Jon Huntsman: Maybe Not Anti-Science, But Definitely Anti-Women's Rights

although Mitt had a change of heart at one time.

Yeah, that change of heart is called flip flopping to run for office, cause McCain also had a change of heart along with Mitt.

With these cowardly fools is flip flop quite the right word?

@!$%# flopping

Yup, that fits.

The fact that he's mormon also means that he believes in polygamy.

Not necessarily...but it's enough to turn evangelical Republicans against him.

Well yes actually necessarily. For a mormon to believe that polygamy is fundamentally wrong (wrong in the eyes of God), they would have to believe that Joseph Smith was fundamentally wrong. If they believed that Joseph Smith was fundamentally wrong they wouldn't be mormon. Instead they only stopped practicing polygamy because they believe that violating the law of the land is wrong but what if they are writing that law of the land?

Its the mormoms primitive silly belief in their living prophets that doesn't scow for me. I mean its fine to believe whatever you want and with whomever you like. From christ to allah to santa claus its all the same to me.

Like Kennedy, you have to come out and say you don't believe the pope is the living voice of any god so do they. I want to hear it loud and clear. No bs, no half assed, say it or no fuhging way.

I won't have anyone in office who in anyway bows to anyone, thing, or other, but the constitution and america, meaning all of america, and the religious right isn't able, willing, or capable, of doing that. Its the jesus machine or nothing. They have dangerous stupid idols and frankly aren't near sane enough for the nuclear codes, not by a long shot.

I piss on the church crazy and their grab for power.

They can't do that and remain in good standing with the church. It would be tantamount to stating that they don't believe the Book Of Mormon is really scripture. There are some things you just can't do and still be Mormon.

Which is why I will never tote water of vote for one of these church crazy jackasses.

I'm not a republican, but it has bothered me that there has been so little coverage of Huntsman. I may (do) find his views on women's rights disturbing, but compared to most of the republicans seekig the nomination, he at least doesn't pander to the extreme.

To the Mormon bashers: grow up. (No, I'm not Mormon.) I have grown weary of "outsiders" speaking for others.

Kate,

With all due respect, as a former mormon, I'm hardly an outsider with no knowledge of the church's beliefs.

Also with all due respect, you may know the doctrine put forth by the church, but you cannot know the particulars of Mr. Huntsman's beliefs unless he has stated them.

With all due respect, if he believes that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God (ie, is mormon), then by extention he must also believe that Joseph Smith was right with regard to polygamy. This really isn't rocket science you know.

Except that the modern Church of LDS has disavowed the practiced. So either all the Mormons are wrong about what being a Mormon means, or you are.

Hmm.

Anyways, the abortion debate tends to throw off a great deal more heat than light. It matters, yes, but its one of several dozen things that matter and far from the most important. Considering that the President has very little ability to change abortion law, I think we'd be better served talking about who's best positioned to do something about the fact that half of Americans control just under 2.5% of the privately held wealth in this country.

This really isn't rocket science you know.

It's not; but by the same reasoning, Protestants aren't Christians.

With all due respect, if he believes that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God (ie, is mormon), then by extention he must also believe that Joseph Smith was right with regard to polygamy. This really isn't rocket science you know.

Prophecy isn't the same thing as infallibility. If it was, all those Jews trying to schlep it home from Egypt would have had a much better guide.

Dear SA - how are Protestants not Christians?

Except that the modern Church of LDS has disavowed the practiced. So either all the Mormons are wrong about what being a Mormon means, or you are.

Except that the only reason they don't practice it isn't because they believe it's wrong, but because it's against the law of the land. MikeA, I'm a former LDS member. I know WTF I'm talking about here. They believe in following the laws of the land so they stopped practicing polygamy when it was outlawed but only because it was outlawed and not because they believe it to be a sin. Because if it is actually a sin then they would have to believe that Joseph Smith lied about recieving that revelation, and if he lied about that revelation, then that would bring into question his ethics and morals and every other revelation he made.

Dear SA - how are Protestants not Christians?

I don't think they aren't. I said by the same logic as a previous poster used to distance anti-polygamists from Mormons that Protestants would be equally not Christian in an analogous situation.

I don't think anybody followed your logic SA.

Z1P2,

Except that the only reason they don't practice it isn't because they believe it's wrong, but because it's against the law of the land.

I had friends that were Mormon when I lived in California and Hawaii ....and even attended church with them..... and I agree with what you are saying as far as the Mormons that I have personally known.

I know, I was a mormon for many years in good standing with the church until I discovered one little fact that totally invalidated the Book Of Mormon.

I don't think anybody followed your logic SA.

I'm saying that no Protestant or Catholic adheres perfectly to the Gospel. It's excessive to demand that Mormons adhere strictly to their prophet.

So then tell me SA, how is it possible to believe that the Prophet lied about what God revealed to him, but still trust that that Prophet told the truth about what else God revealed to him? Believing that the Book Of Mormon is true is a cornerstone belief of the mormon church. Mormons believe God revealed the book of mormon to Joseph Smith. But if they can not trust that Joseph Smith told the truth about that because they believe he lied about other revelations from God, then how can they believe the Book of Mormon is true? If you can not testify to the book of mormon being true, you can not be a member in good standing with the church, you can not hold a temple recommend, you can not hold the priesthood, you can not even be baptized into the church. In short, you can not be mormon unless you believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and if you believe that he was a prophet of God, then you believe that he wouldn't have lied about revelations from God, such as the one he made about polygamy.

I know, I was a mormon for many years in good standing with the church until I discovered one little fact that totally invalidated the Book Of Mormon.

Why stop there? If you're going to apply rationality as opposed to faith to religious texts, you do realize you're going to end up invalidating the Bible, Koran and Torah, too.

Simply put, religious belief requires some degree of suspending rational inquisition; otherwise, you have to figure out how Jesus overcame conservation of mass and pretty much every law of thermodynamics out there, or how Mohammed flew to Jerusalem centuries before airplanes were invented.

I have said some nice things about Huntsman, particular in how gracious he is towards our President. BUT but but, he is a Mormon, and they just treat women like chattel. He would never get my vote.

If you can not testify to the book of mormon being true, you can not be a member in good standing with the church, you can not hold a temple recommend, you can not hold the priesthood, you can not even be baptized into the church.

You're analyzing this way too much. People are not machines and will not believe everything they read from a specific book. When someone says they believe the Book of Mormon, they do not necessarily mean it in its entirety. They believe they are Mormon, and with the exception of extremists of all religions, religious people generally derive their beliefs from their parents and friends, not from books.

I do not sit well with LDS, but I'm not delusional. Mormons believe what they believe because they are informed by their own background and conscience, not because they are taking it literally from a book.

For my money, ain't none of them Christians, not if you mean living up to Christs words as I read that is.

Lying hypocrites, scumbags, frauds, bigots, deluded fools, the insane and greedy for profit bastards, that I'll give you.

But Christian?

Lol, not even close.

And as to the Mormon thing.

You claim these two legged wrinkled old white bastards up in their Mormon churches raping and pillaging the land ursurping the democratic processes in Utah and promoting all that anti gay bigotry because according to their ignorant bigoted religiously insane asses that is what god and christ wants?

If that crap is protected religion then why isn't the KKK protected?

Why?

In any case, this I promise, if your religion requires you to tell me some jackass in Utah or any other place is the prophet of god you can kiss my vote away.

I will not vote for religious insanity or delusions and I don't care how institutionalized you have made that or how many pretty buildings you have built or how big a mob you have collected who are suckers for the same crap you raise up.

What can I say.

I'm American.

Free will and a library card is a bitch ain't it.

kochblock,

It minds me of a quote from Mahatma Gandhi "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.".

That and the 'magic underwear' thing is a great reason for the separation of Church and State.

Regards

I do not sit well with LDS, but I'm not delusional. Mormons believe what they believe because they are informed by their own background and conscience, not because they are taking it literally from a book.

You can be mormon without believing in Joseph Smith as a prophet and the Book of Mormon to be 100% true like you can be a christian if you don't believe in Christ.

Mormons take their entire lives directly from the Book of Mormon and the interpretation thereof by their Church Leaders - no individual wiggle-room for conscience or background - except for the schism between the polygamists and the rest.

The difference between individual Mormons is explained by the level of their "devout-ness".

You can be mormon without believing in Joseph Smith as a prophet and the Book of Mormon to be 100% true like you can be a christian if you don't believe in Christ.

Precisely. Let's put it this way: if one adheres to the tenets of Christianity, but has no belief in Christ, are they Christian?

except for the schism between the polygamists and the rest.

If there is one exception, then there are many.

Mormons are not p-zombies and are not pre-programmed to believe certain things. It is very well possible to belong to an organization of people and not automatically accept the literal implications of the group's founding bylaws.

Let's put it this way: if one adheres to the tenets of Christianity, but has no belief in Christ, are they Christian?

Of course not.

Let's put it this way: if one adheres to the tenets of Christianity, but has no belief in Christ, are they Christian?

Of course not.

But they would be a much better member of society than those who believe in Christ but do not adhere to Jesus' teachings, don't you think?

Of course not.

Then how would you describe Christian ethics sans Christ? I can tell you now that they are a unique form of idealism.

SA, "Then how would you describe Christian ethics sans Christ? "

Unitarians??

Or non-practicing Catholics??

;>)

Unitarians

I always thought that was more of a rejection of consubstantiality.

But they would be a much better member of society than those who believe in Christ but do not adhere to Jesus' teachings, don't you think?

I think that has no bearing on the topic at hand, but there are plenty of good and bad people both of the Christian persuasion and of other religious beliefs including atheism.

Then how would you describe Christian ethics sans Christ?

Simple ethics.

Without Christ there is no Christian. It is the belief itself that makes a person Christian, not the adherence to a moral code, and without the belief a person can not be Christian... though they can still be ethical... and PS - just because someone believes in Christ doesn't make that person automatically ethical. As we have seen, time and time again, christians are just as likely to commit horrid crimes as non-christians.

I can tell you now that they are a unique form of idealism.

Not really. Many religions share similiar ideals, and some are even shared with non-religious philosophy.

Simple ethics.

There's no such thing. Ethics is what I teach, and if it were simple, I'd be out of a job (or tuition for my post-doc. Same thing.)

So I would like to lead with this first: there is no such thing as an unethical person. There are only unethical decisions.

Not really. Many religions share similiar ideals, and some are even shared with non-religious philosophy.

Idealism isn't about "ideals." That's called virtue-ethics, which would be closer to the Old Testament than to practicing Christians. Idealism is about thinking transcendentally, with emotions and thought (or more ambiguously, spirituality), being the guiding force in ethical decision-making. You're right, being Christian isn't about following a moral code, because Christianity doesn't have a moral code (except those virtues dictated by whichever church one belongs to). The ethical process of Christianity is linked to an innate morality, pulling on the instinctual practice of ethics, rather than a heavily philosophized worldview. There are no distinct spiritual consequences to Christianity, but simply the concepts of sin (which is somewhat akin to survivor's guilt), heaven (which is aspirational but meant to be essentially unobtainable), and damnation (which is fear of doing wrong).

This is something that is unique to Christianity. It takes each individual's virtue-ethics (or moral code) and reinforces those virtues through the individual's own emotions. Christ is not a person unto himself for most Christians, even if they do not realize this or admit it. Christ is who they want to be, and he takes form as whatever the individual thinks they should be.

Now, why does this make Christianity a unique form of idealism? Well, it's quite simple. The Christian mindset is one that approaches one's personal life as something detached from physical reality. This is not unique. However, unlike Tantricism and Buddhism (which are the two most striking comparisons I can think of), Christianity relies on a corporal understanding of the body, rather than a spiritual one. There are no chakras or spiritual suffering, there is the individual body.

I could go on, but do you see why Christ is irrelevant to Christianity? He, as he physically was, has just about nothing to do with the effective practice of the religion.

I could go on, but do you see why Christ is irrelevant to Christianity?

No, the only thing I see is that I don't think you know what you're talking about. No offense. But you claimed that christianity has no moral code, this simply isn't true, there most certainly is a moral code that Christ himself spelled out in the bible. The difference between moral beliefs of different churches stems from a difference of interpretation of that moral code. While the adherence to or lack of adherence to that moral code is not what makes or breaks the definition of a christian, there's really no question that such a moral code exists.

You say that there are no unethical people, only unethical decisions. Yet there are people who know that what they intend to do is unethical, yet they have no concern for the unethical nature of their actions. Those people are unethical in every sense of the meaning.

You claim that Christ is not a person unto himself for most people, but rather a role-model so to speak that they don't truely believe existed. That simply isn't true. Nothing could be farther from the truth in fact. Maybe one out of a million christians might believe christ was something other than a real person, but the overwhelming majority believe that he was, and anybody that thinks that the majority of christians don't believe Christ was a person simply doesn't know what they are talking about. Sorry.

But most of all, to say that someone can be a christian without belief in Christ ignores the very dictionary definition of the word "christian".

*facepalm* What are they teaching in high school?

I provided you a concise, systematized account of Christianity. A system which, by the way, has been recognized by theologians for quite a long time. It explains the variability of belief, the seeming irrelevance of scripture (people pick and choose), the marginalization of Christ (he is addressed, but only in personal interest), and the nature of Christian ethics, which is transcendental. I got assertions and a "definition" argument back. I feel almost cheated.

So, if you don't believe me, I'll assign research, eh?

A list of topics to become familiar with before trying to rebut the direct theological conclusions of Kant's transcendental philosophy:

1. Synthetic propositions
2. A priori knowledge
3. Transcendental ontology (specifically Kant)
4. Qualia (Philosophy of Mind)
5. Aristotelian ethics (specifically focusing on self-realization)
6. Deontology (or the ethics of acts... specifically Kant)
7. And... most importantly: Descriptive ethics.

Especially in studying descriptive ethics, it becomes quite obvious that people do not act in a way that is consistent with what they say they believe. Synthetic propositions will help you understand Kant's writing. A priori knowledge will help you conceptually grasp it. Transcendental ontology will explain where Kant is coming from in an existence sort of way. Qualia are just fascinating and they'll help you to go beyond the sort of "dictionary" semantic logic you seem accustomed to. Aristotelian ethics will help you understand the source of much of Christian ethics.

Deontology is very important. This is a method for ethical evaluation which is central to modern Christians.

So, I'll keep debating if you read up a bit on those topics, then I can direct you to the appropriate theological arguments, and then I'm pretty sure you would agree with me. It's amazing how many steps it takes to shake off ethical absolutism when the answer is so obvious.

So, I'll keep debating if you read up a bit on those topics, then I can direct you to the appropriate theological arguments, and then I'm pretty sure you would agree with me.

You might be surprised at how two people can read the same thing and disagree on the meaning... hence the variability of belief. I'm already familiar with Immanuel Kant's work as I took several ethics and philosophy courses for my business degree.

You believe modern christians take a deontological approach to ethics, I disagree. Some are moral absolutists, others employ a teleological approach. You simply can't lump all modern christians into a single group with anything other than the defining belief in christ.

Unless Christians are teleological consequentialists, which they are not, teleology can be reduced to a deontological view. That, and very few people are moral absolutists, or, if those who are would consider common ethical dilemmas, they wouldn't be.

Christian deontology often manifests itself when people speak of the ten commandments or pick out bible verses to support their moral view. In essence, though, these acts are only rationalizations and not indicative of the source of their morality. As I have previously said, morality is innate, it is driven by experience, and it can only be excused by nature and not by rationalization.

It might be the Christian interpretation of God's will that gives way to a varying moral code amongst different Christians; but once that interpretation is established, their ethics are strictly duty-based.

When one looks at a religion from an ethical point of view, the names and the rituals do not matter. What matters is the way in which the ethics of the religion function. So, yes, modern Christians can be categorized in a way that has nothing to do with Christ. Perhaps not in a way that a lay-person would understand; but certainly in a way that matters.