Friday, January 25, 2008

Two Posts on Mitt Romney

(Posted to my MySpace Weblog on April 5, 2007)

Recently there has been a controversy over the motives of Romney's sudden conversion to the anti-abortion stance. Many say that he is simply trying to curry favor with the Republican primary voters who are notoriously more socially conservative than the general electorate. Romney, on the other hand, insists that he has had a genuine change of heart, having been persuaded by scientific argument that human life does indeed begin at fertilization.

I have my doubts. If Mitt Romney were indeed a man capable of being swayed by rational argument, he would have left the absurdity known as Mormonism years ago. But he is still a Mormon.

Of course, one could argue that I myself am impervious to rational suasion because I am still a believing Catholic. I believe in huge absurdities as well, such as the wacky doctrine of the Real Presence. The likes of Sam Harris would say it is just raving nonsense to believe that bread and wine become at each Mass the actual Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Well, yes, it is nonsense within a strictly materialist worldview, and I think that this itself is raving nonsense. The core of rational man is not matter and matter alone. If materialist science exhausted the human being, then it could explain the laws of poetry as comprehensively as it does the laws of falling objects. But it cannot. Catholics specifically believe that the substance of bread and wine is wiped out, replaced by the substance of Christ's real body and blood. The substance is that which makes anything what it really is--its essence, if you will. This belief does not contradict reason. It merely contradicts the materialist notion that physical matter is all there is und Nichts au├čerdem. One need not subscribe to the dubious proposition of materialism to be reasonable.

Mormonism, on the other hand, does indeed contradict reason itself and, therefore, can properly be called an irrational lunacy. Mormonism believes that the first god started out as a mere man on some planet and then became divine by his own efforts. In other words, the created becomes the creator. And I suppose the daughter can become her own mother as well. This is just risible. If creation pre-exists the creator, then the creator is not the creator and creation is not creation; it is simply the result of evolution, random chance, or whatever combination of irrational fates, and you might as well be an atheist and spare yourself the pious fascism of a Utah lifestyle. If someone ain't reasonable enough to understand that the created comes from the creator and not vice versa, then how the deuce do you think he will be smart enough to realize that the human being comes from the fertilized egg? Please!

Romney is a Mormon and, like the founder of his bizarre religion, is not an expert on basic logic. No, but he, like Joseph Smith, knows how to con, and he is trying to con the Republican primary voters. Of course, he stands a good chance of doing so. The majority of the Republican base still is dumb enough to support what the general public now knows to be another obvious con, namely the Iraq War.

(Posted to my MySpace Weblog May 11, 2007)

The "Reverend" Al Sharpton a few days ago in a debate with Christopher Hitchens made a remark that certainly sounded like he was implying that the Mormon Presidential Candidate does not really believe in God. Mitt Romney then accused Sharpton of bigotry. Rush Limbaugh pretty much agreed, going off on yet another tirade about how the commie pinko liberal godless hedonist treasonous drive-by media allows the left to have their bigotries while employing Stalinist tactics to squelch the right of free speech of the righteous right.

Limbaugh is still an idiot, even though he no longer is fat and apparently relies on Viagra now to become big. I don't know if Don Imus is a creature of the Right, even in Limbaugh's blinkered conception of it. I never listened to his show. I do know that it is sheer idiocy to get into a conniption fit about a double standard because Imus was felled for his patently racist comments but Sharpton was not for a theologically correct remark. In other words, the two things are not equal and, therefore, should not get equal treatment.

True, the comments of both men did indeed give offense, but, again, Sharpton's remark, unlike Imus's, had truth. Mormons do not really believe in God. The true God is the God who created the universe out of nothing. Mormons actually believe in a plurality of gods, this first of which was, as Joseph Smith says in The Ken Follet Discourse, "once as we are now." The first god or the father god started out as mere man and became divine by his own efforts. So, since the god existed as a man before he became a god, he could not have created the universe because the universe, well, had to have existed before this guy's deification. Otherwise, how could this man to become a god have existed at all? Duh!

Ergo, this first god of the Mormons is not the True God of Creation. This is not bigotry. This is just plain fucking obvious. This alone, by the way, disqualifies Mormons as Christians, but there's more. Mormons baptize their own (and the dead) in the name of the Trinity but understand the trinity as three wholly seperate gods. That is why the Catholic Church has declared Mormon Baptisms to be invalid, and this means that Catholics do not consider Mormons to be Christians. If Sharpton is a bigot for saying what he said, so am I and proud of it. I'd rather be a bigot than a Mormon polytheist.

Sharpton has since backtracked from his statement, saying that it was taken out of context and that he actually considers Mormons to be Christians. He did not apologize. He'd never apologize to such a lame pasty-white ass as Mitt Romney but did, nevertheless, take back what he evidently said. He did so defiantly, of course, lashing out at Whitey for supposedly manipulating his words. Even Sharpton's cowardice must appear uppity, I guess, but it was cowardice all the same.
I would have upped the ante myself. I would have told Chris Matthews that not only does the Mormon congame not believe in the real God, it really idolizes raw power. That's what the Mormons call god. Joseph Smith calls upon the suckers who followed him to do what the first god supposedly did, to build a kingdom of power. Theologically this is Pelagianism on meth. Translated into foreign policy, it is nothing less than fascist empire building.
Many pundits say now that Romney's religion should not be a problem as long as he does what Cuomo, Giuliani, and even Scalia do, namely subordinate his private beliefs to his public duties. These misnamed pundits don't understand that Mormonism is a theological justification of America's attempt to become the god of its very own planet. There is no need for Romney to privatize his true beliefs for his worship of power is indeed America's public religion, and America has been ruled by de facto Mormons for a very long time. Hence, the question, "Can a Mormon become president," is just silly.

By the way, when Franklin Graham declared Islam to be a wicked religion that worships a false god, he was not made to appear on either Hardball with Chris Matthews or Al Sharpton's radio show to explain himself. One can slander Islam with relative impunity in this country, not because Islam is inherently sillier or more pernicious than all other religions practiced in America, but because it does not have power in this country. Mormonism does and so can demand respect, when, in fact, Mormonism is, if anything, more incoherent than Islam. I am no apologist for Islam by any means. I have written on this weblog that Muhammed used his revelations to justify an acquisition of a harem. I cannot take the Koran seriously, but at the very least Islam believes that God is one and eternal. That's more than can be said about Joseph Smith's con.


Anonymous said...

Referred here by you, I did not finish reading due to your profanity, but the part I read was not persuasive enough to make me want to persecute the group you seemed to dislike. While insisting on the dichotomy of "creator" and "creation" as two eternal opposites, about which you personally know nothing more than you have read from the pages of a book, you actually analogized a created God with a daughter becoming her OWN mother, rather than the far more obvious comparison, a daughter becoming a mother of another daughter (which, as you can instantly see, much more agrees with doctrines of an "exalted God" and tiered creations than disagrees). I know this was written the better part of a decade ago, and can only assume you have smartened up since then.

Sebonde said...

If Mormons are going to insist that their father god is the God of Genesis, then my analogy holds. Mormonism is wholly absurd.