"He who attempts to act and do things for others or for the world without deepening his own self-understanding, freedom, integrity and capacity to love, will not have anything to give others. He will communicate to them nothing but the contagion of his own obsessions, his aggressiveness, his ego-centered ambitions, his delusions about ends and means, his doctrinaire prejudices and ideas," – Thomas Merton, Contemplation in a World of Action, University of Notre Dame Press.
Ricky Gervais is its master, although Borat is close behind. In this clip, even David Bowie gangs up on a "chubby little loser." If you’re having a bad day, this might be the tonic you need.
The vice-president’s radical views on the powers of the presidency may well foretell a very bruising couple of years in Washington as the White House battles a Congress of a different party. This analysis is sobering – and helpful in teasing out Cheney’s consistency on this issue – from the 1970s on. Money quote:
"[Congress cannot] place any limits on the president’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response," the Justice Department asserted in a September 2001 memo solicited by the White House. "These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the president alone to make."
The following year, the administration drew up secret legal opinions informing military and CIA interrogators that the president has the power to authorize them to violate laws banning torture.
"In order to respect the president’s inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign against Al Qaeda and its allies, [the anti-torture law] must be construed as not applying to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority," said an August 2002 memo, which was leaked to the media only after the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib came to light.
Then, in December 2005, The New York Times revealed that the administration was wiretapping Americans’ international phone calls and e-mails without warrants, violating the 1978 surveillance law.
Three days later, Cheney sat down with reporters and laid out his belief "in a strong, robust executive authority." Bypassing the warrant law, he asserted, was "consistent with the constitutional authority of the president."
I misquoted Mitt Romney in his belief that America had a divine founding. He used the word "inspired." It’s a little milder, but official Mormon teaching uses the terms interchangeably. Here’s a Mormon take on America’s unique founding:
While LDS scripture reinforces the traditional Christian duty of "respect and deference" to civil laws and governments in general as "instituted of God for the benefit of man" (D&C 134:1, 6), Latter-day Saints attach special significance to the Constitution of the United States of America. They believe that the Lord "established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom [he] raised up unto this very purpose" (D&C 101:80). The Prophet Joseph Smith once described himself as "the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth" (Hc 6:56-57). All of his successors as President of the Church have reaffirmed the doctrine of an inspired Constitution. This consistent endorsement is notable, for basic LDS teachings are far removed from the premises of American liberalism, and largely as a result of these differences, Latter-day Saints suffered considerable persecution before achieving an accommodation with mainstream America…
This understanding of the divine inspiration of the Constitution as mediated through the human wisdom of the founders and the founding generation invites the inference that new needs and circumstances might require the continued exercise of inspired human wisdom by statesmen and citizens alike. LDS leaders have taught that the Constitution is not to be considered perfect and complete in every detail (as evidenced most clearly by its accommodation with slavery, contrary to modern scripture; e.g., D&C 101:79) but as subject to development and adaptation… President Brigham Young explained that the Constitution "is a progressive ‚Äî a gradual work"; the founders "laid the foundation, and it was for after generations to rear the superstructure upon it" (JD 7:13-15).
Two thoughts. The first is that this allows for far more constitution amending than most conservatives favor (and helps explain Romney’s ease with amending the federal constitution to bar gay unions). Second: the question of American exceptionalism gets somewhat more dangerous when it is viewed as divine exceptionalism. In a world where the clash of Islamic and Christian civilization seems close to the surface, a reaffirmation of the divine nature of one nation (with the implication that all others do not enjoy the same divine favor) is not exactly oil on troubled waters.
For a Mormon Elder’s view of the divinely inspired Constitution, check out this interesting article. The LDS church is particularly taken with the liberalism of the American constitution, especially its avowal of religious freedom.
A Mormon reader writes:
The LDS are now, on the whole surprisingly non-racist. I have many devout white LDS friends who have adopted African American children. And black/white married couples are much more common among LDS Church members under the age of 50 than one might imagine–given Brigham Young’s racist theology and its continuation in the LDS Church until ’78.
By the way, the change in ’78 came about because LDS missionaries had been so successful in South and Central America. The LDS Church was building temples in those countries for use by all of the new members there, and then the Church leadership realized that because most converts had some African ancestry, they would be barred from those Temples because they couldn’t be ordained Priests. So common sense (rather than "Divine revelation") mandated the theological change. Otherwise there would have been sparkling new, multi-million dollar LDS Temples south of the boarder standing virtually empty.
When I joined the LDS Church as an 18 year old in 1977, I was deeply disturbed by the racist theology. What eased my mind was finding out that the majority of LDS Church members I knew in my home-state of Virginia were incredibly embarrassed by the racist doctrine. I remember the announced doctrinal change was announced on a Friday. On Saturday the members of my Ward (congregation) were enthusiastically volunteering to go door to door with the LDS missionaries in the predominately black neighborhoods throughout Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Va. Everyone I knew was ecstatic over the change in the theology. When I attended Brigham Young University from 1979 until 1982, there were black LDS students present and more than a few interracial married couples on campus. The white LDS members seemed to WANT to reach out to blacks outside the church.
At the moment the LDS Church is experiencing the greatest growth in Latin America and Africa countries. In fact, as of 2005 the majority of LDS Church members worldwide are now NON-WHITE and non-American.
In the meantime, I left the LDS Church and am now a Reform Mormon. This new Mormon denomination returns to the non-racist, liberal later doctrines of Mormon founder, Joseph Smith. His later theology was refreshingly liberal, rational and non-Christian.
As for the reader whose LDS roommate rejected carbon dating and believed that the earth was only 6000 years old: this is a new development among the LDS and is the result, I think, of the LDS Church joining forces with Fundamentalist and Evangelicals of the Religious Right (since the early 1980s). This fellowship with the Religious Right is also why so many of your LDS readers insist that they are Christians. Before the 1980s, LDS members actually rejected the label "Christian," opting for the more Biblical label of "Saint."
Missoula, Montana, 1.20 pm.
I’ve now had more emails about Mormon underwear than gay marriage.
Here’s a very, very long but worthwhile report by Michael Fumento on incremental but measurable progress against the insurgency in Ramadi. His bottom line? You should read the entire piece if you have time. But he seems to argue that a long grinding war of attrition against Sunni and Qaeda insurgents might work in the long run, especially with the cooperation of local tribes. But the broader issue of sectarian civil war – and the militias now fueling it – remains at large. He’s a great reporter and an honest, often surprising writer. Visit his tip-jar.
A Mormon reader writes:
Starting with a hypothetical – suppose that Mormonism is truly led by prophets, God has always specified who and when a group could hold his priesthood. For hundreds of years it was restricted to the Levites. Later it was extended to gentiles. If it is God’s priesthood, then I would suggest He can decide who can hold it and when, and historically has given that instruction to his prophets. He does it for his own reasons and purposes, and I’d suggest we’d be foolish to try to interpret why or what for.
In any event ‚Äì if you think Mormonism is led by prophets or not ‚Äì I don’t think the racism claim holds then or now. To see my point you only have to look at how quickly the entire church (the entire church) turned on a dime when the revelation extending the priesthood was received. The following week the church rejoiced, blacks were immediately given the priesthood, and Mormons were overwhelmed with joy and collectively invigorated. Is that the sign of a racist people ‚Äì to turn the entire church literally on one statement by the leader, and precisely in one week with no subsequent hold outs or debate or opposition? From what I know on the inside, I just don‚Äôt think the signs of racism are there, then or now.
All points taken. But it still shocks me to think that this didn’t happen until 1978. A non-Mormon reader writes:
Way back in 1991 my wife and I shared an apartment with a couple of friends from college. One friend was a white, outgoing, athletic girl from Choctaw, OK. The other was a black, outgoing, athletic boy from Oklahoma City. They were a fantastic couple, seemingly ignorant of the whole white/black racism thing, and quite obviously very happy. Marriage was discussed frequently, and enthusiastically. Then something odd happened. The girl started hanging out with a devout Mormon.
It wasn’t long before our friend started coming home with these odd "facts of the day", as we liked to call them. Things like, the earth is only 6000 years old; carbon dating is a hoax; and other nonsense. Then things took a turn for the worst, she fully converted, and became a Mormon. Quickly thereafter the talk of marriage with her boyfriend all but ended, and apparently because of one simple desire, she wanted to be married in a Mormon temple. Mormon’s don’t allow mixed couples to marry in the official Mormon temples for some bizarre reason.
Well, that was that. The happy relationship was over, our friends split up and went their separate ways. We’ve lost track over the years, but last we heard she is married to someone in the church, not working out of the house, and has many children. We never did hear from our other friend, I’m sure he got over it, but what a heartbreaker.
Is inter-racial marriage now permitted in Mormon temples? (Update: yes it is, as long as husband and wife are both "Temple-Worthy", regardless of race. The "mixed couple" refers to a religious, not a racial, description.)
A reader writes:
Attempting to call Fundamentalist "Christianism" a progressive movement?
Honey, the Fundies are yours. You had no problem with them in 2003. The true progressives opposed this war in Iraq – this dare-I-say "utopian" war in Iraq – from the start. You’re using Coulter logic (defined as "The whimsy of Lewis Carroll used to murderous ends.") I suspect that in a month you’ll be calling the "Christianists" a bunch of liberals.
I sense that the nuanced, chastened Andrew Sullivan is returning to his bullying ways. I bring as a case in point your mocking references to the "magical underwear" of Mormons, or "undies", as you said. How can you – as a Catholic – mock anyone else’s religious ways? I fear that as a happy atheist, Catholicism and Mormonism are equally queer to me. But since your religion has been around longer, you get to be the mean schoolgirl tormenting the new girl on the playground.
A couple of responses: I do find it puzzling that the progressive nature of Bush’s fundamentalist conservatism hasn’t won more plaudits from the left. This president has called for reversing the U.S.’s historic ties to autocrats in the Middle East, he has endorsed the biggest new entitlement since LBJ (and it’s about to get tougher on Big Pharma, as was predictable from the start), he’s in favor of legalizing most illegal immigrants, he has poured federal money into education, and spent more on AIDS in Africa than Clinton ever dreamed of. Bush’s little secret is that he has been much more liberal than he sometimes appears. Liberal in some of the wrong ways, I’d argue.
As for my own "Christianism," my view is that any Mormon is fine by me in public office, as long as he or she sticks to non-sectarian political appeals. But if a candidate explicitly appeals on religious grounds, then he puts religion on the table. Live by Christianism; die by it. And this blog has long poked fun from time to time at all sorts of religious and non-religious lifestyles – including Catholics and gays and everything in between.
The Dish 