Although I don't take issue with any part of your critique of Gov. Romney's speech, I just wonder if it was really worth all the effort you put into it. He doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hades of winning the nomination.

That's exactly the reason to chop this yahoo off at the knees now. The more people know about this goofball "religion" the quicker they will realize he SHOULDN'T have a snowball's chance in hell.

Great job, Mr. Hitchens!

Please tell me which religion is NOT a 'goofball' religion?

Really name 2 criteria (other than number of members) that you would use to determine what is 'goofball' or not?

Have you seen how a Catholic doing a rosary? Those Muslims that get one their knee, face a specific direction and pray 5 times a day?

jazzguitarman:

...Please tell me which religion is NOT a 'goofball' religion?

Really name 2 criteria (other than number of members) that you would use to determine what is 'goofball' or not?

Have you seen how a Catholic doing a rosary? Those Muslims that get one their knee, face a specific direction and pray 5 times a day? ....

I don't know what to think of you, jazzguitarman. I certainly can agree with you that all religions are goofy, but I think you're intentionally avoiding how GOOFIER mormonism is than most (i.e., it's more similar to scientology than to mainstream christianity/judaism/islam).

And to me, living in modern America, that makes a real and practical difference. I can accuse the mainstream religious of being sloppy thinkers and of substituting tradition for real belief and practice. But scientologists and mormons have behaviors, thought-processing, and practices that are MUCH more cult-like than traditional religions (which themselves WERE probably cult-like nearer their origins).

Any modern, educated American who embraces scientology or mormonism is DEFINITELY missing some key psychosocial elements from their mental repetoire.

I'm agnostic so I tend to believe that anyone that belieives in ANY religion has some degree of mental defect.

Yes, I understand your point of degrees and they are valid and well stated. I guess where we differ is how much importance one places in these degrees.

Have you read the End Of Faith by Sam Harris? One of his points is that those of moderate faith pave the way for the GOOFIER one (BTW I like that term as well as any!).

In other words as soon as one accepts myths it is hard to tell others that their myths are more GOOFIER than their own.

But I do see your point about psychosocial elements and the behaviors of the more 'out there' groups. But to me the Pope and Vatican are one of the more 'out there' groups. You talk of cult like. Well when the Catholic church demands that the children be raised as Catholics (when one of the partners is not Catholic), this smells of cult like behavior to me. How they protect their own (like child molesting priest), also appears cult like to me. How about once a Catholic always a Catholic. Again, all a matter of degrees.

Of course American and European catholics are not cult like. They are just phonies (they really don't give a shit about what the Vatican has to say).

I agree with you, jazzguitarman--we desperately need widespread focus on the overall goofiness of religion. I strongly applaud Christopher Hitchens (and Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and others) from encouraging that focus.

I also agree that the Catholic church has some STRONGLY cult-like elements--and other's have observed that for centuries.

But I still don't like to let mormons off easily. If the average man on the street, confronted with the actual historical facts of the mormon church, can't open his eyes wide enough to perceive it as OUTRIGHT FRAUD, then what hope can there be for people to cast off the fetters of traditional religion?

I think "goofiness" is mostly a function of deviation from the norm, which in early-21st Century America is predominantly Christian, so even to us secularists, those beliefs, however irrational, do not seem strange (stupid, perhaps, but not strange).

If you are only comparing beliefs, once you get to a certain extent of irrationality, comparing degrees of irrationality starts to get meaningless -- is the idea that in communion you are eating Jesus' body ("hey, this host tastes like dick!") more or less irrational than the idea that the moon is populated with guys who look like the dude on the oatmeal box? Dunno, it seems like comparing infinity to infinity plus 1.

It appears that most of us are able to compartmentalize our lives, so that we operate most of the time in a relatively rational fashion -- I don't worry about the religion of the pilot of an airliner when I fly home, because I assume that, regardless of his theology, he is relying on the laws of physics, not magic, to hold the plane in the air. If my shrink is Catholic, I don't seriously expect she will have a priest try cast out demons rather that write another prescription for Zyprexa

Now, comparing behaviours, unquestioning obedience to leaders etc, is another matter entirely. Other that perhaps in the more extreme, fundamentalist protestant denominations, it does seem that Mormons are held to closer scrutiny by the church: held to account for their actions, their sex lives, their tithing etc. But it also seems that Mormons hold prominent, successful members to a more flexible standard -- have not seen any serious objection to Marriott Hotels all having full bars and offering on-demand porno movies in all rooms. How that might apply to a president is a question, but I doubt Mitt is used to taking orders from his local bishop!

30 years ago, I would have given any candidate's religion little thought. But with the advent of the Religious Right, Moral Majority etc, whose clearly stated goals include imposition of religion-based legislation, I cannot completely do so.

The very fact that Mitt has aggressively courted the Religious Right on the basis of his religion's shared socially conservative morality is enough to give me serious concern. I would have similar concern with Mike Huckabee who is campaigning on the fact that he was a Baptist minister.

In general, I still do not care -- don't care that Rudy is Catholic, unless he starts campaigning on the Church's position on birth control, abortion, divorce (LOL) gay rights etc. Similarly, it does not bother me that a candidate is LDS or Southern Baptist (or Scientologist, Muslim or whatever) unless he/she cites that faith as an indication of his/her policies if elected.

You"don't care that Rudy is a Catholic," eh? Well that's just fine. I guess you missed his little hissy fit and attempt to defund the Brooklyn Museum of Art becasue they showed a painting by Chris Ofili and it attracted the loud (as usual) attention of Bill Donahoe (emphasis on hoe) of the Catholic League. Rudy, on marriage number three and a famous pussy hound, needs to show his loyalty to the church SOMEHOW, given that he can't back off on his support of gay rights and choice now or look like a bigger flopper than Mitt, so he'll support Donahoe any time he attacks some museum or movie (he's point man for the Church's humorless attack on _The Golden Compass_).

And if Rudy got to be President, he'd probably appoint yet another Catholic Federalist (same thing, really) to the SCOTUS, thus giving them a majority on the court. Just how long do you think Roe will stand after that?

Well, I have lots of objections to Rudy, but I really don't worry too much about his Catholicism. I have enough other reasons not to vote for him.

I DID vote for Kerry and his Catholicism had exactly as much to do with why I voted for him as Rudy's would have to my reasons NOT to vote for him -- approximately none.

I am no fan of Catholicism because many of its traditions and teachings don't have biblical precedent. I am even less a fan of Mormonism whose doctrines are so absurd that even a second grader could critique its historical and theological origins and teachings. Ditto for Islam.

However, that said, I am also dismayed that obviously intelligent people such as yourself can make statements such as these below and not acknowledge the inherent weaknesses of logic and argumentation:

"ANY religion has some degree of mental defect"

"In other words as soon as one accepts myths it is hard to tell others that their myths are more GOOFIER than their own."

You are asserting that the prevalence of religious belief indicates that any belief in the supernatural is mistaken and mythical and mentally defective. Let us argue that religion like money, exists empirically (and it does, that is obvious, is it not?)

Your statements are akin to saying that the presence of counterfeit money proves that real money does not exist. I can argue the other side of the coin. You at least have to grant that the argument cuts both ways and the evidence suggests that my position is more defensible.

1) Your thesis: All religious belief is mentally defective (counterfeit). It is a question of the degree of defectiveness. This is a logically possible but more improbable than # 2 below.

2) My thesis: All religious belief strongly suggests the some religious belief may actually be true (non-counterfeit). It is logically possible and much more probable.

Eric

You've dug yourself a really convoluted hole of rationalizations and magical thinking, EricB. But I'll just comment on your "thesis."

"2) My thesis: All religious belief strongly suggests the some religious belief may actually be true (non-counterfeit). It is logically possible and much more probable."

You've not shown where it would be "logically" possible, because you don't present a logical argument based on declarative and true statements, which doesn't exclude your conclusion. Anyone can invent some weak syllogistic form, like "If there is a god, one of the religions now is existence might accurately describe him." But that's so weak that it's meaningless.

Furthermore, there is no basis for calculating any "probabilities" that the number of "wishes" or "faiths" increases the probability that those wishes are true--anymore than the number of people who want their lottery ticket to win increases the chances of any particular number combination, among all number combinations, will be a winner--that probability is constant and not correlated with the wishes of the players.

A more "probable" thesis is that religion arises from having an intellect without much infomation (thus the tendency which began in early human culture to invent "facts" to fill the gaps of knowledge), along with deep social primate tendencies toward tribalism and leadership/dominance....and adding in an infantile (an actual biological need of infants) need to feel that somebody, SOMEWHERE, is in control and looking out for things.

You the man, StevieN...