Good point, Bob—bad taste is actually appropriate for Oscar night.

E.D.: Maybe so. I don't want to believe that social movements in the USA stand or fall on celebrity speeches at the Oscars, but it wouldn't really surprise me.

I'm going to go with Freddie on this one. I'm thinking most of the people who made Milk cared deeply about this gay rights, and people who loved the movie cared deeply about gay rights. He gave voice to the motivation behind the film, the common cause without which the movie would not have been what it was.

If somebody starts talking politics when it has no relation to their film, I'd find it in bad taste, but in this case it's relevant.

You said:

“Mormons are not, by any definition of the word, Christian, so can they truly be labeled Christianists?”

Not that I'm necessarily endorsing this, but Mormon scholar Bruce Porter says:

“Are Mormons Christian? By self-definition and self-identity, unquestionably so. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms that it is a Christian-faith denomination, a body of believers who worship Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and who witness that salvation is possible only by his atoning blood and grace. By the simple dictionary definition of a Christian as one who believes in or worships Jesus Christ, the case is compelling. To the title Christian a critic of Mormonism may add any modifiers he deems appropriate—unorthodox, heretical, non-Nicene, different—but blanket assertions that we are not Christian are a poor substitute for informed argument and dialogue.”

I'd agree with you that “Christianist” could be an effective rhetorical weapon, but it seems like a spiked bludgeon to me, purely pejorative and not particularly rich in content. If they're Christian Dominionists like Rushdoony, call them dominionists. If they're far-right natural-law theorists, call them that. If they're bigots, then they're bigots. But, as far as I can tell, the word Christianist in order to lump religious social conservatives opposed to gay marriage into one big, easy-to-hate category. What could the “valid” use of such a word possibly be, outside of blustery induced outrage?

Paul,

You are right that “daring to know” isn't the best thing to say, but I think William James said something like that. I wish I could just reprint the essay, because I can't say it as well as he can.

Bob,

I do apologize for implying that all of the comments are crazy. I really meant to say something more along the lines of “the comments are going crazy.” There is no way you could have known that I was thinking more in terms of quantity of comments rather than content. I'll adjust the phrasing in my original post.

And I try to get people to call me William, so that they don't mix me up with the other, smarter Wills out there.

Consumatopia,

I have to admit that you've hit one of my weak points. I haven't fully bridged the gap between William James's vocabulary (“live options”) and my own, even though I really like his essay. I'm trying to work out what I think about necessity and contingency in history, so I can't give a great answer.

-wrb

I mostly agree with you, Freddie.