Those Who Believe In Darwin Need Not Apply

As we draw to the close of 2007 I want to express my thankfulness for the sectarian purity of the Republican candidates. An increased emphasis on the religious beliefs of the individual candidates has lead to religion coming to be a litmus test; those who believe in Darwin need not apply. As that happens, there is an increasing tendency for the debate to become one over religious beliefs, rather than about their plans for our nation. I welcome that, since my sense is that it makes them increasingly irrelevant to the lives of most Americans, who while they may personally have strong religious beliefs, would rather leave their pastors in a church, rather than having one of them as President. I mean, would you like your Pastor pulling beers at the local bar? or selling real estate? There is an appropriate place for religion, and the government not one of them.

The increasing identification of the GOP with Christian fundamentalism is generating a level of nonsense that exceeds anything I have ever witnessed. As proof of that, I offer this NY Times discussion of Huckabee's musings about the Mormon faith.

But here is the article in question:

Here is the money quote from the article, with a bit of a set-up. Ready?

But the theological underpinnings of Mr. Huckabee’s question is at the root of evangelical disagreement with Mormon theology and is a common evangelical attack on Mormonism.

Traditional Christianity upholds the doctrine of the unified trinity, which teaches that the Godhead is made up of three distinct but co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son — in the form of Jesus Christ — and the Holy Spirit, a concept Mormons disagree with. Instead they believe that Jesus Christ is one of God’s literal offspring, just as Satan was, making them “spirit brothers.”

The Web site for the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints, as the Mormon Church is officially called, addresses the issue:

“On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)

How could two such great spirits become so totally opposite? The answer lies in the principle of agency, which has existed from all eternity. (See D&C 93:30–31.) Of Lucifer, the scripture says that because of rebellion “he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies.” (Moses 4:4.) Note that he was not created evil, but became Satan by his own choice.

When our Father in Heaven presented his plan of salvation, Jesus sustained the plan and his part in it, giving the glory to God, to whom it properly belonged. Lucifer, on the other hand, sought power, honor, and glory only for himself. (See Isa. 14:13–14; Moses 4:1–2.) When his modification of the Father’s plan was rejected, he rebelled against God and was subsequently cast out of heaven with those who had sided with him. (See Rev. 12:7–9; D&C 29:36–37.)”

Got that? I'm glad I was able to clear up that point for everyone, I know these IMPORTANT theological points have been much in your thoughts this Christmas season, transcending all other concerns and thoughts of family you might have. Phooey.

I strongly recommend the film "Jesus Camp". Forget about Freddy Kreuger and that guy with the chainsaw. Trust me, this stuff is far, far scarier. And to give even credit to other religions, the movie "Osama" is even scarier. It is the fictional story of a young girl in Afghanistan during the Taliban period who masquerades as a boy in order to be able to go out and work to support her widowed mother who was not allowed to leave the house unaccompanied by a man. About half way through I had to stop watching it and take it back to the video store. Rationally I knew it was fictional, but it was the most terrifying film I have ever watched and I found that I could not comfortably finish it. I can see why it won an Academy Award. A friend of mine thought it was hogwash, an anti-Taliban hit piece, but it conveys a sense of danger and threat that I think Alfred Hitchcock would have been in awe of.

Sorry, how did I go from talking about the Republican candidates to talking about the Taliban? which of course is an entirely different subject. My mind seems to be wandering...

Arthur