Here are the words that sparked this discussion, “Mormons are not, by any definition of the word, Christian, so can they truly be labeled Christianists?”
Well after all this I think that Mr. Kain might, I said might, agree that there are some definitions, offered by seemingly reasonable folk, that allow for defining Mormonism within a Christian tradition.
"You express surprise at your readers leaping to the Mormons’ defense, but I suspect that most commenters are motivated less by a desire to defend Mormons than by a desire to correct your glaring lack of objectivity."
Just so Todd. Another example of Mr. Kain's willingness to engage in cant on this topic.
E.D. you'll get no argument from me on that point. The Democrats, for the most part, acted shamelessly. History will judge Bush, Congressional Republicans and Democrats harshly. Let me be clear, Congressional Democrats were cowards and many have apologized for their vote. But that is not worth spit compared to the thousands of deaths and maimings suffered by Iraqi's and soldiers sent to fight that misbegotten war.
Aaron, E.D. has a lot invested in his argument, even though he claims it was a throwaway line. He has long believed it, he says. I suppose if I were a Christian I would find a way to avoid some association with bigots, Mormons in this case. So E.D. conveniently denies that Mormons are Christian. He will obviously engage any cant that he see fit.
"Mormons self-identify first as Mormons. " Maybe so E.D. but isn't that true of most sects. When I was still Catholic I called myself Catholic, never Christian. I find that statement, quoted here, also ignorant and empty.
"...'exclusive self-identification' reeks of the worst kind of individualism; it leaves no room for the group to police its own membership, which would seem very odd to all but the most strident proponent of the individual...."
So Rob a question, who or what group would you propose to be qualified to judge membership in a group?
Oh, let's just use the example E.D used, Christians. I guess Christians may accurately be called a group.
Mormons self identify as Christian. E.D. must demure. So who settles this dispute?
E.D. I'm not sure who you were addressing in #7 but if it was me, yeah to some extent I might hold Lairson responsible for the Bush administration. Hell, I do hold him responsible. As well as any one who provided cover for that criminal infested presidency.
To bad those you describe here, "but there are many independent conservatives out there that did not take part in the Bush orgy…." did not have the power to counter that orgy.
"' 'I’m not one of those conservatives....' " Freddie writes as an imagined response of a reformer conservative trying to shift or avoid blame.
Will replies, "Holding fringe conservatives responsible for a party that simply isn’t interested in their input, on the other hand, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense."
"This is why Christians aren’t Jews. Christians have adopted other beliefs that distinguish them from Jews. Am I “ignorant” for stating this? Muslims aren’t Jews either, despite a shared Abrahamic heritage. Is stating this ignorant?"
You did not say that in your original post. I agree, Christians are not Jews. But let's go here. Fords are not Hondas. Both, however, offer a means of transport. Would you ever say? "Honda, by any definition, does not offers a means of transport." I doubt it.
What you wrote in your original statement was a reading out of Christianity of Mormonism. (Clearly, Mormons wish to be placed in the Christian tradition.) I imagine an Orthodox Jew might say, "Reform Judaism, by any definition, is not Judaism." I would call that an ignorant statement also. Do I think an Orthodox Jew making that statement believed it to be true? I sure do. Do I think you believe your original statement? I sure do. You offer sufficient proof, by your lights, to maintain your belief. I'm also sure that many Christians believe as you do. But, for me, this disputing of what sects qualifies as worthy is ignorant. But hell, when you begin with ignorance, broadly belief in god, it's pretty difficult to be rational.
BTW, happy to read you are not anti Catholic but I bet a lot of Catholics would find your anti infallibility stance anti Catholic. You point out correctly many Catholic don't subscribe to it either. Just another example of the subjective nature of the entire enterprise.
BTW2, I'm also from the Catholic tradition. I just chucked the whole god thing.
Religious folk tend to think of their belief as objectively true, after all a god reveled it to the world in some form, Bible etc. But your defense of your nonsense, Mormons are not Christian, abound with the subjective aspects of religion, all religion.
OK, the Mormons profess to believe in Jesus as god, they purport belief in the Gospels, but this is not enough for you. Other aspects of their religion put the lie that claim. I'm pretty sure you might find aspects of the Catholic church unchristian, in fact I detect a whiff of anti Catholicism in your words (just a feeling).
So here is the bottom line. Andrew Sullivan has his definition of good Christianity, those that fall short he brands Christianist. E.D. Kain has his definition of good Christianity, those that fall short, no matter what, can not be Christian. All this defining and pleading for this ritual over that ritual screams subjective.
E.D. your assertion, "Mormons are not, by any definition of the word, Christian" is ignorant. But that has been handled well above.
Sullivan, a good Catholic man, has his idea of what it is to be a Christian (I bet you two could have a really long debate over the finer points of defining Christian), those that do not meet his definition are "Christianist." Likewise, those that do not meet your definition "are not, by any definition of the word, Christian."
Remove the mote from your own eye. Isn't that a Biblical injunction?
Following a Andrew Sullivan link I found this at timesonline. Bryan Appleyard has a list of recommended blogs. He writes of kausfiles, "Part of Slate magazine, Mickey Kaus’s blog is a good stop for witty and non-PC politics."
Ok, The Times comes at things from the right so this recommendation is not a surprise. But it sort of lends credence to Freddie's original complaint. If The Times finds it "a good stop" us lefties might have big problems with it.
I've never considered Kaus an influential spokesman. The more liberal "liberal" (or should that be "liberal" liberal) organs like MoveOn, TPM, AmericaBlog, OpenLeft, HuffPost, on and on and on, seem to be much more important in setting opinion.
I'm sure M.K. has a following, Democratic Leadership Council types, Herold Ford southern Democrats, Blue Dogs, on and on and on.
So a question.
Is M.K. something other than a spokesman for the above groups? How influential is that jerk?
"Therefore, the way forward...goes through a reform of Islam."
Well that is a way forward. And I'm sure one you agree is very unlikely any time soon. Or perhaps you see a reform Islam emerging somewhere.
I understand the point you are making between historic Islam and "Islamism" but that is a western construct, it seems to me. I'm guessing most in Islam would reject your distinction.
Are you wishing for a secular Islam? That might be the wrong term, secular, I mean, but it is the best I can come up with right now. The term secular Christian is common but I find it an oxymoron. Secular Moslem sounds even more contradictory.
Katherine addressing Roque writes,"You are confusing the ideology of al-Qaeda with the ideology of most other Islamic political movements. Most wish their nations to be governed by shari’a law, but that is not the same as having as a central part of their ideology the desire to impose this situation on the rest of the world."
I can't accept that notion.
As part of this series E.D. posted "Idealism with a Sword." There I made the following comment, "Islam, to it’s very bones, rejects western values. Islam is male dominated. It rejects pluralism. It rejects democracy. It places god’s law above civil law. Islam does not value the state, it places value in the religion. It values a sort of pan-Islamic notion where coreligionist are valued more than the artificial nation state where Moslem’s reside." Roque replied, "Exactly! This is why they declared war on us. This is why no negotiations are possible because to negotiate, one must accept pluralism and the nation-state to begin with. If Islamists did that, then there would be no war."
Sorry to quote myself but that may be the quickest way to establish my position on this topic. I think my statement is accurate but it offers no solutions, no way forward. It paints a picture of another "irrepressible conflict." And that is a picture I really don't like.
I realize the League likes to address the big issues, the meta-this, the existential that, but I am more concerned with particular questions and policies designed to address problems, in this series foreign policy problems, interventionism.
Roque, above, draws a distinction between "Islam" and "Islamism." (A distinction I'm not really sure he buys.) But he says President Obama should draw the distinction and explain it to America and the world. Okay, what next?
Tom Friedman, of the NY Times, likes to blame oil for most of the problems in the Middle East. What is his term? "Petro dictatorships." Something like that. Well, I wonder if every drop of oil were gone from the Middle East would that make a difference? Or even oil at $20 a barrel? Would that end the hatred directed at Israel?
I have questions and no answers. But I'll keep my eye on this series and see if anything pops up.
I will also be watching the administration and Ms Clinton.
I'm going to regret this, but please explain, "...am in favor of throwing out the fourteenth amendment all together. " Is it the fourteenth or the incorporation doctrine?
"That there is no path from one to the other, seems blatantly wrong."
Cascadian, I never never never said that. I maintain that Griswald did not overturn sodomy laws. Bowers upheld sodomy laws. I'm only saying (1) it took Lawrence do overturn sodomy laws (2) there is no straight line from Griswald to Lawerance.
And beside that was not my original point. You wrote in #103, "The LGBT community has had better luck arguing that the gov should be out of everyone’s bedroom than sodomy in particular should be legal." Well that is factually incorrect since Bowers struck down all sodomy laws. I know I know you say that is not what you meant, but that is what you wrote. What you wrote was incorrect.
I'm in no way denying the import of Griswald, it has been more than helpful in establishing and expanding the right to privacy, but as you well know the Right hates Griswald and would probably overturn it given the right case.
Ed writes in # 113"...now some very small group of people claim that they should have a new right recognized under the existing laws that has never been recognized before in the known history of mankind...."
Not exactly.
Same sex marriage is known in history. It would be more accurate to say the same sex marriage is rare. But to assert that it "...has never been recognized before in the known history of mankind..." is inaccurate.
Consult the Wikipedia article on Same-sex marriage, history.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On ““by no definition of the word…””
Here are the words that sparked this discussion, “Mormons are not, by any definition of the word, Christian, so can they truly be labeled Christianists?”
Well after all this I think that Mr. Kain might, I said might, agree that there are some definitions, offered by seemingly reasonable folk, that allow for defining Mormonism within a Christian tradition.
On “Republican Hypocrites”
Your code escaped me. I thought you were being rendunant. I'll try to read more closely next time. Once burned, twice shy.
"
Damn you E.D. Why did you send me to M. Malkin without some kind of heads-up? My life is ruined, ruined.
On “Self-Identification, pluralism, and all that…”
Yep, Good stuff.
On ““by no definition of the word…””
"You express surprise at your readers leaping to the Mormons’ defense, but I suspect that most commenters are motivated less by a desire to defend Mormons than by a desire to correct your glaring lack of objectivity."
Just so Todd. Another example of Mr. Kain's willingness to engage in cant on this topic.
On “the foul rag and bone shop of real politics”
E.D. you'll get no argument from me on that point. The Democrats, for the most part, acted shamelessly. History will judge Bush, Congressional Republicans and Democrats harshly. Let me be clear, Congressional Democrats were cowards and many have apologized for their vote. But that is not worth spit compared to the thousands of deaths and maimings suffered by Iraqi's and soldiers sent to fight that misbegotten war.
On “Christianism and the Gay Marriage Debate”
Aaron, E.D. has a lot invested in his argument, even though he claims it was a throwaway line. He has long believed it, he says. I suppose if I were a Christian I would find a way to avoid some association with bigots, Mormons in this case. So E.D. conveniently denies that Mormons are Christian. He will obviously engage any cant that he see fit.
On ““by no definition of the word…””
"Mormons self-identify first as Mormons. " Maybe so E.D. but isn't that true of most sects. When I was still Catholic I called myself Catholic, never Christian. I find that statement, quoted here, also ignorant and empty.
"
"...'exclusive self-identification' reeks of the worst kind of individualism; it leaves no room for the group to police its own membership, which would seem very odd to all but the most strident proponent of the individual...."
So Rob a question, who or what group would you propose to be qualified to judge membership in a group?
Oh, let's just use the example E.D used, Christians. I guess Christians may accurately be called a group.
Mormons self identify as Christian. E.D. must demure. So who settles this dispute?
On “the foul rag and bone shop of real politics”
E.D. I'm not sure who you were addressing in #7 but if it was me, yeah to some extent I might hold Lairson responsible for the Bush administration. Hell, I do hold him responsible. As well as any one who provided cover for that criminal infested presidency.
To bad those you describe here, "but there are many independent conservatives out there that did not take part in the Bush orgy…." did not have the power to counter that orgy.
I know, you're not one of those conservatives.
"
"' 'I’m not one of those conservatives....' " Freddie writes as an imagined response of a reformer conservative trying to shift or avoid blame.
Will replies, "Holding fringe conservatives responsible for a party that simply isn’t interested in their input, on the other hand, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense."
Priceless!
On ““by no definition of the word…””
I get it now. Thanks E.D.
"
"This is why Christians aren’t Jews. Christians have adopted other beliefs that distinguish them from Jews. Am I “ignorant” for stating this? Muslims aren’t Jews either, despite a shared Abrahamic heritage. Is stating this ignorant?"
You did not say that in your original post. I agree, Christians are not Jews. But let's go here. Fords are not Hondas. Both, however, offer a means of transport. Would you ever say? "Honda, by any definition, does not offers a means of transport." I doubt it.
What you wrote in your original statement was a reading out of Christianity of Mormonism. (Clearly, Mormons wish to be placed in the Christian tradition.) I imagine an Orthodox Jew might say, "Reform Judaism, by any definition, is not Judaism." I would call that an ignorant statement also. Do I think an Orthodox Jew making that statement believed it to be true? I sure do. Do I think you believe your original statement? I sure do. You offer sufficient proof, by your lights, to maintain your belief. I'm also sure that many Christians believe as you do. But, for me, this disputing of what sects qualifies as worthy is ignorant. But hell, when you begin with ignorance, broadly belief in god, it's pretty difficult to be rational.
BTW, happy to read you are not anti Catholic but I bet a lot of Catholics would find your anti infallibility stance anti Catholic. You point out correctly many Catholic don't subscribe to it either. Just another example of the subjective nature of the entire enterprise.
BTW2, I'm also from the Catholic tradition. I just chucked the whole god thing.
"
E.D. we've trod this path before, remember?
Religious folk tend to think of their belief as objectively true, after all a god reveled it to the world in some form, Bible etc. But your defense of your nonsense, Mormons are not Christian, abound with the subjective aspects of religion, all religion.
OK, the Mormons profess to believe in Jesus as god, they purport belief in the Gospels, but this is not enough for you. Other aspects of their religion put the lie that claim. I'm pretty sure you might find aspects of the Catholic church unchristian, in fact I detect a whiff of anti Catholicism in your words (just a feeling).
So here is the bottom line. Andrew Sullivan has his definition of good Christianity, those that fall short he brands Christianist. E.D. Kain has his definition of good Christianity, those that fall short, no matter what, can not be Christian. All this defining and pleading for this ritual over that ritual screams subjective.
I'm sticking to ignorant.
On “Christianism and the Gay Marriage Debate”
E.D. your assertion, "Mormons are not, by any definition of the word, Christian" is ignorant. But that has been handled well above.
Sullivan, a good Catholic man, has his idea of what it is to be a Christian (I bet you two could have a really long debate over the finer points of defining Christian), those that do not meet his definition are "Christianist." Likewise, those that do not meet your definition "are not, by any definition of the word, Christian."
Remove the mote from your own eye. Isn't that a Biblical injunction?
On “the continuing fraud of Mickey Kaus”
Following a Andrew Sullivan link I found this at timesonline. Bryan Appleyard has a list of recommended blogs. He writes of kausfiles, "Part of Slate magazine, Mickey Kaus’s blog is a good stop for witty and non-PC politics."
Ok, The Times comes at things from the right so this recommendation is not a surprise. But it sort of lends credence to Freddie's original complaint. If The Times finds it "a good stop" us lefties might have big problems with it.
"
James, are "air arguments" any thing like air guitar?
"
I've never considered Kaus an influential spokesman. The more liberal "liberal" (or should that be "liberal" liberal) organs like MoveOn, TPM, AmericaBlog, OpenLeft, HuffPost, on and on and on, seem to be much more important in setting opinion.
I'm sure M.K. has a following, Democratic Leadership Council types, Herold Ford southern Democrats, Blue Dogs, on and on and on.
So a question.
Is M.K. something other than a spokesman for the above groups? How influential is that jerk?
I'm thinking that Kaus is not very important.
On “The Failed Obama Administration”
Actually Obama has had a long media honeymoon. As I recall The Failed Clinton Presidency occurred about 5:15 pm on Inauguration day.
On “Getting Our Priorities in Order”
"Therefore, the way forward...goes through a reform of Islam."
Well that is a way forward. And I'm sure one you agree is very unlikely any time soon. Or perhaps you see a reform Islam emerging somewhere.
I understand the point you are making between historic Islam and "Islamism" but that is a western construct, it seems to me. I'm guessing most in Islam would reject your distinction.
Are you wishing for a secular Islam? That might be the wrong term, secular, I mean, but it is the best I can come up with right now. The term secular Christian is common but I find it an oxymoron. Secular Moslem sounds even more contradictory.
"
Katherine addressing Roque writes,"You are confusing the ideology of al-Qaeda with the ideology of most other Islamic political movements. Most wish their nations to be governed by shari’a law, but that is not the same as having as a central part of their ideology the desire to impose this situation on the rest of the world."
I can't accept that notion.
As part of this series E.D. posted "Idealism with a Sword." There I made the following comment, "Islam, to it’s very bones, rejects western values. Islam is male dominated. It rejects pluralism. It rejects democracy. It places god’s law above civil law. Islam does not value the state, it places value in the religion. It values a sort of pan-Islamic notion where coreligionist are valued more than the artificial nation state where Moslem’s reside." Roque replied, "Exactly! This is why they declared war on us. This is why no negotiations are possible because to negotiate, one must accept pluralism and the nation-state to begin with. If Islamists did that, then there would be no war."
Sorry to quote myself but that may be the quickest way to establish my position on this topic. I think my statement is accurate but it offers no solutions, no way forward. It paints a picture of another "irrepressible conflict." And that is a picture I really don't like.
I realize the League likes to address the big issues, the meta-this, the existential that, but I am more concerned with particular questions and policies designed to address problems, in this series foreign policy problems, interventionism.
Roque, above, draws a distinction between "Islam" and "Islamism." (A distinction I'm not really sure he buys.) But he says President Obama should draw the distinction and explain it to America and the world. Okay, what next?
Tom Friedman, of the NY Times, likes to blame oil for most of the problems in the Middle East. What is his term? "Petro dictatorships." Something like that. Well, I wonder if every drop of oil were gone from the Middle East would that make a difference? Or even oil at $20 a barrel? Would that end the hatred directed at Israel?
I have questions and no answers. But I'll keep my eye on this series and see if anything pops up.
I will also be watching the administration and Ms Clinton.
I'm very pessimistic.
On “knowing when to get out of the way”
OK, I read your reply. Can't say anything at this point.
"
I'm going to regret this, but please explain, "...am in favor of throwing out the fourteenth amendment all together. " Is it the fourteenth or the incorporation doctrine?
"
"That there is no path from one to the other, seems blatantly wrong."
Cascadian, I never never never said that. I maintain that Griswald did not overturn sodomy laws. Bowers upheld sodomy laws. I'm only saying (1) it took Lawrence do overturn sodomy laws (2) there is no straight line from Griswald to Lawerance.
And beside that was not my original point. You wrote in #103, "The LGBT community has had better luck arguing that the gov should be out of everyone’s bedroom than sodomy in particular should be legal." Well that is factually incorrect since Bowers struck down all sodomy laws. I know I know you say that is not what you meant, but that is what you wrote. What you wrote was incorrect.
I'm in no way denying the import of Griswald, it has been more than helpful in establishing and expanding the right to privacy, but as you well know the Right hates Griswald and would probably overturn it given the right case.
"
Ed writes in # 113"...now some very small group of people claim that they should have a new right recognized under the existing laws that has never been recognized before in the known history of mankind...."
Not exactly.
Same sex marriage is known in history. It would be more accurate to say the same sex marriage is rare. But to assert that it "...has never been recognized before in the known history of mankind..." is inaccurate.
Consult the Wikipedia article on Same-sex marriage, history.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.