21 May, 2007

What kind of name is "Mitt", anyway?


I really should stop just posting videos from Comedy Central. But this one raises some very important questions.

Is it worse to be irrational about more things? That is, are Mormons less rational because they believe in a nineteenth century hoax as well as having the same uncritical beliefs that normal Christians hold about Jesus' and other prophets' miracles? Or is it a matter of, "in for a penny, in for a pound"? Even if it's not a matter of number of unjustified beliefs, could it be less rational to believe in more recent miracles simply because they are less obscured in the sands of time? Or could it be vice-verse - is it inherently less plausible to believe that Joseph Smith really used Seer Stones to read from Golden Tablets even though no body saw them than to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, even though it's now impossible to contact the people supposed to have witnessed it.

And then there's questions about the religious prerogative to discriminate. Most people outside America don't know enough about Mormons to know that they had a no-blacks rule until the 70s. I don't understand how they got away with that in that decade following the Civil Rights Act. It sound abhorent that they had institutionalised racism, but what about other religions? Orthodox and Conservative Jews only allow descendents of Aaron to become Kohanim and give the priestly (Vulcan) blessing. Maybe it's a matter of spin, but to me it seems just as bad to give some group a privelege because their ancestor (Aaron) did something good as it is to deny a group because their ancestor (Ham) did something bad. And what about gender equity, that's enshrined in the laws of most Western countries these days (eg US Equal Rights Amendment) yet the Catholic Church (and the Sydney Archiocesse of the Anglican Church) won't let women be priests! (Oh, and again with Judaism, women can never be Rabbis.)

I shouldn't feign surprise that these prejudices abound. What's truly surprising is that all these bigoted establishments are revered and exempted from the laws of the land. And in Australia they are even given money to help them indoctrinate children with those same prejudices.

2 Comments:

At 22 May 2007, 4:40:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why am I not surprised that Mormons were anti-black 'til the 70's.

And, I guess we won't know about the strength of time in obscuring facts and strengthening unfounded beliefs until Mormonism has celebrated it's 2000th birthday. And even then, we hold far better records now than in the time of Joshua Nazareth, which could serve to debunk Mormonism quite effectively.

 
At 27 May 2007, 1:22:00 pm, Blogger b said...

Its about itme someone used the term debunk other than my mother.

Congratualtions Cam.

And a thought inspiring piece again, N.

I am in a tired good mood. Can you tell?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home