
    The Best should get the Job,as a President!.

    There is no question that anyone can do it better then Mrs H Clinton but do not jump out before someone did not even express himself/herself…

17. 17 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 12 December 2007:

    I would like to add to Dr. Fleming’s list of significant Americans of modern times the revolutionary Hugh Hefner, a man who towers in importance over many American presidents of his day. Who was more vital in American history, Gerald Ford or Hef? Need we answer.

18. 18 Comment by Chris Hewlett on 12 December 2007:

    Simply because of the physical existence of Mormonism on the North American continent for nigh these 150 years can we agree that we would vote for a Mormon over a Mohammedan?

19. 19 Comment by TJF on 12 December 2007:

    On what criterion? By the same token, a Greek living in Turkey should prefer to vote for a Muslim as opposed to a Catholic, a Protestant, or a Hindu. Now, it is true, Mormons have rarely been an oppressive enemy of Christians–though the Danites did a pretty good job in the 19th century. In fact, theologically speaking Mormons are far wackier than Muslims and far more alien in their view of God and Christ. Muslims also preserved some valuable bits of civilization, while Mormons have contributed nothing but the Osmonds.

20. 20 Comment by Chris Hewlett on 12 December 2007:

    On the basis that we are used to Mormons. They are something we recognize.

21. 21 Comment by TJF on 12 December 2007:

    PS I should have responded to “Logical’s” point. The argument is not that race should determine one’s vote but that Obama’s racial politicking will destroy his candidacy and ought to alarm people who do not belong to the race he favors. Race and ethnicity are often political dynamite, and what often pass for religious conflicts are really ethnic or racial. Take the conflict between Serbs and Croats or Irish Catholics/Irish Protestants. Two peoples, rather similar in many respects, tell opposite stories about their common history. While religion is a part of the quarrel, it is only a part. The same is true of the conflict between Flemings and Walloons, Yankees and Rebels, Anglos and Canucks.

22. 22 Comment by Sebastian on 12 December 2007:

    No More Oprahession!

    Actually, I agree that Oprah may have overextended herself by entering politics. She is now open to real criticism, like the biting one Dennis Prager offered yesterday – or this essay. Her platitudes and generalities reveal just how shallow she is, and her inability to tell voters why they should support Obama instead of Clinton reveal her race-hustling side, a side she has kept from her guru-seeking audience. She supports him because he is black and liberal, period. Comments like “we must come together in unity and celebrate our diversity” are embarassing, highlighting the seriousness of Clinton compared to Obama. It’s like he needed to aks his influential aunt for help in order to run for the Presidency – very unprofessional and yes, arrested.

23. 23 Comment by TJF on 12 December 2007:

    Please please please, no Dennis Prager, no Rush Limbaugh, no Sean Hannity, no Bill O’Reilly. I cut the cable to get away from these people.

    We are used to the Mormons? Maybe, but my right leg aches where I broke it in three places, and I am used to it. I am used to shivering through the long night of an Illinois winter, but I am delighted to escape to Rome. I am used to the fact that I am growing old, but I do not necessarily like it. I do know that if given teh choice i would not vote for a spiral fracture a Rockford Winter, or old age. The fact that we are forced to endure the presence of Mormons in our society–and the maudlin rhetoric of Mitt Romney–does not mean we have to like it, endorse it, or vote for it. Religion is not a trivia matter. I iwould not let my daughter marry a Muslim or a Mormon, partly because of their degraded and degrading attitudes toward women, and perhaps the last important freedom we have left in America is the right not to vote for one scoundrel instead of another. Given the choice between execution by hanging or execution by firing squad, one might just chose no execution at all or, at least, not to be an accomplice in one’s own destruction. On prudential grounds one might well prefer Romney to Osama, but Osama is not running.

24. 24 Comment by Red Phillips on 12 December 2007:

    Thanks Dr. Fleming. I knew I could count on you for a straight answer. The pluralistic love fest over Romney’s speech at “conservative” websites has been driving me up the wall.

25. 25 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 12 December 2007:

    No doubt Mormon beliefs are bizarre, and certainly inconsistent with the Creeds.

    As you point out, many Mormons are good people, and in fact, upstanding citizens.

    Aside from the bizarreness of the belief system, though, is there anything in its moral teachings that would impel a Mormon to be a bad public official, say, the equivalent of the Muslim rules on capital punishment for apostates and the duty to wage war on recalcitrant unbelievers?

26. 26 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 12 December 2007:

    BTW, I find the tergiversating insincerity of the man reason enough not to support him.

27. 27 Comment by Inductivist on 12 December 2007:

    I’m Greek Orthodox who attends Catholic Mass at least monthly, and am fed up with otherwise intelligent conservatives bashing Mormons. LDS folks are natural allies with conservatives, and unlike Muslims, they have soaked up almost 200 years of American political culture. And as for contributing nothing to civilization, I see your point: Utah is a real Third World swamp. They still run around with bones in their noses, don’t they?

    Yes, we have to go to Catholic Latin American countries to find real first-class thinkers.

    This is the first source I found (http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/020314lds2.html):

    “Illustrative contributions of LDS scientific and engineering excellence include the application of quantum mechanics to chemical reaction rate theories by the President’s National Science Medal winner, Henry Eyring. Eyring’s findings had universal application to chemical changes in scientific laboratories and industries.

    “LDS contributions led to the sound and sight of the modern world. These include the scanning technique that spawned television by Philo Farnsworth at Brigham Young University, whose statue is in the U.S. Capitol. Also, the development of the modern science of acoustics by Harvey Fletcher, the head of physical research at Bell Laboratories, led to such inventions as stereophonic sound. Dr. Fletcher later became Dean of Engineering and Physical Sciences at BYU. Smith Stevens at Harvard led in the development of psychoacoustics, the theory of hearing.

    “Other contributions of Mormon scientists include the development of psychopharmacology, including drugs to suppress epilepsy, by Ewart Swinyard and a colleague; the early development of computer sciences to a fine art in medical diagnosis, particularly for heart ailments, by Homer Warner; coal research including development directed toward the transformation of coal for liquid automobile fuel, by George Hill, and outstanding new methods for the beneficiation of minerals by Milton Wadsworth.

    “Other examples are the application of high pressure to chemistry and physics, including the first repeatable synthesis of diamonds by Tracy Hall at General Electric that built the artificial diamond industry, following which he became a dean at BYU; fundamental work in catalysis and contributions to the production of high octane gasoline and synthetic ammonia by Alex Oblad; theoretical contributions to explosives and the development of slurry blasting agents which have replaced dynamite by Melvin Cook; contributions to synthetic textiles by Emerson Tippetts, and instrumental work in developing artificial kidneys by Wayne Quinton.(27)

    “James Fletcher was appointed twice to be Director of NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) by Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Scott Woodward was selected by the Egyptian government to study the DNA and lineage of Egyptian mummies. BYU Professor Alan Ashton created Word Perfect, a pioneer in word processing. BYU professors and students founded Novell. Four BYU music students invented LAN or Local Area Networking which spawned Novell becoming an international leader in networking software.

    “The National Academy of Science Committee on Toxicology, headed by Richard Thomas was praised by a Wall Street Journal editorial for avoiding ideology in environmental studies and for its “earned reputation for independence and quality research”.(28) He is now President and CEO of The International Center for Environmental Technology.

    “E. Park Guyman developed a patented solvent extraction process that has the potential to convert American tar sands into billions of barrels of high grade asphalt and crude oil.

    “Anne Osborn Poelman is author of the definitive textbook in neuroradiology plus nine other textbooks. She lectures in China virtually every year. She chaired the neuroradiology course in Dalian co-sponsored by the Chinese Society of Radiology. She is one of only two radiologists who are honorary members of the Chinese Medical Association.

    “Some other medical accomplishments of University of Utah professors include Jim Parkin’s pioneering of artificial ears through cochlear implants and John Dixon’s pioneering of laser surgery. J. Edwin Seegmiller, professor of Human Genetics at University of California at San Diego, helped develop amniocentesis, to learn about the health of fetuses.

    “BYU microbiologist Kim L. O’Neill was granted a patent in 1997 and exclusive marketing rights for a monoclonal antibody that quickly, accurately and inexpensively detects cancer at early stages, by measuring Thymidine Kinase 1 (TK1). Through early detection, this breakthrough can minimize mortality particularly from breast cancer, currently second in cancer mortality among American women. He also published a study concluding that caffeine may prevent the death of cancer cells thereby permitting them to spread throughout the body.”

28. 28 Comment by C.H. on 12 December 2007:

    “many Mormons are good people, and in fact, upstanding citizens ”

    What’s a big deal, even many Christians are good people, and in fact, upstanding citizens.

29. 29 Comment by Inductivist on 12 December 2007:

    “Aside from the bizarreness of the belief system, though, is there anything in its moral teachings that would impel a Mormon to be a bad public official, say, the equivalent of the Muslim rules on capital punishment for apostates and the duty to wage war on recalcitrant unbelievers?”

    In a word, no.

30. 30 Comment by Inductivist on 12 December 2007:

    “The fact that we are forced to endure the presence of Mormons in our society–and the maudlin rhetoric of Mitt Romney–does not mean we have to like it, endorse it, or vote for it. Religion is not a trivia matter. I iwould not let my daughter marry a Muslim or a Mormon, partly because of their degraded and degrading attitudes toward women, and perhaps the last important freedom we have left in America is the right not to vote for one scoundrel instead of another. Given the choice between execution by hanging or execution by firing squad, one might just chose no execution at all or, at least, not to be an accomplice in one’s own destruction. On prudential grounds one might well prefer Romney to Osama, but Osama is not running.”

    Are these the words of a distinguished scholar or a inbred Bible thumper? You decide. You’d think that Mormons were Catholic mafiosi or Catholic gangbangers.

31. 31 Comment by Chris Hewlett on 12 December 2007:

    Well, it really was a very simple hypothetical. It wasn’t worth all the histrionics. Given the condition of the world and the choice between a Mormon and a Mohammedan, whom would get your vote? Assuming of course you care about voting at all.

32. 32 Comment by Ronduck on 12 December 2007:

    #15 TJF last paragraph: “I would rather not speculate on why some Christians appear to be more loyal to the GOP than to their professed faith.”

    I will speculate. The Republican party is a denomination in disguise, allowing protestants to affiliate together in a single organization without working out differences in theology, or requiring the preachers to submit to a single spiritual authority.

    This explains why the Evangelicals are hostile to the Mormon presence in their party, they may agree with them on public policy, but they aren’t Evangelical Protestants.

    The solution is for the Evangelicals to form a single denomination, complete with powers of excommunication, so that they can unify outside of politics and hammer out a common religious framework (?).

    Here is a link on the Mormon penetration of America’s upper class:
    http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=2606

33. 33 Comment by roho on 12 December 2007:

    Obama will never be able to “Out Black” Bill Clinton, for the simple reason that Blacks don’t trust blacks when money and power is on the table!………………Anyone in marketing and sales has had the experience of bringing in black sales reps to sell to blacks, and it is a failure!……………..In their hearts, they know that “Blacks are NEVER held accountable for screwing blacks over!”………………….A reality………But, WHITES are!

34. 34 Comment by John on 12 December 2007:

    The Mormons and the Muslims seem to have some things in common: Fraudulent prophets with convenient “revelations” granting them their base desires (polygamy, anyone?); a nearly instant antagonism with the local religions and cultures, leading to significant violence; and latter-day correction and replacement of the Old and New Testaments. The Muslims have been successful in their corners of the world, and so are open about it; the Mormons were promptly quashed by the gentiles and so have learned camouflage and subtlety.

    An open enemy is a curse, a pretended friend is worse.

35. 35 Comment by G.L.A. on 12 December 2007:

    #27 Inductivist

    You seem to be confusing scientific theory and engineering with the Truth or Wisdom. Your long list of Mormon scientists proves nothing other than some Mormons are good at scientific thinking, which has nothing to do with seeing the Truth or being able to build a culture around the search for the Truth. You could have just as easily listed a long list of accomplished Nazi scientist or Soviet scientists. One could go to MIT and find top engineers and scientists, many, I would wager, are athiest or some sort of humanist, universalists. About twenty years ago a survey was made of the best selling magazine at the MIT bookstore. At that time it was Playboy. I hate to think what kind of entertainment publications are popular there now.
    Confusing scientific progress, industrialism and commercial development with a civilized society is a part of the American myth of greatness. Latin America, may not have many advanced scientist, but they could very well have some great story tellers and poets.

36. 36 Comment by Inductivist on 12 December 2007:

    “The Mormons and the Muslims seem to have some things in common… the Mormons were promptly quashed by the gentiles and so have learned camouflage and subtlety.

    “An open enemy is a curse, a pretended friend is worse.”

    Is Chronicles giving out free thorazine this week? I wish some Mormons would step up–they could defend themselves better than I can. They love America, while an alarming percentage of Muslims cheered on 9/11. And talk of camouflage, feigned friendship, and secret enemies is just Jim Jones-style paranoia.

37. 37 Comment by Inductivist on 12 December 2007:

    “You could have just as easily listed a long list of accomplished Nazi scientist or Soviet scientists.”

    So now Mormons are up there with Muslims, Nazis, AND Soviets. You’ve come a long way, Baby!

    “Mormons are good at scientific thinking, which has nothing to do with seeing the Truth…”

    Sure…science is the worst kind of way to find the truth. Galileo–moron. Or should I say Mormon?

38. 38 Comment by Robert Reavis on 13 December 2007:

    “This PR is no great matter, perhaps, since the most Obama can practically hope for at this point is a cabinet position. He cannot be the candidate, unless the Democratic Party leadership completely loses what passes for their minds, and, if the front-runner receives the nomination, he cannot even expect to be the vice presidential candidate: A Hilary-Obama ticket is the Republican Party’s dream.”

    Yes, Dr. Fleming has it exactly right. The duopoly demo-rats use folks like Oprah and Big Al Sharpton exactly like the duopoly RHINOS use Pat Robertson, Dr. Dobson and Dicky Teahouse —because they can. Hillary and Gulliani will be “America’s Ticket in 08. If it’s the economy, vote Hillary, stupid. If it’s judges,vote stupid and go Rudi. If it’s endless war for Empire that concerns you ? Too bad, stupid. If you know or even suspect it doesn’t really matter much because it all seems so stupid, subscribe to Chronicles and learn why. Cheers

39. 39 Comment by Richard on 13 December 2007:

    Mormonism was a heretical reaction to Protestant anarchism and has a functioning hierarchy, unplagued by sodomite pedophillia. They reject the 500 year old Lutheran theological wrong turn of salvation by faith alone and hence largely live lives of ethical, quasi-Christian action.

    Provo may not be Cluny at its pinnacle. but it is preferrable to Killadelphia, the City of New York or modernist Rome. Clean government is more likely from a Romney than a Giuliani. Give me a Swiss canton over a Bonapartist Naples.

    The closest whiff to Nineteenth Century Jesuits may be the Mormon “scholars” at FARMS.

    Heresy is heresy, be it charismatics barking in tongues, polygamist restorationists or “once saved, always saved “heretics.

    “Extra eccelesium nulla salus.”- Pope Innocent III.

40. 40 Comment by TJF on 13 December 2007:

    There is a good deal of apples-and-oranges confusion in some of the comments, at least one of which appears to be written by a duplicitous Mormon disguising his identity. A few points.

    1) A society might pass and enforce quite rigid rules without being civilized. Look at the Pilgrim Fathers in New England or Fundamentalist Muslims.

    2) I said scholar, not scientist. I once discussed the Book of Mormon with an intelligent Mormon PhD, who said, unequivocally, that there is as much archaeological evidence to support the BOM as to support the Old and New Testaments. Whom was he trying to kid? Himself. No one even slightly interested in this question could possibly say such a thing. He was either suffering from the self-inflicted ignorance that is typical of Mormons or else lying. Probably both. In my limited study of Galileo, he seems to have been a good researcher but also a wise guy who could not help provoking the Jesuits. Bellarmine did his best to protect him, and Galileo himself, if I am remembering right, wrote his daughter to say that it was important to save his soul than to preach Copernicus. I am happy to be enlightened by anyone who knows the story better than I do.

    3) I’ve been to Mormonland. Frankly I prefer Palermo or even Newark. Perhaps it is only a matter of taste, but then so much else is a matter of taste, like the preference for Mozart over Madonna. But underneath questions of taste lie deeper things: aesthetic, moral, and metaphysical rules.

    4) You always know when someone has no basis to his argument when he a) reduces the other side to a strawman and b) resorts to unprovoked abuse. I am not telling Mormon-lovers–or indeed anyone, if it comes to that–not to vote for a Mormon. What I do say is that traditional Christians have no more in common with Mormons than they do with Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. Next I’ll be told that it was right for Christians to vote for Holy Joe Lieberman because, remember?, he was so strong on family values, at least until he decided he wanted to be Al Gore’s VP.

    5) I repeat: The fact that Romney will not discuss anything that his religion really teaches but takes refuge in the Americanist lie that religion is personally important but should not play a role in politics (and thus not in ethics)–that alone would be reason to reject him.

    6) One does not have to be a Leninist to hnderstand that he who says A must say B. Those who say they are Christian cannot be content to mouth pseudo-Christian platitudes about moral values, but they are expected to live according to their faith. In this country today a Christian can justifiably refuse to vote or, to secure his self-interest, vote for a nonbeliever, but he would be a rum bird if he voted for the active enemies of his Faith. This category does not really include Hindus or disinterested agnostics and nonmilitant atheists , but it does include the members of religions and sects that came into existence to supplant Christianity (Islam, LDS) . If an exercise in rational thought is to be condemned as “Bible-thumping,” then so be it. Such people eliminate themselves, as Ortega y Gasset observed, from civilized conversation.

41. 41 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 13 December 2007:

    Mormonism germinated in the Masachusetts/Puritan diaspora that settled western New York. These Yankee-Americans had turned their collective backs on the religion of their ancestors and instead created new religions in what was later called the burned-over district. The strange religions and cults that grew out of the soil of western New York is large- Seven Day Adventists, Shakers, the Free-Love movement(the Oneida Society), Feminism, Abolitionism, Pentecostalism and Mormonism.

42. 42 Comment by TJF on 13 December 2007:

    George Fitzhugh understood this well in the 1850’s. Let us not leave out table-rapping spiritualism, vegetarianism, and the healthfood craze–all of which cropped up early in this region. Just to make it clear, I wouldn’t vote for a feminist, and Adventist, a Shaker, a Vegetarian, or a disciple of “Father” John Humphrey Noyes. An interesting point was made some years ago by an historian who specialized in American cults: They are all sex-obsessed, whether they repudiate sex, as the Shakers did, advocate polygyny as the Mormons did and do (Yes, they have never repudiated either polygyny)–they have only given it up under legal pressure and reserve the right to go back to the traditions of Mitt Romney’s ancestors–or they simply swap wives and fool around as they did at Oneida, where the power to procreate, however, was controlled by Noyes.

    Sexuality disturbs the unity of the cult and must be manipulated and controlled by the guru, whether Charles Manson or Brigham Young or Sun Myng Moon (No I am not equating. Mormons with the Manson family.) Even today, the LDS “church” (some Christian should have trademarked that term to keep it out of unholy mouths) keeps the family pretty divided by its hectic schedule of group meetings that divide wives from husbands and parents from children. This is one of the defining characteristics of the cult, which explains the peculiar custom of the Jehovies who like to excommincate troublesome members, whose wife and children are tehn forbidden to have any communication that is not strictly necessary. Imagine a JW breakfast scene, “Past the syrup, you hell-bound excommunicate.”

    The only people who can defend Mormonism are either ignorant of what they teach and how they behave or are actually Mormons ore would be Mormons. Do they teach anything that would make them unsuitable as president? Let’s start with polygny and their degraded view of women or their incredible view of Africans as accursed (from which they backed off temporarily under federal pressure). What of their view of us as unwashed heathens who have to be lied to and tricked. Would that make you comfortable? I have been the object of more than one Mormon missionary attempt, and it is incredible what they can say if they think you do not know anything about their cult. I also used to know a member of the 12, who wanted to be addressed as “the Apostle.” Do you really want to support a man who thinks there are 12 latterday apostles with teh authority of Peter and Paul or a single man, the Prophet, who talks directly to “god”? (I ask my good Protestant friends and readers not to bring up papal infallibility, which is little more than the executive expression of the Church’s infalllibility on faith and morals.)

    Off to Milwaukee to host Peter Brimelow at a Rockford Institute reception and dinner on topic of immigration.

43. 43 Comment by G.S. on 13 December 2007:

    G.L.A.,

    While I defer to you, Dr. Fleming, & others in your criticisms of Mormonism (of which I know nothing) I would suggest rethinking this remark:

    “scientific thinking, which has nothing to do with seeing the Truth”

    The reason Muslims never discovered neutrinos is because Allah is not such a big fan of reason.

    And keep in mind that many Soviet scientists — especially biologists — had the peculiar habit of migrating to Siberia.

    At the moment I’m reading a fascinating book on the history of science by a Benedictine I just discovered, Stanley Jaki (anybody heard of him? Thoughts?), which is the only reason your comment stands out.

    Otherwise, my ignorant take on Mormonism is that it is a product of the “New World” phenomenon & mentality, and hence can’t be too good.

    Without even residual roots a la Europe, it seems to me that America — lacking the traditions to protect & shield it from lunacy — has served as a spawning ground.

44. 44 Comment by robert m. peters on 13 December 2007:

    The Mormon belief that God was once a man and worked His way up to His current station sounds no little like the like that the serpent told Eve, namely that man could become as gods.

    Lucifer would love to be the equal of Christ. It would seem that the Mormons have cast him as just that, namely Christ’s brother. Perhaps then Lucifer could, were the Mormons correct, claim for himself the role of the prodigal son and come home to receive his inheritance.

    The Christ is, of course, reduced, despite the rhetoric to a created being, betraying the Unitarian roots of Mormonism, Unitarianism itself being a “modern” form of the heresy of Arius.

    I have never completely understood the Mormon affinity for the Republican Party. Historically, the party has drawn its strength, geo-politically, from New England and the Puritan diaspora that spread not only to western New York but on across the Old Midwest. Perhaps the affinity lies in this common historical demographic.

    The thread is a long way from Oprah and Obama. like the string on a kite which has broken free of its master. But it has been informative.

45. 45 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 13 December 2007:

    And, who knows, maybe the soil of western New York has something in it that causes nuttiness. Maybe it explains the writer Bill Kauffman(apologies if I got the number of fs and ns wrong).

46. 46 Comment by Richard on 13 December 2007:

    The greatest threat to the faith of Fatima, Lepanto and Guadelupe is the extensive fifth column within its own hierarchy. (Are the suppositions of Father Daniel Sanborn really “extreme opinions”?)

    Like the Druze of the Golan Heights or more aptly the Yazidis of Iraq, all Mormons disguise their theology as a survival mechanism. (What they deem the “milk before meat” principle.)

    Palermo may be more fun to visit than Molly Mormon’s land of Jello, but to live there or in Sharp James’ Blood gangsta land would be Hellish on Dante’s scale. Give me the Birchers in Moab who understand the Constitution.

    Christianity is indeed closer to Islam than LDS, at least Muslims accept the Virgin Birth. If there be one contribution of LDS to civilization, it is a functioning bureaucracy on a Prussian scale of efficiency, devoid of latter day Medicis or corruption on a New Jersey, Illinois, Louisiana or Arkansas scale.

    Without Provo, where would the pious ladies at SSPX chapels get their fashions?

47. 47 Comment by Inductivist on 13 December 2007:

    @TJF

    1. Oh, I see you think you have a crystal ball and can read my innermost truth. Yes, Mormons and their faith are so loathesome that only one of them would ever like them. And gee, you’re so smart you can DEFINE who would ever possibly defend Mormonism.

    2. If you prefer Newark to SLC, I cannot help you. You mentioned a daughter–I would suggest you set aside your exquisite aethetic tastes when recommending where she should live.

    3. You’re calling milliions of people cultists, and I’m the rude one.

    4. Polygyny is functionally dead in the Mormon Church. Talk about strawmen.

    5. In my faith (Greek Othodoxy) I have to go to confession if I attend another church, while Mormons have no such prohibition. Now which one sounds more like a cult?

    4. Yes, only Mormons have strange beliefs. My belief that bread and wine turns into Jesus’ blood and body is not the least bit strange to others.

48. 48 Comment by Red Phillips on 13 December 2007:

    To bring this back around to the original topic, am I wrong to believe that if worse comes to worse I would rather be governed by Obama than Hillary? At least he was against the War from the start.

49. 49 Comment by M Ryan on 13 December 2007:

    Doctor Flemming, Galileo was indeed a wise-guy who had to push his theory beyond his own competency in evaluating such matters and against the teachings of the Church. Galileo’s theory was wrong then and it is wrong now.

    Galileo’s crime was his deliberate attempt to separate his theory from Scripture and faith, and to shamelessly ridicule the traditional Aristotelian geocentric system. His heresy was specifically to doubt the inerrancy of Holy Scripture – and he knew this going in. As Paula Haigh writes in “GALILEO’S HERESY”:

    “It is Galileo we have to thank for the separation of faith from science. And he did this in the only way possible by basing his science upon error the error of heliocentrism and a moving earth. Galileo shines forth as the first modernist, for he distorts the Sacred Scriptures to fit his own opinions, and his opinions are always those derived from his practices in the physical sciences. He made much of the distinction between the spiritual and the physical meanings in Scripture claiming that the spiritual could be true and the physical false or irrelevant without affecting the integral…

    …The real centerpiece of the Galileo affair is the Letter that Saint Robert Cardinal Bellarmine wrote to the Carmelite friar, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, after reading Galileo’s Letter to Castelli and Foscarini’s sixty four page book defending the compatibility of the new Copernican system with Holy Scripture. Foscarini died June 10, 1616, just two months after his book had been condemned by the Congregation of the Index. Fr. Jerome Langford does not tell us if there is any record of the Carmelite friar’s reaction to the condemnation, to Cardinal Bellarmine’s Letter, or whether he submitted to the Church’s judgment before he died.

    As one would expect of a saint, Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter is a model of supernatural wisdom and prudence. It is fair to scientific opinion but unrelentingly firm in the defense of Catholic doctrine. I give the Letter in full, and I have divided it into numbered paragraphs for convenient reference. I take the text from Langford’s book:

    1. I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.

    2. First, I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke.

    3. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this and it is sufficient for mathematicians.

    4. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself [turns upon its axis] without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.

    5. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

    6. Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.

    7. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

    8. Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth, but the earth circled around the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them, than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.

    9. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. [And still true today - MR]

    10. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun is really in the center and the earth in the heavens.

    11. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers.

    12. I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.

    13. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges the sun to move, just as it is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move.

    14. And that is enough for the present. I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness.”

    Fraternally,
    Cardinal Bellarmine
    12 April 1615

50. 50 Comment by G.S. on 13 December 2007:

    @ Mr. Ryan –

    From “The Galileo Affair”, by a guy named George Johnston:

    “That particular debate, so far as the Church was concerned, had been closed since at least 1741 when Benedict XIV bid the Holy Office grant an *imprimatur* to the first edition of *The Complete Works of Galileo*.”

    I don’t know Latin, so you’ll have to explain to me what “imprimatur” means.

51. 51 Comment by Ronald Kyser on 13 December 2007:

    If it makes a difference which race or religion the President is, that’s a sure sign the office has too much power and needs to be contracted. Governors govern; a president merely presides. According to legend, the Swiss have it right: few can even name theirs.

    “Dick Gregory. Remember him?”

    Yes! Like Ronald Reagan, he had the common sense and good taste to realize that entertainment and politics do not mix, and quit show biz to be a full-time activist at a fraction of the remuneration. Whatever his stands, that alone merits some respect. (Until his family got hungry, anyway.)

    “Muslims also preserved some valuable bits of civilization, while Mormons have contributed nothing but the Osmonds.”

    It’s not that bad. Otto Harbach, a Salt Lake Dane, who may or may not have been Mormon, had a role in raising the literary standard of popular and theater music, though, as with P.G. Wodehouse, it was more through mentorship than example. And the Disney theme “When You Wish Upon a Star” was composed by Leigh Harline, a Salt Lake Swede who was a Mormon. While it’s hardly Mozart, can anyone name anything from thirteen centuries of Islam (or five decades of rock, R&B and rap) to match its whistlablity?

    (Harline also composed “The World Owes Me a Living”, a more apt theme for Obama’s Democrats than the Hoover-era tune they’ve been using.)

    The Moslems gave us literally nothing– they borrowed India’s use of zero and passed it on. The Middle Eastern contribution to U.S. music comes down to Paul Anka, Neil Sedaka, Ahmet Ertegun, Frank Zappa and Paula Abdul. Tradition carries on!

52. 52 Comment by Kevin Rudd on 13 December 2007:

    TJF

    Your accusations against Mormons reveal much ignorance to the subject.

    1. Apostle is a title that is never used in addressing one. In church settings it is always “Elder” or “President” if he is the leader of a Quorum, and the man’s last name. I have never heard it stated otherwise. The Apostles’ Creed would be 100% accepted less the “holy Catholic Church” part of course. Your acquaintance must have confused it with the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed or not known what he was talking about.

    2. You’re apparently unfamiliar with much of the archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. Interestingly, most of it comes from the old world. There are several names and geographical references used that were discovered long after Joseph Smith published the work. The evidence is quite extensive and clear.

    3. As difficult a concept polygyny may be, I’ve got a more difficult one for you. Do you believe in an imperfect God? Are we to believe that God’s chosen in the Old Testament were chosen despite their practice of an abhorrent sin. In some cases He commanded the polygyny. God couldn’t have found monogamists to proclaim his word and perform his miracles? Or at some point did He figure it out and then it became sin?

    4. The only doctrine concerning Africans was that they could be baptized but males could not receive the priesthood until 1978. As to the reasons why, all is speculation. The change came in 1978 well after the pressure of the civil rights movement had subsided. As a doctrine, what is your view of Genesis 4?

    5. Twelve Apostles, what a unique concept, who could of thought of something so ridiculous? Again, a progressive God? At some point He figured out that His organization was flawed and conceived a new, more brilliant plan that allows apostates to continue to work within the organization, and doctrines to be promulgated that even its members abhor?

    6. God talking to a prophet. How can that be? I’m sure glad He finally, after thousands of years, learned what a stupid idea that was. Let us all take a moment and be thankful for the clarity and unity that has existed in the Christian world for the last 1900 years or so.

    7. The unwashed heathen comment is absurd. That has never been part of the Church. Except for Joseph Smith, who wanted to affiliate himself with a protestant denomination, but was commanded not to, all of the early leaders of the Mormons as far as I know were devout Protestants. They didn’t view themselves as heathens before or after their joining the Church.

    8. The means of procreation that resulted in The Only Begotten are unknown . The disgusting act you allude to is not doctrine. I’m sure that you have mastered the metaphysics that result in God being born of a mortal. I’m sure it’s quite simple if explianed correctly.

    9. What is Satan? From whence did he come? Did he exist independently? Was he created? By whom? How did he get into Heaven to battle with Michael and lead away a third of the hosts of Heaven? Who let him in? Why? How is it that he was on the Earth tempting the Lord himself? Who let him into the Garden of Eden.? Mormon belief is that he was, as we all are, a child of our Father in Heaven who was cast out for rebellion, he is allowed with those that followed him– a third of the hosts of Heaven–to provide opposition, that we might be proven faithful in all things. He will be eventually cast out of God’s presence for eternity. Is he being our brother any worse than Cain being the brother of Abel?

    10. With our views on eternal marriage, what could your comment about the secret name possibly mean? The husband will not be without the wife.

    11. Creation ex nihilo–brilliant, too bad it wasn’t doctrine until the doctors got a hold of the Church and is contrary to all physics that we understand. Your synopsis on Mormon cosmology is not accurate. It is not taught that God is progressing. Only that as Jesus did only the things that He saw his Father do, so God the Father at some point probably went through something like what Jesus did. Has Jesus been God always, Yes. Has the Father been God always, Yes. Did Jesus have a work to do in which failure was a possibility? Yes. Did he fail? No. Would He have been the same without completing this work? We say no. We believe that Jesus under the direction of His Father created the Earth from existing materials. That all matter is eternal. We believe that we are eternal. If we are created ex-nihilo how do we claim any free will whatsoever? We would be what God made us and nothing more. How does this make God less of a God? Why all the Father and Son designations if the relationships are nothing like fathers and sons as we know them? Sons possess the inherent ability to become like their fathers. How long this may take and what it may entail we do not know at this time.

    12. The Book of Mormon stands for all to refute. Instead of snide references to its literary style, be the first to expose the work as anything less than it claims to be.

53. 53 Comment by C.H. on 13 December 2007:

    Mr. Kevin Rudd,

    Your letter is as incomplete as it is much too short. With TJF’s “permission”, you should remedy this by reproducing here your “Book of Mormons” in its entirety, lest anyone misses your point. Fear not, this web site has idiots galore to discuss theological subtleties of any crap that happens to be in “book” form – Christianity, Jew-ism, Islam, you name it. There is no reason that even an e-book cannot be deemed “holy”, should enough idle asses agree.

    ***

    ‘In the second century A.D., it was the Christians who were denounced as “atheists.”’

    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/05/21/070521crbo_books_gottlieb/

54. 54 Comment by ///// on 13 December 2007:

    Thomas Fleming: “Race and ethnicity are often political dynamite, and what often pass for religious conflicts are really ethnic or racial.”

    Very true. While we shouldn’t make race the only important concept, it is important. We needn’t follow Richard John Neuhaus down the road of “race doesn’t exist / race isn’t important, and anyone [i.e. any white person] who thinks so needs to be rebuked.”

55. 55 Comment by Richard on 13 December 2007:

    Kevin Rudd ? Who knew the new Australian Prime Minister writes for FARMS.

    Religious proof ? Fatima happened in front of hundreds, including agnostics, atheists and Catholic arch-enemies, the freemasons (much like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) Veritas is knowable.

    The Book of Mormon stands refuted by all, except the LDS. Hebrew DNA in American Indians? DNA anyone?

    Paging St Dominic Guzman, gentle converter of the Albigensians.

    How about “meat before milk” straight talk for once ? How about delving into “Exaltation” with clarity? Do Mormons believe their male members can become gods? Yes or no would suffice.

    Extra eccelesium nulla salus.

56. 56 Comment by Kevin Rudd on 13 December 2007:

    Richard,

    The DNA evidence is by no means conclusive. Only an extremely simplistic understanding of the Book of Mormon would lead one to believe that DNA has refuted it.

    Concerning exaltation a yes or no will not suffice. We believe that as children of our Father in Heaven we possess the potential to become like Him. However latent this potential may be, and however long it may take, we as sons and daughters possess this capacity. We believe that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ we may be saved from death and sin and live in the presence of Him who created us. We believe that our progression does not have to stop at this point. Some will fufill their potential and be able to do the things that the Father does under his direction.
    These were not uncommon beliefs in the early church, and are alluded to in the Bible. Jesus alluded to this in the 10th chapter of John

    33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for ablasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
    34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
    35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
    36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

57. 57 Comment by Lord Karth on 13 December 2007:

    Red:

    It really doesn’t make much difference whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton wins in 2008. Their respective positions on Bush’s Folly aren’t particularly relevant, since the Empire is already deeply enmeshed in the Iraqi tar-baby. Both of these Pander Bears are committed to expanding American National Socialism, particularly in health care. Both of them are also committed to maintaining the entitlement programs and the regressive tax structure that sustains them.

    Both of them are pro-abortion, anti-traditional family and firm supporters of “public education”. Both of them support a policy of de facto surrender on our borders. How is either one of them even remotely acceptable ?

    A choice between Hillary and Obama is like a choice between dying by heart attack and dying of Ebola. Some choice !

    Your servant,

    Lord Karth

58. 58 Comment by Lord Karth on 13 December 2007:

    As regards to the Mormon issue: I am reminded of a certain series of books, Dean Ing’s “Streamlined America” series of the early 80s. One cannot help but wonder (even just a little) if Mitt Romney could be the real world’s variation on Ing’s Mormon President Blanton Young.

    Literarily yours,

    Lord Karth

59. 59 Comment by Bronco on 13 December 2007:

    “Blacks are NEVER held accountable for screwing blacks over!”………………….A reality………But, WHITES are!”

    Hmm….
    Whites are way more accountable for screwing whites over…especially if they do it in front of blacks…

60. 60 Comment by C.H. on 13 December 2007:

    “Kevin Rudd” … you still don’t get it, do you?…

61. 61 Comment by woodcutter on 14 December 2007:

    A friend of mine once said “Well…..you know, you just can’t tell a heinz pickle anything!”

62. 62 Comment by Christopher Baldwin on 14 December 2007:

    If anyone would like a descriptive glimpse of Mormonism at work, he should read Zane Grey’s RIDERS OF THE PURPLE SAGE. He fillets the Mormon soul and exposes its innards.

63. 63 Comment by Sid Cundiff on 14 December 2007:

    Too easy it is to reply to Dr. Fleming’s remarks on Mormonism by saying the same was said 80 years ago regarding Al Smith – too easy. Dr. Fleming’s remarks prompt a serious consideration of principle and foundation. The principle and foundation of Real Conservatism, a historical movement in opposition to the French Revolution and the its begetter (the Endarkenment), and of Christian Democracy, a movement in the 20th Century attempting to apply Catholic Social Teaching to an early industrial society, need both enumeration, then application to a post-industrial order:

    1. That persons live in social orders by nature, and thus their personal good presupposes a common good for the social order. (personalism, the common good, and solidarity)

    2. That such a social order must be local. (subsidiarity)

    3. That the a social order’s source and cohesion is based on its history, habits, customs, tradition, ceremony, and religion. Take these away, and persons become simian. (conservatism)

    4. That what Europeans call Liberalism (analogous to American “libertarianism”), because it is against things, not for things, is inadequate for a principle of social order. Much of what Liberalism opposes ought to be opposed, yet it still must be asked, Freedom for what? (telos)

    5. That Liberal Democracy (again the European meaning) and Social Democracy, because they stress the the useful and medial virtues, not the honorable and ultimate virtues, are inadequate for the principle of a social order. (telos)

    6. That those religions (1) with a millennia of history, (2) with an established interpretive authority beyond individual judgement, and (3) with the best social teachings are the best religions for a social order. And (now comes the hard part), those religions are Judaism and the Latin Rite Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox churches. There may be other religions.

    This will do for starters. I invite discussion on foundational principles, and consideration of these questions in particular: If Mormonism is inadequate as a principle of social order, can the same be said of Protestantism? And to what extent should coercion be used?

    One thing is certain. #54, someone to cowardly to use his name, ought to be indeed soundly rebuked.

64. 64 Comment by G.S. on 14 December 2007:

    C.H.,

    There is no reason that even a book by a slimy alcoholic faux-intellectual celebrity — who cheerleads as better men than himself get sent off to die — cannot be deemed “insightful” … should enough idle asses agree.

65. 65 Comment by G.S. on 14 December 2007:

    “subtleties of any crap that happens to be in ‘book’ form”

    Those who live in Marxist houses are hardly in a position to throw stones, vis-a-vis meaningless and self-important goobledydook.

66. 66 Comment by idleasses. inc on 14 December 2007:

    agree!

67. 67 Comment by TJF on 14 December 2007:

    I have only one or two observations to make in response to the Mormon apologists, whose very silliness proves my case better than I ever could. I did indeed write sloppily about the “Apostle.” In fact, he only wanted to be listed/addressed in informational materials as “Apostle”. I did not want to be more specific in order not to provide clues to the identity of a well-known and well respected man. It is not always easy to distinguish between what Mormons are officially required to believe and what many or most of them do. The avoidance of caffeine, for example, is an interesting question. It appears to have arisen as a piece of sumptuary legislation passed by Brigham Young, who wanted to discourage importation of coffee and tea, expensive commodities, from the gentile world. When I ask Mormons if the ban extends to decaf coffee and or/ caffeinated soft drinks, they tell me it is a matter for personal decision.
    Finally, the writer pretending to be Orthodox appears to know very little of any Christian faith, and I suspect there is a reason for his ignorance. There is nothing superstitious in the Orthodox Church’s prohibition, which is only slightly stiiffer than the traditional Catholic position. There are obviously good reasons to discourage members of one Church from hanging out in another, where they might pick up ideas and practices alien to their own tradition. The main focus of Orthodox hostility, however, was against the Western Church, especially in border areas, such as the Balkans and the Ukraine, where both sides have spent the last 1000 years trying to steal each other’s sheep. Out of friendship and in my travels, I have attended Orthodox services with some frequency, though, obviously, without receiving communion. I can only hope that the schism may some day be healed or, if not healed, at least bridged in some way.
    I thank Mr. Ryan for his exposition in the matter of Galileo and Bellarmine, and I bid good by to the Mormons who are wasting altogether too much time on this site. I am not a good enough person to lie awake at night praying for their conversion to Christianity. I am perfectly content to let them rave in their conventicles and even to defend their mock-religion, so long as they do not attempt to deceive the innocent into believing that they have anything to do with Christianity. It would be irresponsible of us to give them an opportunity to repeat this lie. Their dishonesty was made transparent a few years back when they started referring to their cult as “The Christian Church,” though that particular trial balloon seems to have lost its hot air and fallen to earth.

68. 68 Comment by Red Phillips on 14 December 2007:

    Sid

    “That those religions (1) with a millennia of history, (2) with an established interpretive authority beyond individual judgment, and (3) with the best social teachings are the best religions for a social order.”

    It is also extremely useful that the religion actually be true. That is where Mormonism fails. I realize that even a false religion can possibly help regulate a social order better than no religion, but since we are not liberal pluralist here, why not concern ourselves with truth?

69. 69 Comment by TJF on 14 December 2007:

    PS On the subject of the politics of race, Chronicles is the only above-ground magazine to have grappled with this issue seriously. Our efforts, as Mr. Wilson points out, have frequently been hampered by the single-issue loonies who insist, to borrow a phrase from one of them I used to know, that “race is the whole ball of wax.” This is one of the most trivializing forms of reductionism, as foolish as the argument that everything can be reduced to economics. I do try to avoid discussing race on this website, primarily because the response is something out of H.P. Lovecraft. The very word “race” is like a spell uttered from the Necronomicon that invites the “Old Ones” to come pouring into our world, reclaiming it for their destructive madness. Sam Francis once, in a memorable essay, argued that the nativist Lovecraft used the Old Ones as a metaphor for undesirable immigrants.

70. 70 Comment by TJF on 14 December 2007:

    What a question, Dr. Red: “What is truth?” I dimly recall a minor Roman official asking it on a famous occasion. In English we often confound truth with honesty or sincerity. In this sense I may be said to be truthful if I sincerely say what is false. In Latin, Greek, Italian, truth does not primarily mean sincerity or honesty but that which is real or that which corresponds to reality. In English, a Mormon might be truthful in saying what he believes to be true, but in Latin etc. this would make little sense.

    When Our Lord declared himself to be “the way, the truth, and the life” he was not being tautological or rhetorical but was making three important points: He is the way to the Father and to the Kingdom of God, He is everlasting life for those who accept him, but he is also the truth, the ultimate reality of our existence, without Whom our life makes little sense.

    The truth of the Greek philosophers, thus, was based on a perception of the Logos “by/through whom all things were made.” This is one of the reasons why Christians cannot reject any truth discovered by scientists, whatever the scientist’s motivations, but must learn to integrate the truth, whether it comes from Newton or Darwin, into the overarching understanding of the universe taught by Christianity. For the same reason, sectarians and cultists must reject any truth not compatible with their guru’s teachings, whether the guru is an Arab or a water witch from upstate New York.

71. 71 Comment by Bob on 14 December 2007:

    Oprah has done the black thing many times over the course of her national career and this is just another, albeit different, instance.

    And predictable as she is, there is something most of her viewers recognize and appreciate about her “I did it, despite a rigged system that was against me” mantra that’s been at the center of her experience. The frustrating thing is that she makes a living by turning this mantra inside out by telling others that they can’t do it, at least not without the help of benevolent Democratic government.

72. 72 Comment by Red Phillips on 14 December 2007:

    Lord Karth,

    I realize both Hillary and Obama are complete libs. That is why I said if worse comes to worse. But, I will be pulling for Obama to beat Hillary in the Democratic primaries as I am pulling much harder for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. And not just for the cynical reason that I think he would be easier to beat. I really would rather be governed by him than Hillary.

    I may be wrong, but I think that Obama’s conciliatory, unifying, “can’t we all get along” rhetoric is genuine. I detect in him a temperamental inclination to avoid conflict and be a pacifier and a conciliator. I think that is part of the reason he has not been willing to play hardball against Hillary despite pleas from the “smart” people around him that that is what he needs to do.

    Now when liberals want to get along with conservatives it is always self-serving. 3/4th of what they want instead of 100%. But better a guy who is inclined to decrease conflict than a ruthless, conniving, self-interested politician like Hillary.

    Maybe the people from IL who have seen more of him know him better.

    Sid,

    It seems to me that you try so hard to maintain your liberal, non-judgmental attitude that you can’t make important distinctions. For that reason the Al Smith/Mitt Romney comparison falls flat. Would you make the same argument if Mitt Romney was a Wiccan or a Muslim? Do you think the Counter-Revolutionaries you admire thought religion was not an important thing to consider?

73. 73 Comment by TJF on 14 December 2007:

    Anti-papist Protestants had good reasons to reject Al Smith. The real question is whether or not they should be anti-Papists. I prefer to be somewhat ecumenical. While I would prefer to vote for a serious Catholic, if one can ever be found to run for office, I would have no trouble supporting candidates who are faithful to the traditions of Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Methodism (though in this case we are speaking entirely hypothetically), and probably Southern Baptistism. With some of the flakier sects, especially those who go in for charismatic shows, megachurches, pseudo-Christian Zionism, I would have more serious difficulties. If I thought Huckabee was anything but a political preacher turned preachy politician, I would consider supporting him. Making these distinctions is partly a question of prudence and partly a question of taste, but any imaginable line drawn by a serious Christian would exclude the Mormons, the Witnesses, Quakers, and Adventists. The alternative would be to say religion does not matter at all and to go out and root for whatever Caligula is most likely to win.

74. 74 Comment by Red Phillips on 14 December 2007:

    I do not support Huckabee, but he is managing to make himself the right enemies.

75. 75 Comment by TJF on 14 December 2007:

    There are many likeable things about the Huckabee persona, and, as you say, the enemies he has gained are a plus and his following are at least the more decent members of the GOP. I think he is the wiliest politician in the race. I say that after watching him debate but also after seeing interviews and conversations with knee-jerk liberals. He’s good, as Bogart might say, too good.

76. 76 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 14 December 2007:

    Dr. Fleming, what is your take of the recent Led Zeppelin concert? How can you put into a cultural context the 20,000 or so who plonked down big money to listen to grandfatherly musicians blaring their heavy metal rock?

77. 77 Comment by Sid Cundiff on 14 December 2007:

    Did Red Phillips #73 read carefully, or read at all, what I wrote in #63, where I clearly rejected the Smith comparison as too easy, clearly rejected Liberalism (as Europeans understand it), and clearly supported a religious foundation for a social order?

78. 78 Comment by John C. on 14 December 2007:

    55 Richard: “Religious proof ? Fatima happened in front of hundreds, including agnostics, atheists and Catholic arch-enemies, the freemasons (much like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) Veritas is knowable.”

    Of course, by Fatima, you are referring to the “Miracle of the Sun”. But it was not witnessed by hundreds, as you said, but thousands. (70,000 witnesses across several miles, I believe.) This miracle was the greatest of our time, and the circumstances that surround it are irrefutable. Anyone who takes the time to research this magnificent event will not soon be able to shake the obvious conclusion. In fact, reading about the events that took place in Fatima are what converted me to Catholicism; it wasn’t an overwhelming need to find “purpose” or “meaning”, it was as simple as looking at the facts and coming to the logical conclusion.

    Back to the topic at hand, as a Christian it is not in my best interest to support those that represent competitive faiths; especially when those views dictate that we are gentiles, infidels or worse. If your faith is hostile to outsiders, as many are, then the idea that you will remain “true to your beliefs” is not a good thing from my perspective. I appreciate Mr. Romney’s honesty, but I assure you that what he says on television and what he says at the kitchen table with friends and family are two very different things. And if he is a devout Mormon, then it’s likely that he holds the view that a majority of citizens in this country are enemies of the faith. You don’t think that might effect his judgment?

    If I found myself in a position of authority in Syria today, I don’t think I would be able to make decisions that were in the best interest of the Muslim majority if I were true to my beliefs as a Christian.

79. 79 Comment by Kevin Rudd on 14 December 2007:

80. 80 Comment by Red Phillips on 14 December 2007:

    Sid, I thought you meant it would be “too easy” to use the Al Smith comparison against Dr. Fleming who argued it is OK to consider Romney’s religion. As people argued it was OK to consider Al Smith’s.

    If that is not what you meant, what did you mean?

81. 81 Comment by TJF on 14 December 2007:

    As a stupid young man, I once wasted time and money to take a date to a Led Zeppelin show. I learned one thing only, that there were worse grops than Grand Funk Railroad. Puerile, self-indulgent, wasted..were a few of the gentler remarks I uttered on the way out. What does it mean today? I think my generation and those that followed are puerile, self-indulgent, wasted….

82. 82 Comment by Inductivist on 14 December 2007:

83. 83 Comment by TJF on 14 December 2007:

    PS Re Sid’s comment. I misread it the first time, but then realized he agreed with me. This a problem with websites–hasty writing. What I believe he was saying is that some who were saying that religion did not matter might reply with a tu quoque, to the effect that the same arguments were being made against Al Smith, but, in fact, the cases are not the same.

84. 84 Comment by Jay on 14 December 2007:

    #79 is the best post in the history of “Chronicles”!!!….

85. 85 Comment by Bede on 14 December 2007:

    I wonder about Huckabee. Up until recently, he was a shill for globalism (and probably still is), always ready to insinuate the charges of racism and nativism against anyone critical of immigration. But more recently, he almost sounds like Buchanan on trade and immigration. He says regarding immigration he’s had a “conversion,” and got the endorsement of Jim Gilchrist, which apparently is a result of over 6 weeks of secret meetings with the Minutemen, and which where initiated by Huckabee himself. Allegedly, Huckabee gave him many assurances. But does Huckabee, like the Minutemen, support the reduction of legal immigration, especially from the Third World?

    I don’t know how sincere the Huckster is, but I hope that more politicians see the light on the road to DC. If we paleos are the only immigration reductionists, then not much headway is going to be made. Paleos were definitely the trendsetters on this issue. What was “extreme” 10 years ago, now is mainstream. But I think paleos still need to keep up the fight, holding their feet to the fire.

86. 86 Comment by Bede on 14 December 2007:

    Given Huckabee’s recent rhetoric on trade and immigration, and the Gilchrist endorsement, I wonder whether he’s attempting to play the “Middle America card.” If so, ergo, the neocon disdain. Just read Ramesh Ponnuru’s rants about Huckabee at The Corner.

87. 87 Comment by G. Oren on 14 December 2007:

    I received in my inbox today notification from National Review that they are endorsing Mitt Romney. For twenty-seven years, since I was a sohpmore in college, I have maintained my subscription with NR. For the last fifteen or so years – since at least the fall of the Soviet Union – I’ve had to hold my nose over various issues of the mag. As a Chronicles subscriber since 1987, it long ago replaced NR as my favorite journal of opinion (with the New Republic a distant third – obviously). I always held out the vain hope that NR would somehow return to form, but it is filled with jingoistic neocons, pseudo-intellectuals that pass for serious thinkers in the much stunted dialogue of todays political environment. I’ll be cancelling my subscription to NR, just a footnote on the death of the conservative movement that really happened twenty years ago. I too would rather vote for slick preacher like Huckabee, or an agnostic womanizer like Guiliani than an avowed Mormon. What a sad state the “stupid party” has fallen to.

88. 88 Comment by Allen Wilson on 15 December 2007:

    TJF, you have mentioned the Jehovah’s Witnesses a couple times.
    I agree with what you said, but I have experience with those nuts, experiences unimaginable to sane people, so my condemnation of them is far more extreme. Sure, some may be personally decent, but they are an evil cult. They are anti-family as you have mentioned. I have heard them talk about trying to influence other people’s small children with their cult beliefs when their parents wetren’t around, and they are as shameless about it as Muslims on Jihad. They act as a subversive element in society at large, just as Muslims do in Christian societies. They’re just not violent like Muslims. And of course, anyone who opposes their cult does so because they are posessed by demons, influenced by the devil, or, as I have heard them put it, ‘demonised’. They actually believe that.

    Their rejection of blood transfusions is silly and causes unnecessary death. Apparently, to them, it’s okay to take a liver or heart transplant, but not blood. They will take platelets and plasma, and ignore the fact that these are just components of blood. They dont even have enough sense to see how illogical and stupid this is. I have come to the conclusion that only a fool would join their cult, and a person’s membership in it says all I need to know about him or her.

    Why am I so hateful toward them? Because my mother converted, and when I was bleeding to death in ICU, she refused to sign the release to allow me to receive blood, after I had told her repeatedly over the years that I wanted to receive blood if I had to. She ignored my express wishes. I would be dead right now I my father hadn’t gotten there in time to sign the release. He asked her, ‘what the hell are you trying to do, kill him?’

    Any ‘religion’ that would cause a mother to let her own son die like that rather than just do the right thing, something the average atheist would have had no problem doing, is evil. If I could, I would burn every kingdon hall to the ground and hang the heads of the Watchtower society.

89. 89 Comment by Ed Roberts on 15 December 2007:

    “#79 is the best post in the history of “Chronicles”!!!….”

    This is obviously from someone who has read only the few posts made by the mormons on this thread. Drawing out the lunatics is but one of the valuable services performed by Chronicles in its online form. My thanks to Dr. Fleming and to the several regular contributors who have taken their time to post thoughtful comments on this site.

90. 90 Comment by Sid Cundiff on 15 December 2007:

    1. Dr. Fleming has read me correctly. Instead of “too easy” perhaps I should have said “too superficial”.

    2. The Constitution, a work that Europeans would call “liberal”, doesn’t protect someone from being stupid. Nor does it oblige me to vote for the stupid.

    Seen “liberally” (again in the European meaning), if a group of the stupid, say, those folks in Waco, are no threat to my liberty, my life, my property, my chance for self development (”pursuit of happiness”), or my good name — in short, my civil rights –, then “liberally” I can live with them, and they with me. Would than the Justice Dept at that time had been “liberal”!

    Yet Real Conservatives know the social fabric is more complex and that the telos of life in community is more than just protection of these civil rights.

    So who is correct? The Liberals (libertarians) who, not without good reason, fear coercion, or Real Conservatives, who wish to maintain a particular social order beyond just the utilitarian?

91. 91 Comment by Lee on 15 December 2007:

    Mormonism

    I understand that the interest in the SLC branch is due to Romney. For those who don’t know, though, there are 4 branches of Mormonism, the other three being headquartered in Kansas City. These all have a much lower profile. Of these other three one is comparable in size to the SLC group, and one is very tiney — only a few hundred souls — but they possess the holy ground. If either of the two largest branches ever got control of it they would erect a “Taj Mahal” on it.

    Also, I don’t know of the specific origin of polygyny in the SLC branch (nor whether it is part of the other branches), although it is certainly part and parcel of the OT, but it was propagated by the women of the SLC group who wound up in Utah with many more women than men and it was an expedient and easily rationalized appeasement of a group which had invested so much psychological energy, but yet faced dire prospects.

92. 92 Comment by Chance Gardner on 15 December 2007:

    “Neither Oprah nor Obama have ever been convincing putting on the ghetto, and their performances reminded me of nothing so much as of Steve Martin as The Jerk.” -TJF … I thought Oprah might have in a moment of introspection endorsed Huckabee and the two could have commisserated with one another about their weight problems and how they each continue their battle of the bulge. Is Barak still smoking-?-cigarettes. That voters in the south might applaud. In his yute he was a small time coke dealer apparently – not coca cola. Is he the one?

93. 93 Comment by Caper on 15 December 2007:

    Re: Mr. Kyser

    “The Middle Eastern contribution to U.S. music comes down to Paul Anka, Neil Sedaka, Ahmet Ertegun, Frank Zappa and Paula Abdul.”

    Did you intentionally pick non-Moslems when you wrote this? Paula Abdul and, I guess, Neil Sedaka are both Jewish. Paul Anka was raised “Antiochian Orthodox.” Frank Zappa was, I believe, raised Catholic. Ahmet Ertegun is the only Moslem in the group.

94. 94 Comment by TJF on 15 December 2007:

    Allen Wilson tells a hair-raising story. The Jehovies I have known seemed like decent simple people, but their willingness to go against their families because of religious differences always alarmed me. Remember the abuse Augustine’s mother put up with from her nonbelieving husband. Her example converted him in the end. This objection is quite apart from their rather silly views: All depends upon correct use of the divine name, but when you point out to them that Jehovah is actually a made up name–early Hebrew lacked vowels and the tetragrammaton was not to be pronounced–they shrug their shoulders and say, “Close enough.”

    The question about Huckabee is not whether I can like him–I know Ii cannot–but whether he is sufficiently different from the others to justify the energy it takes to vote–roughly the time it takes to smoke a cigar.

    In the heat of the battle, I may have been too harsh on the poor Mormons themselves. As I explained, I do not begrudge them their fantasies, but their leadership knowingly tells lies about their relationship to Christianity and the rank-and-file follows along, claiming, sometimes sincerely, to think they are Christians. But if they were Christians, why would they need new Scriptures and new teachings? And if the BOM is of divine composition, why is is so poorly written and why is there so much plagiarism?

    The Mormons try to trap you into reading long passages of their book to which they attribute great wisdom, but they never answer the plagiarism question and they never seriously take up the charge that Smith stole it from the trunk of a man for whom he worked. As I understand, two contemporaries claim to have read the BOM as a Biblical fantasy novel, one was the cousin of the author and the other was a publisher’s reader. I may have the details a bit wrong, since it has been 20 years or so since I looked into this question.

    Re polygyny, my understanding is that it was first preached publicly by Brigham Young but practiced secretly by Smith, who was accused of seducing young women. The formal charges against Smith and his brother were that by refusing to allow writes to be served in Nauvoo, they were committing treason against Illinois. The story is complicated because the governor, who had received votes and I believe contributions from the Nauvoo settlement, backed up Smith, and his account in his history of the state reads a good deal like special pleading. On the other hand, the lynching from Carthage jail seems to have arisen from a general hatred of the Mormons as heretics and of Smith as a seducer. There must be people who know the story better than I do, though I did once take the trouble to go to Nauvoo and Carthage, one of the stranger experiences of my adult life. I’ll see if we can post the piece I wrote about 5 years ago.

95. 95 Comment by Chance Gardner on 15 December 2007:

    Caper, respectfully, there’s Cat Stevens whom I imagine was raised xian then went and converted to Moslem? What’s his story. (Or, was he 1st Jewish???) Good music – Longer Boats – I’m Looking For A Hardheaded Woman etc., etc. So did the last wannabe Jewish Messiah Shabbetai Zevi in the 1600’s convert (whom at least half of world jewry believed to be the Messiah, until he converted to being Moslem.) Upon Zevi’s appearance (i.e. he had an astonishing publicist apparently in Nathan of Gaza) it had been a while, understandably after the disasterous Bar-Kokhba as Messiah A.D. 132 -135 (whom his own Jewish followers burned at the stake after he failed in the last great revolt against the Romans.) Caper, respectfully you jews and/or ex-jews have a history, and tear everything else apart, but never discuss yourselves? Or deconstruct or tear yourselves apart much, publically – there’s just the rumor via the/(your) media that you’re somehow ’self-hating’ and that’s just another reason to pity you and elevate you simultaneously… And Gentiles/Christians since Christ, in hubris do tend to sin in believing (somehow) themselves, Each, to be the cat’s pajamas. So they rarely in their self-admiration are looking into Actual jewish history. Or study what they ‘claim’ to themselves, they stand upon in terms of the judaic.

    Funny.

    But what about Cat Stevens? I like him once in a while. Also his song “Peace Train” …

96. 96 Comment by TJF on 15 December 2007:

    PS The Reorganized Mormons, I believe, descend from Smith’s family and from those who did not make the Great Trek to Utah. They are well-represented in Nauvoo. They seem far closer to mainstream Protestantism and a lot less weird than the Salt Lake City bunch. The Reformed Mormons, on the other hand, are rather more like the Unitarians, accepting Jesus, Mohammed, and Smith. This is obviously a gross oversimplification, but from my point of view, while the Reorganized Mormons are an odd sect, they seem far less offensive than the SLC. Imagine generic Protestants who respect the BOM as a continuation of revelation.

97. 97 Comment by Caper on 15 December 2007:

    Chance Gardner, you are probably one of the pseudonyms of the wacko who writes here. Everything for you is Jewish-Zionist. I will remember not to read posts under your name in the future.

    I never said I liked any of those musicians, as I don’t. I wasn’t claiming anyone for any group, just pointing out that they weren’t Moslem, which I think Mr. Kyser implied. I am not Jewish. Why would you think I was? I pointed out that several of the people in the group were Gentiles. But you latched onto the ones who were Jewish, because of your private obsession. Then you read into my comments a point that wasn’t there. Let that be a lesson to you.

98. 98 Comment by Caper on 15 December 2007:

    If you look up the posts by “Caper,” you’ll see that I’m Roman Catholic.

99. 99 Comment by Steve Berg on 15 December 2007:

    Actually, what the present primary election circus reminds me of the most is another Steve Martin movie, “The House Sitter.” Not only was this the best documentary ever done about Yankee New England, but its relevance to American electoral politics is profound. The first liar does not have a chance.

100. 100 Comment by Chance Gardner on 15 December 2007:

     “Chance Gardner, you are probably one of the pseudonyms of the wacko who writes here. Everything for you is Jewish-Zionist. I will remember not to read posts under your name in the future. … If you look up the posts by “Caper,” you’ll see that I’m Roman Catholic.” (end Quote above) of – CAPER

     Horesefeathers, scum… what is your real name whore. I feel free to call names since caper called me “wacko.”

     As for all of his B.S. – to the contrary – if interested in a little bit of TRUTHFUL Jewish history go to my post # 95 (above) for that. Unlike Caper although I am Christian, I am also genetically via my grandmother Jewish…

     Only a Jew (yet at heart) would bristle at hearing of his or her’s acutal history in PUBLIC like Caper did above in attacking me personally. REFUTE, scum historically ANY of the above history… Then I’ll reveal to you my Rabbinical sources. SEE – his tactic is to disparage me – so you the idiots will believe the history is not accurate.

     If the times are Sane? I’m proud then to be weird.

     Wacko, i don’t start unnecessary Wars, Caper. What’s your real name, whore?! Or is it whore.

     -proud to be called wacko

     p.s. by the way what do you think of Cat Stevens… he’s a bit of a genius, unlike a whore like you …
     _________

101. 101 Comment by George on 15 December 2007:

     Hmm…looks to me like the beginning of the conquest of the Planet of the Apes…

102. 102 Comment by Jay on 15 December 2007:

     #101

     George, thank you, you said it!

     Let’s see, who’s the Big Ape … TJF me thinks …

103. 103 Comment by Anti-Caper on 15 December 2007:

     100 Chance Gardner

     Was it ye’r maternal or paternall granny a Jew? Makes all the difference in the woild (in former case you are a Jew, in the latter you are not).

104. 104 Comment by Caper on 15 December 2007:

     Okay, so I did read this Chance Gardner’s #100, contrary to my stated intention.

     Allow me to apologize. None of us lead the easiest of lives. You derive some joy and sense of fulfillment from posting here. I ruin that with an irrelevant comment that offends you.

     But you need to understand, please, what my point was. I admit that what you said about Shabbetai Zevi was historically true, and in some other conversation his history would be significant. I did not “bristle” because you related something about that false messiah. I bristled at the fact that you brought it up when it was not relevant. Nothing I said had to do with the history of Jews or Judaism. My own comment was not all that relevant; I merely assumed that Mr. Kyser thought all the musicians in question were Moslem when only one was. It was a simple fact check.

     “Caper, respectfully you jews and/or ex-jews have a history, and tear everything else apart, but never discuss yourselves? Or deconstruct or tear yourselves apart much, publically – there’s just the rumor via the/(your) media that you’re somehow ’self-hating’ and that’s just another reason to pity you and elevate you simultaneously”

     But all I said was that Paula Abdul and, I guess, Neil Sedaka are Jewish. Why would you think I’m a Jew or “ex-Jew”? I wasn’t tearing apart or deconstructing anything, just correcting what I thought might have been a misperception on Mr. Kyser’s part. If anything, my original comment exonerated the Moslems of making music I don’t like. So your aside on Shabbetai Zevi becoming a Moslem is not relevant, as I was discussing musicians.

     As for Cat Stevens, he was half Greek-Cypriot, so yes he’s Middle Eastern in a sense. Most of his famous music came out before he turned Moslem. Now that he is Moslem, I don’t think he makes any music that has any great popularity.

     So it’s not what you say, but the context you choose to bring it up in. Often your points, whatever their accuracy, are not on topic. I should have stated this objection respectfully and charitably, which I did not. I am guilty of irrelevancy, too, for I made a trivial correction to a tangential point someone else made a long time ago. So none of us are perfect, and I shouldn’t have attacked you like that. I apologize, and wish you a Merry Christmas.

105. 105 Comment by Caper on 15 December 2007:

     If anything, I thought that Mr. Kyser was faulting the Middle Eastern Moslems for lousy musicians of little value. Turns out only one of the less-than-stellar musical figures he listed was Moslem. Those are the facts. For how to interpret that, argue with Mr. Kyser, not with me, please.

106. 106 Comment by Ronald Kyser on 16 December 2007:

     #93 “…Paul Anka, Neil Sedaka, Ahmet Ertegun, Frank Zappa and Paula Abdul.” Did you intentionally pick non-Moslems when you wrote this?

     Um, no, Mr Caper… I intentionally picked every notable American musician with any connection at all to Araby or Asia Minor. (Paul & Paula have roots in Syria; Neil & Ahmet in Turkey; Dweezil’s dad is Arab-Sicilian.) Danny Thomas and Tiny Tim slipped my mind, and you can add Tiffany to the list. Of course they’re not Moslem. Ertegun, an executive, wrote a hit for Ray Charles, which appears to consitute the extent of the Islamic-American musical contribution.

     Cat Stevens/Steven Georgiou/Yusuf Islam was born in London to a Cypriot father and a Swedish mother. So file him under Greco-Sueco-Anglo-Islamic music, not American.

     Fats Waller’s lyricist, Andy Razaf, belonged to the royal house of Madagascar. That’s a bit out of the Middle East, but today’s his birthday, as it is Beethoven’s, so let’s give him a nod.

107. 107 Comment by Caper on 16 December 2007:

     Heck, now that this tangent has progressed, Shakira is part Lebanese.

108. 108 Comment by Chance Gardner on 16 December 2007:

     to finish this point if caper’s a roman catholic except in so far as his lips form and enunciate those syllables then a bear does his or her poo-poo in a potty each day. as for who is a ‘j’ and who isn’t i’ll leave that to those brought up that way like gilad atzmon or isreal shamir now according them no longer jews to say. they can tell me, i’ll listen. as for TJF he’s a human being. he’s not trying to be top chimp. but i knew touching that nerve ending of discussing jews and history in public (gosh forbid) would bring jews out to attack (at least at first) those being honest. while of course they reserve for themselves the right to tear everyone else apart and deconstruct all but themselves… which is swinish if not simian. my sword is double-edged and so it cuts every way it should when it should…and at least according to me admittedly, that’s THE point. others disagree understandably. and i’m imperfect in this world. imperfect’s perfect. or you wouldn’t exist at all. … in my opinion.

109. 109 Comment by Mr. Dithers on 16 December 2007:

     I guess race matters to Oprah Winfrey after all. This should come as no surprise when many of her shows are dedicated to black racial issues of some sort such as who is allowed to use the dreaded “N” word. Obama had made pro-reparations remarks to black audiences in the recent past although the major media has done their usual cover up, so for whites and other non-black voters he would be hard to trust especially given the fact that he is (or was) a member of a black supremacist church which exalts Africa, Africans and the black race in general. How could such a racial ideologue serve the needs of an increasingly pluralistic and multiracial nation?

     What I find amusing is that blacks and mexicans demand that presidential candidates serve their respective racial agendas while the front runners in each party rush to pay obeisance to their largest organizations like NAACP and La Raza. Whites, on the other hand, don’t get any respect nor to we demand any and content ourselves with low tax rates, abortion, and gun rights.

110. 110 Comment by Cal on 17 December 2007:

     I don’t really see a problem with Obama/Oprah addressing a majority black audience-Obama still needs to nail down the black vote (a lot of black leaders are endorsing Hillary). And while he is a vacuous candidate he is no worse than the rest of the Democrats and not that much worse than Mitt Romney/ Guiliani republicans.

111. 111 Comment by TJF on 17 December 2007:

     In conclusion, let me say that my point in addressing this performance was to point out its stupidity. If to nail down the black vote, Obama loses the white vote, he has destroyed whatever chances he might have had.

112. 112 Comment by Jack on 18 December 2007:

     Dr Fleming has illuminated a key point I had overlooked: the Mormons claim that the true church vanished in, what, 150 AD? (Certainly before the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds). The whole edifice is built on this lying foundation. Mr Mitt apparently buys into this stupendous lie as one of his life principles. And he wants to rule a country with millions of real Christians, Protestant and Catholic and Orthodox. I was impressed by his business success but I need to rethink this.

113. 113 Comment by Michael on 26 December 2007:

     I find it hard to believe that so many people are critical of Oprah helping the children of South Africa. Does anyone even know about the level of human suffering going on in Africa and the need for help, any help?? I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to those who selflessly help reduce human suffering so I checked her web site. Here’s what she says under “ChristmasKindness”:

     “My life was dramatically changed last Christmas when I went to South Africa on a mission to bring Christmas joy to 50,000 children. I realized in those moments why I was born, why I am not married and do not have children of my own. These are my children. I made a decision to be a voice for those children, to empower them, to help educate them, so the spirit that burns alive inside each of them does not die.” — Oprah

     I find it hard to see her actions as anything but a truly Christian act of kindness to help those children she met. I personally belive her when she says she was moved to action by her visit. Can anyone judge this as a bad thing?

114. 114 Pingback by Decline and Fall of Common Sense: Oprah, Allow Us Voters to Form Our Own Opinions on 1 January 2008:

     [...] thousands «..Michelle Malkin » The Oprah-Obama revival tour: “It was like a..Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture Your Home for Traditional Cons..Fussypants: Oprah, Obama & Mrs. Fussypants Do IowaPress Time Charleston City Paper » The [...]

115. 115 Trackback by gratis poker ohne anmeldung on 2 July 2008:

     regole baccarat…

     Mettere stanze di gioco migliori dei casino online limit 7 card stud i video poker software video poker…