State of the Discussion

I have all three myself! And they're all laptops. Though the Linux one is a 7-year old machine running Xubuntu (Ubuntu with XFCE rather than GNOME) and the Mac is broken. 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).

I also confess to being a former Mac snob, but it made sense when I was doing digital photography in 1999 and G3 Powermacs were far superior to the Intel Windows 98 or ME machines (which crashed much more frequently) . Nowadays though, Macs for all intents and purposes ARE PCs. They use Intel Core processors and can run Windows. There is no reason for the premium besides branding. I'm not really a snob for any kind for that reason. I like OS X better than Windows, sure, but it's not worth the hardware price difference. My next computer, I'm going to make sure is fully GNU-Linux compatible, though, even if I do run Windows 7 on a partition, but I can't expect most people to do the same and don't think that makes me superior somehow (except maybe at patience in working with command lines). Though I do commend Dell for making designed-for-Ubuntu machines, and ASUS for helping Linux gain a foothold in the mini-notebook market.

John, are you trying to tell me the Xbox 360 isn't better than the PS3? Because you're wrong. Yes, it's second, but the Wii was a gamechanger (no pun intended), and sold to lots of people who never even considered a Playstation or and Xbox (or a Gamecube or a Sega for that matter).

Speaking of Sony and the PS3, they did the same thing you accuse Microsoft of doing there, including a Blu-Ray drive to (successfully) kill Toshiba's HD-DVD format, rather than focusing on better games, the very thing that put the first two Playstations in first to begin with.)

First of all, capitalism tells us that if you aren't breaking the law or violating business ethics, there isn't "fair or unfair." If Microsoft can make money in the video game business by using a strategy like that, they should. Secondly, many, many people will tell you that the Xbox was by far the best of that generation of consoles, and the 360 is likewise much beloved. Third, I think it is ludicrous to say that the iPhone beats the DS or the Playstation PSP on the merits; the iPhone is a phone with some cool games. It's not close to a real competitor with dedicated gaming platforms. That's just my opinion, of course, but I think the tech press is being far too credulous to Apple's claims.

And finally, trust me, while Bill Gates is going to end up the greatest philanthropist in human history, Microsoft isn't in the business of throwing away money for no purpose. They aren't getting into the video game business for some malign purposes; they think they can make a quality product and make money off of it. And the market will decide.

“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...

IM:
It's important to distinguish movement conservatism from conservative political theory. You have to remember that movement conservatism, just like movement liberalism (to the extent it exists), is kind of a Frankenstein's Monster of various forms of conservatism, plus libertarianism, plus some other constituent groups that aren't so easily classified.
The nature of the coalition was always such that the libertarian viewpoint was always the most influential on issues of economics.
So while it was appropriate for conservatives to resist implementation of social security and to even seek to reverse it in the years and initial decades after it passed, once it became fully institutionalized, a truly conservative position would have sought to preserve it, though perhaps with some slight modifications useful in ensuring its survival. But traditional conservatism by the 1980s or so had ceased to have any relevance to formation of movement conservatism economic views.

"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."

But that is the problem with conservatism, it is always drifting. And there is a movement to eliminate the institutions created by the New Deal, but it is called movement conservatism. Shouldn't conservatives defend for example Social Security?

I'm not sure what your main point is here. If you're trying to answer the question you put up in the beginning of your post, "What role does religious knowledge play in the process of radicalization?" you're coming up very short here. Of course Islam plays a determining role here. It's undeniable. You can call Islamists ignorant all you want to but that doesn't change that fact. If you think that Islamists have a mistaken view of Islam, then you should go and convince them. It's notable that not even the greatest religious authorities in Islam have done so, or even really tried to do so. You want to distinguish Islam from Islamism. This is important. It's mainly important for Muslims to do so, though, not you or me. And they have come up very short here—to the point of anathematizing fellow Muslims who do so.

Along with this it's important to distinguish jihad from jihadism. The problem is the same as the above.

The main problem is that in theory Islam is one but in reality it is as plural as any other religion. This theory is not invented by Islamists—it's part of Islam itself. It's part of Islam itself to believe that Islam is superior and must dominate the earth. This is why Muslims do not condemn Islamists—in many ways they are only practicing what others preach. The contrast with Christian and Jewish fundamentalisms is apparent: Christians, even fundamentalist Christians, had no problem condemning the abortion clinic bombers and so forth back in the '80s; Jews have no problem condemning Jewish terrorists in Israel—they're even repudiated by their own families and denied a Jewish burial. Muslims cannot do this. Why?

You mention Horkheimer. He was a German Jew who took refuge from the Nazis in the States and then returned to Germany after the war. He was the founder of the Frankfurt School of sociology. He wrote, "in terms of time and space Europe remains and island of freedom surrounded by an ocean of despotic rule." He demanded that the West defend its freedom against all varieties of totalitarianism. It's undeniable that Islam and Islamism is a challenge to the freedom valued by the West. Here, there can be no tolerance in the name of multi-culturalism. Muslims must share the commitment to an open society if the open society is to survive. As crazy as you think he is, Wilders at least knows this much and won't tolerate intolerance. This is only the minimum one would expect and it's a wonder that it's such an outlying attitude here and in Europe.

Before you criticize Wilders, you should know that Europe faces much more serious challenges from Islam than we do. Europe has its own identity and Muslims have no right to Islamize it. Wilders is simply saying that Islam must be Europeanized if Europe is to survive. It's impossible to refute this.

You seem to want to believe that the mass conversion of the Mediterranean world, Asia, and Africa to Islam is not related to jihad. Just how was the "early community" defending itself by conquering such massive amounts of territory, including great swaths of Europe? The only way for this "defense" to be true is if you accept Islamic belief that peace equals Islamic law. If not, then Islam is the greatest violent imperialist power in history. It is radically different from the Roman conquests in that the Romans were famously tolerant of other religions. Once the Roman Empire became Christian, of course, it became history's first totalitarian dictatorship (under Theodicius). It is different from Christianity most of all because Christianity has evolved and Islam has not. But even so, the Christianization of Europe did not happen only by violent conquest. It happened by peaceful means as well. This just is not the case in Islam.

Matoko:
No. True conservatism is not about recreating long-dead traditions; it is about preserving existing traditions. 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.

Or in other words....Will is perfectly cognizant that the core values endorsed by the conservative base are repulsive, anti-humanist, anti-thetical to both liberalism and libertarianism..... and illiberal, and he is still committed to collaboration.
Fine, you invited the vampires into the house.
The only way to get rid of them now is to stake them thru the heart, and since you don't have the nads to do that, you're going to have to burn the house down.

Great post!
I believe the unsigned editorial in the Times was actually just a rehash of the press releases that have been put out by PIRG, Public Citizen, et al.

One thing that crosses my mind is the possibility of assembling a database of "he best available, objective, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence" that's already been done. A lot of the requirements sound to me to be at the level of anti-vaxers thimerosol scares. Yes, ppm concentrations of ethyl mercury were higher than EPA requirements in vaccine preservatives. However, when the total mercury is in the microgram range, the concentration really doesn't matter. The dose makes the poison. I expect there is a similar fault in the "book ink" controversy and others.
The Times, btw, is clearly going the easy THINK OF THE CHILLLDRENNN! route I commented on in your earlier post.

From Mark:

"So the differences between an open-minded liberal and an open-minded libertarian should ultimately be resolvable, because both liberals and libertarians generally share a similar vision of a morally just society, even if some policies advocated by either group arguably fail to achieve or even outright undermine these goals."

Doesn't that statement describe the basic differences between any two well-intentioned parties ? I would contend that all kind-hearted socialists, conservatives, labor, green, you name it desire a 'morally just society'. Maybe I completely misunderstand libertarianism but I don't see how their vision of 'morally just' is any closer to liberalism than conservatism.

Will:

Good questions. I started drafting a response, but for a variety of reasons, it's going to be best left for a full post later on, perhaps tonight. Suffice it to say that a lot of it builds on the whole theory of political coalitions you may or may not remember that I developed at my old site.

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.

Aside from a prohibition on infant baptism, the Book of Mormon does not introduce any new doctrine that you cannot already find in the Bible. That was never the point of the book to begin with.

The point of the Book of Mormon is to stand as an additional testimony of Jesus Christ and to demonstrate the global nature of God's concern for humanity (rather than simply a small Palestinian enclave). The book demonstrates how God intends to use a small group of chosen people (Israel) to bless the lives of all nations. That's the point of the book, not new doctrine.

If you want new doctrine, you would need to look at the "Doctrine and Covenants" - a compilation of modern revelations.

You also wrote:

"Mormons believe in more than one God, for instance."

As do Christians friend. Ask any Muslim or Jewish theologian. He'd be happy to explain it to you.

You make it sound like the Mormons believe in a universe of isolated and independent gods off doing their own thing without reference to anyone else. This is not true. The CONSTANT refrain of Mormon doctrine is UNITY with God the Father. Thus Mormons picture deification as becoming one in heart, mind, will, and love with God the Father - just as Jesus Christ has. So regardless of whether I become a "god" or not, there is only ever one Will governing the universe.

I find the traditional Christian critiques of Mormonism as "polytheist" to be frankly ridiculous. Didn't it ever occur to them that if you can unite THREE beings into "One God," you can unite more than three?

Seriously, what's stopping Mormons from doing exactly that, and still remaining in harmony with Christianity's own logic? We are no more polytheist than Southern Baptists are.

You also wrote:

"Mormons believe in three “levels” of Heaven, the Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial. Basically the Telestial is for non-Mormons; the Terrestrial is for “good but not exemplary” Mormons; and the Celestial is for those Mormons who led the best lives and who had the strongest faith. In this third “kingdom” there are also three levels, and Mormons who attain the highest level of this kingdom reach a state of godhood, essentially becoming gods of their own universes."

Oi, oi... what a hash of explaining the doctrine we have here.

The Telestial Kingdom is not for "non-Mormons." There will be both Mormons AND non-Mormons there. This kingdom is for the unrepentant liars, adulterers, murderers, etc. People who lived lives of evil and rejected the repentance and grace offered by Christ. It has nothing to do with being Mormon or not.

The Terrestrial Kingdom will also have Mormons and non-Mormons in it. This kingdom is reserved for all people who were good and upright, but ultimately refused to accept Christ. It has nothing to do with being Mormon or not.

The Celestial Kingdom is the one place where being a Mormon matters. But only in the limited sense of Mormon ordinances being required to fully accept Christ and His Gospel. The people who live here are the ones who accepted Christ, His message, and His ordinances. Repentant sinners will be here. People who never were Mormon in life, but later accepted the Gospel after death. And faithful Mormons yes.

Hope that clears up the Mormon afterlife somewhat, because man - you completely butchered it.

Next quote from you:

"Beyond this, women in the Mormon faith are spiritually bound to their husbands. For instance, for a woman to attain the higher levels of heaven she must be lifted up by her husband. She can’t make it on her own."

Neither can the men make it on their own. You only attain the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom (yes, there are sub-levels of the Celestial Kingdom as well) as a married couple. So don't think this is just a one-way thing.

Finally:

"If a man and his wife divorce, and then he remarries, his first wife will be the one who is “lifted up” to the same level, not his second. This is probably one reason that in the early days of the LDS church, Mormons practiced polygamy, and why in FLDS communities they still do."

Seriously, where are you getting this stuff? Are you just making things up as you go along?

Current Mormon temple practice allows both men and women to be sealed to more than one spouse (as long as all concerned are dead). So no, the first wife is not "lifted up" "instead" of the second. He will be sealed to both.

You also confuse mortal marital status with eternal marital status here. A Mormon may get a mortal divorce and yet STILL be sealed to his ex-spouse. In fact, it's harder to get a sealing annulled than to get a divorce as a Mormon (because it is assumed that the same pettiness, selfishness, or problems that caused the divorce will not apply in heaven). Kind of a "sort it out in the hereafter" approach.

I also find it ironic that a traditional Christian is getting his digs in about sexist and racist doctrines in the LDS faith.

You ever looked at your own church history? Most Mormon racial doctrines were actually beggared from racist Southern Baptist and Protestant thinkers. And you guys have had your own share of kooky sexist ideas about women too that haven't been entirely stamped out.

But a good first step would be for you to actually get Mormon doctrines right in the first place rather than making things up on the spot.

As for your stuff about Mormonism being very different from the rest of Christianity, I agree. I liked that part of your article. But you completely butchered the doctrines.

No need for killing, Mark.
Right now the GOP is a dying two-headed monster staggering along in its deaththroes. The hideous monster consists of Thom Jefferson's body with an extra Jerry Falwell head crudely sewn onto its right shoulder.
The monster's blood boils with leucocytes and t-cells fighting rejection battles between two deeply incompatible ideologies.
Eventually one of the stinking supporating heads will undergo organ rejection and fall off.

"Mormons believe we all existed as “spirits” before coming to Earth - and that our actions in Heaven determine our race here on Earth."

Although mostly correct, your statements regarding Mormon doctrine are sloppy and misleading, especially since you fail to even mention all the Mormon doctrines that are closely aligned with creedal Christianity. The one I quoted above is the absolute worst. Some people believed this in the past (and a few still do) but it is not based in any doctrine, the vast majority of Mormons don't believe this, and most Mormons work hard to stamp out such heresy within the church.