Catholics also believe that actions play an important role in salvation
Actually all Christians believe actions are important, but regardless, at the end of a long life of sin one can still repent and ask forgiveness and be saved. This is true of Catholics as well. However Mormons believe to attain higher levels of heaven one must also perform good works. This is a crude summation, I realize, but it is a major distinction.
A great Realignment, as it were. Of course, in the real world everything consists of coalitions. And my idealism expressed here, and yours in the libera(l)tarian debate are both unlikely in the near future. But who knows? Every great once and a while an idealist is right...
In light of the recent discussions on the value of shame, how do you make sense of this? Is shame even available within ones ostensible group? Or, are some groups just impervious to shame?
Such a good question. I think shame has been replaced by all-or-nothings - in other words, "you're either with us, or against us" has become the new creed in many "groups" and "movements" and healthy shame is all but lost. So much more could be said about this....
Look, Philip, this was a hot-headed post. Mainly what I'm saying is that for years and years Republicans and conservatives turned a blind eye to out of control spending and pathetic governance, and now suddenly they've found fiscal spine? Maybe you're right. Maybe these protesters were doing this same thing during the Bush years, but I doubt it. This smacks of the luxury of no longer being in power.
This chart via Balloon Juice, is a visual aid for the kind of budgetary nonsense we put up with under Bush. Now only a few weeks into the new Administration we're seeing protests like this one in Mesa? The Party of Rush is acting like a bunch of children. These signs are embarrassing, or should be. I know conservatives can do better than this. You know what I mean? Take a higher road?
Joseph--the thing about entitlements and spending programs is they make for great sloganeering. On one side they promise the world, and people like that. On the other, for those against them, they make for great targets. In the end, though, a lot of people really do enjoy the benefits that they provide, but they are provided at such a cost and with such lousy efficiency that there really must be a better way...it's a tricky question. I think some means testing for things like social security is in order, to be sure...
So you're saying that these people were out protesting the massive spending under the Bush administration or the expansion of Government during the past eight years? Hey maybe. Maybe you're right. I doubt it, though. At least not in Arizona. Trust me, this is my home state, and these voters also voted McCain in - hardly the "fiscal conservative" move. Fact is, Arizonans have no idea what they want. This is just "following the leader, the leader, the leader wherever he may go...."
I also had a dual-boot on my Vista laptop with Mint, but had compatibility problems with my wireless card (IMO the single biggest problem with Linux).
Couldn't agree more. This is really the only reason I don't run on Linux. I can't stand the hit and miss wifi. Too absurd that it hasn't made greater leaps by now.
When was the last time a Microsoft product owned a market because it was the best product in the market?
Is there a better product than DX10 for graphics platforms on any other operating system for PCs? As far as I can tell, Microsoft was actually a good deal ahead of the hardware manufacturers in turning out software that could actually manage the sort of ridiculously graphics intense games we have now...
“If SSM were to be legalized today, 100 years from now the appropriate conservative position on SSM would be to preserve it if there were a movement to eliminate it.”
I was talking with my wife about the irony of religion, which acts in a similar fashion. It preserves traditions and makes them difficult to change. So, if SSM ever becomes widely accepted in religious communitites, it will in a sense be better preserved, harder to destroy. And at the same time, the religious elements within society also have provided the most resistance. So it's an Ironical Situation. But I think despite all the pushback from religion to things that have become widely socially acceptable, in the end its very valuable to preserve human tradition - new tradition is not a paradoxical statement either - and I think conservatism fills a similar role in politics and culture as well.
Ideally I'd like to own one Mac, one PC, and one linux based machine. Then I rotate my snobbery from one to the next. I can be a PC game snob, or a mac everything snob, or a geeky linux snob just depending on the day of the week...
Great piece, Mark. Worthy of the many responses. I'm not a libertarian or a liberal so I've remained rather quiet on all this, but I certainly think you're on to something. Big tents are something to work toward. The opportunity is certainly there...
Seth - fair enough. I don't pretend to be an expert on Mormon theology. Then again, your righting of my doctrinal faux pas doesn't really change the fact that all of it is very different than what is widely accepted as Christian.
It's funny, Sullivan linked to this post and he and every commenter on here (basically) has focused on the one line regarding Mormons not being Christians, which I honestly wrote quite off-handedly as it is something I've believed for a long time. My real point was that the term "Christianist" is too much the "bludgeon" as William puts it above, and not enough the "scalpel." Ah well. Such is the nature of the blog...
Mormons self-identify first as Mormons. The vast bulk of Christians do not accept them as anything else. But this becomes an exercise in futility. The point is, terms have meaning in order to be best used. Words are tools, weapons, paintbrushes, etc. If we stop using them with accuracy, specificity, etc. than we risk undermining them altogether. I can call myself a teapot if I want to, but it doesn't make it so. Who is to determine that this is not the case? Why, the rest of humankind! They can look at the facts and draw from them what conclusion they will.
In any case, it's interesting to me that so many non-Mormons have leaped to their...er...defense? Is it a "defense" to help apply a bad, mistaken label to a group of people?
I disagree Freddie. For example, hearken back to Austin Bramwell's piece urging non-participation in the "movement."
Take a hypothetical young talent with contrarian inclinations. Movement conservatives would counsel him to make his way up their ranks. But suppose he ignores their advice and joins the New York Times—or the Cleveland Plain-Dealer. There, even if he never classifies himself as conservative, he pursues stories that expose the perverse incentives of well-intentioned policies, the human costs of mass immigration, or the reality that, as Steve Sailer puts it, “families matter.” Not only are his eccentric interests not a liability, they may even prove to be an asset. His ability to see the world differently gives him a monopoly on stories that his colleagues cannot or will not spot themselves...
If the climate of opinion ever shifts, it will not be thanks to non-movement conservatives working within mainstream establishment institutions. My advice to young conservatives: avoid the movement, eschew its enticements. Above all, ignore debates as to the true meaning of conservatism. Heed instead the words of Ezra Pound: Make it new!
I think there's a lot of truth to this. Sometimes if you try to work from within, you just get stuck...
Holy crap. I knew it was bad but this sums it up. This is the sort of thing that will sink the Democrats. This is just fodder for the GOP. How unbelievably, unrepentantly stupid. My wife and I live and die by second hand.
On ““by no definition of the word…””
D:
On “Growth and Prosperity”
A great Realignment, as it were. Of course, in the real world everything consists of coalitions. And my idealism expressed here, and yours in the libera(l)tarian debate are both unlikely in the near future. But who knows? Every great once and a while an idealist is right...
On “Republican Hypocrites”
Cascadian:
Such a good question. I think shame has been replaced by all-or-nothings - in other words, "you're either with us, or against us" has become the new creed in many "groups" and "movements" and healthy shame is all but lost. So much more could be said about this....
On “To Nationalize or Not To Nationalize?”
Dave:
That just reminded me of Iraq for reasons unknown...
On ““by no definition of the word…””
I'm going to link this again, because yesterday I stopped fighting this battle. Here is my update on this from yesterday. Thanks!
"
SC - That's a damn well-reasoned and compelling argument. Thanks.
On “Republican Hypocrites”
Look, Philip, this was a hot-headed post. Mainly what I'm saying is that for years and years Republicans and conservatives turned a blind eye to out of control spending and pathetic governance, and now suddenly they've found fiscal spine? Maybe you're right. Maybe these protesters were doing this same thing during the Bush years, but I doubt it. This smacks of the luxury of no longer being in power.
This chart via Balloon Juice, is a visual aid for the kind of budgetary nonsense we put up with under Bush. Now only a few weeks into the new Administration we're seeing protests like this one in Mesa? The Party of Rush is acting like a bunch of children. These signs are embarrassing, or should be. I know conservatives can do better than this. You know what I mean? Take a higher road?
Joseph--the thing about entitlements and spending programs is they make for great sloganeering. On one side they promise the world, and people like that. On the other, for those against them, they make for great targets. In the end, though, a lot of people really do enjoy the benefits that they provide, but they are provided at such a cost and with such lousy efficiency that there really must be a better way...it's a tricky question. I think some means testing for things like social security is in order, to be sure...
"
So you're saying that these people were out protesting the massive spending under the Bush administration or the expansion of Government during the past eight years? Hey maybe. Maybe you're right. I doubt it, though. At least not in Arizona. Trust me, this is my home state, and these voters also voted McCain in - hardly the "fiscal conservative" move. Fact is, Arizonans have no idea what they want. This is just "following the leader, the leader, the leader wherever he may go...."
On “Self-Identification, pluralism, and all that…”
That's interesting, Todd, but I hardly think the military has any say over theological matters. I certainly hope they don't.
On “Apple v. Microsoft”
Joseph:
I also had a dual-boot on my Vista laptop with Mint, but had compatibility problems with my wireless card (IMO the single biggest problem with Linux).
Couldn't agree more. This is really the only reason I don't run on Linux. I can't stand the hit and miss wifi. Too absurd that it hasn't made greater leaps by now.
"
When was the last time a Microsoft product owned a market because it was the best product in the market?
Is there a better product than DX10 for graphics platforms on any other operating system for PCs? As far as I can tell, Microsoft was actually a good deal ahead of the hardware manufacturers in turning out software that could actually manage the sort of ridiculously graphics intense games we have now...
On “Killing Frankenstein’s Monster”
“If SSM were to be legalized today, 100 years from now the appropriate conservative position on SSM would be to preserve it if there were a movement to eliminate it.”
I was talking with my wife about the irony of religion, which acts in a similar fashion. It preserves traditions and makes them difficult to change. So, if SSM ever becomes widely accepted in religious communitites, it will in a sense be better preserved, harder to destroy. And at the same time, the religious elements within society also have provided the most resistance. So it's an Ironical Situation. But I think despite all the pushback from religion to things that have become widely socially acceptable, in the end its very valuable to preserve human tradition - new tradition is not a paradoxical statement either - and I think conservatism fills a similar role in politics and culture as well.
On “Apple v. Microsoft”
Ideally I'd like to own one Mac, one PC, and one linux based machine. Then I rotate my snobbery from one to the next. I can be a PC game snob, or a mac everything snob, or a geeky linux snob just depending on the day of the week...
On “The Promise of Liberaltarianism”
Great piece, Mark. Worthy of the many responses. I'm not a libertarian or a liberal so I've remained rather quiet on all this, but I certainly think you're on to something. Big tents are something to work toward. The opportunity is certainly there...
On “Republican Hypocrites”
Didn't you read the title, Bob? That wasn't warning enough?
On ““by no definition of the word…””
Seth - fair enough. I don't pretend to be an expert on Mormon theology. Then again, your righting of my doctrinal faux pas doesn't really change the fact that all of it is very different than what is widely accepted as Christian.
On “Christianism and the Gay Marriage Debate”
Okay, my final word on the matter for now.
On ““by no definition of the word…””
Okay, my final word on the matter for now.
On “Christianism and the Gay Marriage Debate”
It's funny, Sullivan linked to this post and he and every commenter on here (basically) has focused on the one line regarding Mormons not being Christians, which I honestly wrote quite off-handedly as it is something I've believed for a long time. My real point was that the term "Christianist" is too much the "bludgeon" as William puts it above, and not enough the "scalpel." Ah well. Such is the nature of the blog...
On ““by no definition of the word…””
Oh, and Mike, Christians and Mormons have a drastically different understanding of "divinity" so when it's applied to Christ it simply falls short.
"
Mormons self-identify first as Mormons. The vast bulk of Christians do not accept them as anything else. But this becomes an exercise in futility. The point is, terms have meaning in order to be best used. Words are tools, weapons, paintbrushes, etc. If we stop using them with accuracy, specificity, etc. than we risk undermining them altogether. I can call myself a teapot if I want to, but it doesn't make it so. Who is to determine that this is not the case? Why, the rest of humankind! They can look at the facts and draw from them what conclusion they will.
In any case, it's interesting to me that so many non-Mormons have leaped to their...er...defense? Is it a "defense" to help apply a bad, mistaken label to a group of people?
On “the foul rag and bone shop of real politics”
Ryan, I agree. That's a good point. I think it's important to distinguish exactly who we're referring to here, and Freddie's post was unclear...
"
I disagree Freddie. For example, hearken back to Austin Bramwell's piece urging non-participation in the "movement."
I think there's a lot of truth to this. Sometimes if you try to work from within, you just get stuck...
On “from my ink-stained hands”
Holy crap. I knew it was bad but this sums it up. This is the sort of thing that will sink the Democrats. This is just fodder for the GOP. How unbelievably, unrepentantly stupid. My wife and I live and die by second hand.
On “Not quite there yet…”
Was it? I don't recall...but quite likely that was the case. Everything those two spew out is false...