Rough Stone Rolling I: introduction and schedule

Start with the title.

I am like a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against religious bigotry, priestcraft, lawyer-craft, doctor-craft, lying editors, suborned judges and jurors, and the authority of perjured executives, backed by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and women--all hell knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus I will become a smooth and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty, who will give me dominion over all and every one of them, when their refuge of lies shall fail, and their hiding place shall be destroyed, while these smooth-polished stones with which I come in contact become marred. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 304)

Already we are in a country foreign to the well-groomed, serene Joseph of Legacy or the Work and the Glory. This Joseph is impetuous, unpolished, brilliant, quick-tempered and sometimes proud. He is vigorous, combative, trembling with a weird and powerful vision. He thrives and grows through conflict; his existence is defined by struggle; he laughs into hell and loves doing it. He is not safe. And his world is not the one he lives in.

As the scholar Walter van der Beek has written of Joseph, "He could not live without the word of God, and could barely live with it."

Rough Stone Rolling, then, is in its own way as romantic a story as is another biography titled with Joseph's own words. No Man Knows My History did Joseph a perhaps backhanded favor; it rescued him from historians who had for decades dismissed him as a shallow but charismatic frontman for Sidney Rigdon by firmly advocating for his almost artistic religious genius. Fawn Brodie loved Joseph, though she did not believe him a prophet. Richard Bushman loves him too, and does believe. But in the end, he agrees with Brodie's title - we cannot fully know Joseph Smith.

But Bushman tries. He gets into Joseph's mind, as much as the prophet allows us to, which isn't as deep as we long for. The book, though, is driven more than anything by what Joseph dreamed of, what he hoped for, what spiritual hungers panged him. How did Joseph's personality, Bushman asks, shape his work?

He does not skimp on the controversies - treasure digging, Masonry, polygamy are all here - but it's that question, I think, which could be the most challenging to faith. For Bushman, Joseph the prophet is not merely a mouthpiece for God, serenely confident in every situation. His personality drives his questions for God, his self-conception of his role as prophet, his religious imagination as he laid out his new faith. This is Joseph Smith's church as much as it may be God's.

His life can be sectioned into fourths: his calling, and only gradual sense of his prophetic role, which culminates in the organization of the Church; his early triumphs and creation of a people, culminating in the Kirtland Temple Pentecost; his failures and overreaching, which lead to the collapse of Kirtland and the shadowed valley of Liberty Jail; and finally, rebirth and recreation, the weird genius of Nauvoo.

Organizing the book by this schema looks like this:

The preface and prologue through the end of chapter 5, "The Church of Christ." xix-127.

"Joseph, Moses, and Enoch" through the end of chapter 17, "The Order of Heaven," 127-322.

"Reverses" through "Washington," 322-403.

"Beautiful Place," through "Epilogue," 403-563.


I propose we split that long middle section into two: "Joseph, Moses, and Enoch" through "Cities of Zion," 127-231; "The Character of a Prophet" through "The Order of Heaven," 231-322.

Here's a schedule, then:

By June 11: The preface and prologue through the end of chapter 5, "The Church of Christ." xix-127.

By June 25: "Joseph, Moses, and Enoch" through "Cities of Zion," 127-231

By July 9: "The Character of a Prophet" through "The Order of Heaven," 231-322.

By July 23: "Reverses" through "Washington," 322-403.

By August 13 (I'll be returning the weekend before this, and it's a bit longer section): "Beautiful Place," through "Epilogue," 403-563.


How does that sound?

Quick things on Tolstoy

So perhaps a few quick things for everyone to ponder before meeting on weds.

1.) Why the Broncos can not beat the Raiders and why the BCS is so messed up this year.

2.) For the individual, what do things like turn the other cheek and blessing them that curse you mean?

3.) In focusing on the Sermon on the Mount, was the sermon meant for individual or collective obedience? Does the state have a moral responsibility to turn the other cheek even if a majority of its subjects do not believe it should?

4.) Has the Sermon on the Mount been neglected in the pursuit of other doctrinal, ceremonial and organizational issues in Christianity? Has it been neglected because of its seeming inpracticality in a world where things are not black and white and we live ina grey area where the greater good seems to dictate action? Does God really expect us to live the Sermon on the Mount in a grey world such as our own?



See you on wednesday.

The Unforgiven

So a friend and I were talking tonight about the idea of unforgiveable sins in Christianity. According to conventional Christianity there are certain sins that can not be forgiven whic begs the questions, does the atonement of Christ not cover these sins? So if the atonement does not cover these sins, then is it because Christ was not capable to pay the price for these sins? Or if the atonment does cover these sins is it a matter of choice of whether or not the atonement will be applied to these sins.

Of course murder is one of the "unforgiveable" sins, but one only needs look so far as Paul, or Saul, to see a person who took part in the killing of innocents. Whether or not Paul comitted murder is a sound discusion, but does it point to a contradiction between what we take to be unforgiveable, and the sins of one whose writings we take as scripture?

Pres. Hinckley on Empire, War and Peace

So I just read Pres. Hinckley's talk on War and Peace at the 2003 General Conference. The link to it is here:

http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-353-27,00.html

Given we are reading Tolstoy's thoughts on violence I wanted to perhaps make a few comments on Pres. Hinckley's speech.

In his speech Pres. Hinckley noted the need to defend freedom and the atrocities that are synonomus with empire, noting the horrors of the Ottmans, Romans and British. We are foolish to think the American Empire is atrocity free. The question is whether the benefits of empire (rights and freedoms) outweigh the moral costs (which inevitably is bloodshed on a genocidal level as there is no way to build an empire without committing atrocity on a previously unkown level given that the methods of killing have become ever more sophisticated). So it is a question of utilitarianism, are empires justifiable because they create the greatest good for the greatest number?

Second point in Pres. Hinckley's speech of which I must quote him:

"One of our Articles of Faith, which represent an expression of our doctrine, states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12).
But modern revelation states that we are to “renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16).
In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally."


For me the immediate question becomes the correlation between legality and morality? We all know there are unjust laws (one on need read Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" to best understand this, The letter can be found here http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) Our own Declaration of Indpendence notes the existence of unjust laws and our own revolution was treason made just by might making right, or that what is just is defined by the victor on the battlefield.

The debate between duty to God and duty to country is an old question. When is it just to violate a man made law? Was Gandhi just in marching to the sea to make salt? Is Cindy Sheehan just to protest outside to Whitehouse without a permit? Are the officers of the state who arrested Gandhi and Cindy Sheehan (in no way am I drawing a moral linkage or comparison between Gandhi and Sheehan) just in carrying out their orders?

Here comes a difficult one. Jesus of Nazereth was executed by the state. Of course there were numerous legal shortcomings in the process by which he was tried and executed, but no more than the processes by which numerous citizens find themselves under in our own country where we pride ourselves on due process of law. Under the law of the land, Jesus was a criminal and was dealt a punishment. Were the laws Jesus broke or the guards who nailed him to the cross just?

Doctrine and Practice

Happy Festivus everyone!

Tolstoy is obviously a Christian and has derives his doctrine of good works from his Christian theology. But does Tolstoy ever show how a Christine doctrine ever prevent a good work? Is it possible or just for a religious belief or doctrine to prevent a follower from doing a good work? If it is possible should the doctrine change or the good work left un-done?

An example would be some Orthodox Jewish doctrines that forbid driving on the Sabbath and the hypothetical need for a vehicle transport of humanitarian supplies. Or, as has been in the papers recently, various Muslim communities forbid single women to associate alone with other men. Of course we can all come up with just acts that a man and woman can undertake together. Do people sometimes hold to a belief as a show of faith when it voids opportunities for good works? What correspondence does this have to many of the pharisees and others who Jesus showed to be living a life lived strictly in observance of the old law while Jesus associated with prostitutes and others since those who are sick are the ones in need of a doctor. Or the famous question posed to Jsus about whether it was within the law (or whether it is just) to heal on the sabbath as Jesus responded witht he question of who would let a sheep suffer in a hole it fell into on the sabbath.

Of course doctrines are open to interpretation but doctrines do lend themselves to a certain type of practice. But if we take doctrine and practice ina zero sum game, which is more important when all is said and done? If we could choose only one, which takes priority? Obviously Tolstoy would choose practice and even though a zero sum game does not exist between doctrine and practice, perhaps it is helpful to create a hypothetical where it does. In asking which we would choose if we coudl have only one, perhaps it would give us some guidance in which, doctrine or practice, should have more priority in our daily lives?

Just some random thoughts.

Tolstoy and a Simplistic Christianity

First off, great discussion the other night. The size and make up of the group is great. Everyone ad great comments and thanks to Allison for hosting and thansk to everyone who brought the eats, my belly thanks you.

Now on to Tolstoy.

I hope none of you mind but Tolstoy was my suggestion and I as hoping to give a little background on why I picked the book. It gets a little or very repetitive bu the general idea of it is a much needed lesson in todays, and tomorrow's, moral philosophy.

As we briefly talked about in the last meeting, Tolstoy puts forward a very simple idea in his book, namely that Christ told us to love our enemies, bless them that curse us, turn the other cheek, and that if a man takes you to law for your coat, give him your cloak as well. The question we are left is why don't we?

For me it is extremely refreshing and embarassing to think about this as we seem to spend alot of our time talking doctrine, religious organization, etc., and very little time on these simple truths that came straight from the Master himself, and are widely considered to be the apex of his commandments.

It is the simplest of things yet it is the most abused and in many ways, always have been. I would argue that the primary reason these commandments are largely ignored is that people feel the complexity and lack of universal morality in this world gives ample reason to ignore these high commandments. The argument that "if I give my neighbor my cloak in addition to my coat then my neighbor will be toasty warm, since my neighbor not only took me to law but makes a of living out of doing it to everyone, and I will be left naked in the cold".

It is precisely this argument that serves as a great way to introduce to kind of heritage that Tolstoy inherited and passed on. The idea of non-violence is the heritage and was built on by each predeccesor and gave us the like of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Both of whom gave their unjust neighbor their coat and cloak but made the neighbor watch them shiver naked in the cold as they sat in the plush surroundings with their ill gotten coats piled high.

In the mid ninteenth century New England saw the abolitionist movement fall under the leadership of William Lloyd Garrision. I must admit that I do not know Garrison philosphy as well as i do Tolsoy, Gandhi and King but Garrison was a man ahead of his time when he came to race and gender equality. However Garrison was no pacifist, he cheered on John Brown and sought the coming of the Civil War to purge the U.S. of the sin of slavery in blood, and perhaps even to perpetuate the second comming of Christ.

Tolstoy began a correspondence with Garrison's son as Tolstoy was goign through a deep depression and questioning of the fundamental doctrines of what he saw as a Christianity that had lost its way in ceremony, riches and pomp. Religion had become a tool of Kings rather than salvation for the masses. But beyond that Tolstoy developed a philosphy of non-violence that was to be see its culmination in the next generation to receive this heritage.

In my mind, Gandhi stands next to Christ in finding a way to communicate to the very essence of humanity, in developing a dialogue with the souls of men and defining all that it is to be human. Gandhi took the principle of non-violence and made humanity confront its own ugliness. He took the coomandent to turn the other cheek literally.

Of course America was the home of the latest holder of this legacy in Martin Luther King Jr. I would really suggest reading Louis Fischer's book on Gandhi along with Tolstoy, Gandhi took Tolstoy's philosophy and built upon witha philosophy of his own and then lived it to it's fullest. Fischer wrote a nice little 150 page book that talks about both.

A couple of questions I think about when reading Tolstoy:

If we want to look at Tolstoy through the lense of political philosophy, we must ask ourselves wether it is just for states as a collective enterprise to live the sermon on the mount? Of course an individual can fully live the sermon on th mount and Christ and Gandhi did, but lets say Gandhi is elected or appoint head of the Indian government, is it just for Gandhi to have his personal views to become the law of the land? We saw Thoreau go to prison in refusal to pay taxes which he thought woudl go to a unjust war (ironicalliy the Mexican-American war or Polkes War which Lincon considered to be unjust and in which the Mormon Battalion was created for).

It is a a long philosophical debate that has gone for centuries on whether the morality that rules an individual should rule a state. Every religious tradition has its history of being persecuted at the hands of state that imposed its own mode of morality. But is it an imposition to not retaliate for a 9-11? If we are going to talk about pragmatic Christianity this question seems extremely relevent as 9-11 has galvanized a militancy and at the very least, a passive attitude by the population towards the military actions of its own government.

So again the question, would it be immoral for for a democratic govt. not to respond to a 9-11 attack when a majority of its population wants it to? Would responding to a 9-11 attack violate the sermon on the mount?

On Power

So the Rockies lost the World Series and I blame all of you for not praying hard enough. I expect a cake from each of you in penence.

I was listening to Guerilla Radio today, if you get the chance they do a podcast that is alot of fun, and I started thinking about the power of God.

So we know that evil things happen, hence God allows them to happen or does not have the capability to stop them from happening. Simply put, this is an old debate, does God have the capability to stop bad things from happening?

It seems to me that many beleive that God intervenes to keep bad things from happening at times and to make good things happen. Now if you beleive this then the next question should be why God always some bad things to happen and not others.

So if God does have the capability to stop all bad things from happening, as we believe God to be all powerful, then the bad things that do happen either happen because they have a role in the design of God, or God just did not stop them from happening which might be a wrong in and of itself hence God would cease to be God. So should we focus afresh on the bad things that happen in this world and what role they might have in the design of God?

Now what if God does not have the ability to stop all bad things from happening? Does this contravene the idea of God being all powerful?

THe Euthphro question asks whether Right is Right because God says it is Right or whether God says it is Right because it is already Right? So does God make what is right or does God follow what is right? If God creates what is right God is truly all powerful, if God follows some kind of higher law God's status as an all-powerful being needs much closer examination.

But if God does have to follow a higher law then the bad things that are allowed to happen are outside God's capability to alter. I say it is outside of God's capability because if God follows a higher law then God, while having a choice to follow the law or not, cannot break that law and remain God.

So the question is, if God has to follow a higher law, and stopping some bad things from happening is outside God's capability, because stopping those bad things would violate the higher law, then is God really all powerful? Do we need to redefine all powerful since we can only think of power in the temporal terms of our mortal experience?

Would love to hear your guy's comments on this. Thanks and you all keep rockin.

Hallowe'en

Hey, folks - if you're still looking for something to do Halloween night, some folks from Langley and I are putting together a trip to the Arlington Cinema and Drafthouse to see the greatest movie ever made. I speak, of course, of the 2004 British masterpiece Shaun of the Dead, which both perfects and transcends the honorable timetested genres of romantic comedy and apocalyptic zombie thriller, while seemlessly intertwining the both into something that is, gloriously, more then the parts.

Drop me a line or comment here if you'd like to join the crowd.

The Ten Commandments

Something I was thinking about today and wanted to pose to the group.

Every few years there is a national debate about the place of the Ten Commandments in U.S. government building or state houses. For example various federal or state judges have gone to court over the placing of copies of the Ten Commandments in the court in which they preside.

My question is why the Ten Commandments, as it is no longer applicable and had been fulfilled and why not the admonition of Christ when he said that "Whoever sues (takes you to law) for your coat, give him your cloak also"?

Preliminary Thoughts on Miles

So there are alot of things to talk about with Miles so I guess it is just an issue where to begin. Some things I have noticed and please feel free to comment further on anyone or all or interject your own!

1.) An overarching theme of God as incredibly human, possesing human emotions almost (or entirely) and reading this has given me new thoughts on the idea of all of us being created in God's image. Miles walks a fine line between just raising possibilities of God's motives, reactions and making an argument that God is really confuzed at times.

2.) Of course Miles is able to do this because he is taking a literary biography of God and, let's be honest, the Bible is not very clear on one, two or possibly even three things (joke). But the vagueness of the Bible does open itself to this type of literary hypotheticals that Miles puts forth. I would think if you flip this around on its other side it might become a question of how much is really in the Bible? How much room is there for interpretation of possible core doctrines of not just Mormonism and Christianity but possibly all Abrahamic faiths? Hopefully later on I will maybe introduce some specific issues in Miles (ie. creation and the fall of man to be specific).

3.) We have talked about enternal progression and "man is as God once was". Of course both of these ideas can mean many things but they both practically point to the possibility of God being able to eternally progress (since we are made in God's image and we are able to eternally progress) and possesing some of the same emotional and mental characteristics of man (since as man is, God once was). When these are combined it does not make Miles correct in all his hypothesis and arguments, but does it open the door a little more on them?

Now everyone pray for the Rockies to win the World Series.

A nice little supplement

Sorry I did not include this in the comment I just left on Miles but I am a big dumb animal and forgot. By the way, do we get an email when someone leaves a comment on a new post or we only get emailed when there is a new post? The comments are great because it seems the origianl post is the question and the comments are the attempts at answers.

For anyone interested or if you have the time. I just finsihed reading a quick little book, it is small pages and less than two hundred pages long and an easy read, on the life and philosophy of Gandhi by Loius Fischer. It is a fantastic read if you really don't know alot about what Gandhi did, his ideas of religion, God, violence, politics, etc. It will also be a ncie read since we are reading Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You" soon and this is a book that Gandhi based alot of his ideas and practices on. You can pick the book up for cheap used on Amazon for like two bucks.

I was talking with someone the other day about it and I really enjoy reading about Gandhi as I consider him to be one of the more Christlike humans to walk the planet since Christ and no one took the sermon on the moun more seriously and more literaly than Gandhi. So in reading the details of his life and ideas, the way he change his mind, fails at some things, makes mistakes, etc., I am thinking about the life of Jesus which we don't know alot about. So since we do not know alot of the details about the life, practices and philosophy of the Messiah, I really enjoy learning all those things about one of His greatest Diciples.

Past and future

A successful inaugural meeting, I think. Apologies again for my misadventures with Pizza Hut; we could have started on time if not for that. Thanks again to Allison for the brownies and the table.

Look forward to adding three or four more to our starting five.


Next time: Jack Miles's God: A Biography; 7:30 PM on November 8. This is, happily, a Thursday.

Miles will be an interesting counterpoint to Armstrong, I think; while she ranges very broadly, trying to cover 4000 years of history in 400 pages, Miles offers us a very close, literary reading of the Old Testament, and its central character, God. He draws sparingly on sources outside the Bible itself (though he's a PhD in ancient languages, so he's quite capable there). Rather, he looks at how the relationship between Israel and God changes and develops, and how this interaction seems to transform how God is represented in that text.

In short, Miles presents a God with a history - like Armstrong. But for Miles, God's own behavior and actions shape that history in tandem with the humans he grows with.

Reasoning together

Well. We're scheduled for this Thursday. Same bat-time (that being 7:30), but what bat-place? The Sports Bar may be a bit loud. Does anybody have a burning preference for one locale over another? I live over in Falls Church, so I am less familiar with the Crystal City area. My first impulse might be the California Pizza Kitchen there across from the mall, for no real reason.

Any other suggestions?

Also, if you're planning on coming, drop a comment here. Might be nice to get some idea.

A History of God

So I started in on " A History of God" and I have to say that I am having alot of fun reading it. She is an outstnaind writer, it flow nice and it packed with potent material. A couple of thing I thought could kick start the discussion that Armstong has mentioned thus far:

1.) The way Armstong talks about the "conflict", "evolution" and "history" of the interplay between el, elohim, pagain gods, etc. and the role of prophets reminds me of other prophets like Muhammed, Buddha and possibly even more contempoarary leaders like Gandhi, King, etc. These prophets ended up being revolutionary in in the change they introduced but the pace of numerous of these changes suprises me.

We think of God as unchanging and sending his commandments down to earth where they become law. But Armstrong shows how "God's" word actually enters a marketplace of ideas and has to comepte for alligiance, possibly something to consider about the pace and intesity/character of what God sends down.

2.) I really enjoyed the change of God's law from focusing on a chosen people to focusing on humanity at large but we have yet to see God perceived as a paternal figure. It suprises me that such strong notions as "chosen people" and "chosen nations" have been revived in the present century given the changes we see in God's demeanor from people to laws and especially victims so long ago. I am really intersted to see when God the Father becomes a common perception.

Monotheism/Polytheism

I promise I will do a post on the first reading this weekend but for now, I have a question I can't fully understand so I was hoping I might have some of your help in getting to the bottom of as it is an extremely fundamental question that in the end might be nothing more than semantics.

So Christianity laregly claims itself as monothesitic, some say that the bible verse "gods and angels there are many but there is only one God" (I would cite my source right here but my bible is across the room and I am in bed, a moral dilemma if there ever was one but I think the passage is found in Romans) is a warning against all the false gods and angels and an affirmation that there is only one God. Others say this scripture points out that there is only one God who is omnipotent but other gods who are not omnipotent, so the title and beleif in monotheism hold true. Many claim the LDS church to not be Christian because LDS members believe that they can attain godhood but not Godhood.

If I understand LDS doctrine correctly, and please correct me if I am wrong, Mormons beleive that the Christ is to attain Godhood with a capital "G" while others can obtain godhood with a little "g". While the doctrine has never really been spelled out in detail, and if it has please point me in the right direction, it appears to me the LDS doctrine is extremely close to some polytheisitc religions, namely Hinduism, that believe that there is one divine being above all others (some might call this being God), but there are numerous other lesser beings, gods. The system prevalent in Hinduism is defined by the Smartha philosophy and sect; this theory allows for the veneration of numberless deities, on the understanding that all of them are but a manifestation of one divine power. In addition, many polytheistic faiths see their numerous gods as having many human attributes, some capable of right and wrong and none able to match the omnipotence of the one divine power, God. This seems somewhat comparable, there are many differences, to the LDS beleif in humanity, outside of the Christ or Messiah, to attain goodhood since all of humanity has sin and only one, himself a future God, has never commited sin.

What I have noticed is that in polytheistic relgions, at least some of them, what seperates gods from God is the degree of power they hold and this might be applicable to the LDS view of gods, goddesses and God given our beleif in the keys of the priesthood. This is not to mean that all Hindus or Buddhists would claim that the one over-encompassing power would be given the label God but I use the label for clarity here although many would dispute the label saying that the Christian or Islamic label of God does not fit.

This is jsut a very brief note on the subject but I hope it can lead to a worth while discussion. Now everbody go pray that the Broncos beat the Jaguars tomorrow.

Looking ahead, already

Welcome to the new folks.

I went on a bit about Julian of Norwich, medieval English visionary, and her showings last Thursday. I mentioned that they might be available online. It is, here, in irritating frames or downloadable as a PDF. This particular translation (Julian wrote in Middle English; not quite Chaucer, but "Off the which, the first is of His prettious coroning with thornys; and therewith was comprehended and specifyied the Trinitie with Incarnation") is pretty close to the original, and can thus be slow going; Penguin, happily, has recently put out one that reads a bit more cleanly and is available on Amazon for $4.50.

I'd recommend we all go with the same version, for ease of discussion; any preferences?

There are two versions of the "Showings;" the first, written soon after the sixteen visions of God, Christ, and the Crucifixion she had when she was thirty years old, is generally called the Short Text. She had prayed to God, requesting to understand the meaning and, more, the very experience of the Atonement; these visions came in response.

The second, the Long Text (ie, about 200 pages), is an expansion of the Short Text, produced at the end of Julian's life. She became a nun after the first vision, and after thirty-odd years of meditation and further visions clarifying the meanings of what she initially encountered, she wrote the Long Text.

Here's a good brief introduction to Julian.

Religious Freedom, Etc.

There’s a lot to respond to in the comments from the last post, so I took the liberty of making this a separate post. You can read about theodemocracy at http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/theodemocracy/
As for the “marketplace” notion that I introduced, it seems like what you’re asking is how far and to which spheres of life it should be extended. I am personally open to pragmatic considerations. I am not entirely opposed to substance regulation on principle, but I can sympathize with concerns about an overcrowded prison system filled with people who’ve committed non-violent drug offenses. A basic free market system is great, but I can understand how national security concerns of various types might override it (selling sensitive military equipment to a hostile nation and so forth). I’m not entirely certain just how to sort it out, and the (nearly always moderate) public consensus does tend to shift over time.
On the particular issue of religion, I think there should be a “marketplace” in the sense that the state should not have an institutionalized preference for one religion over another (i.e. a state church). But if it so happens that a specific religious viewpoint comes to predominate (or even just gain a significant following), I don’t think there should be an active attempt to reduce its influence in the name of maintaining a secular culture. This would implicitly say that secularism is fact the state religion, and as I said before, I’m against a state religion.
There is a tough issue here, though, with respect to the scope of free exercise of religion. In the case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in 1990, a member of a Native American Church attempted to argue that his being fired on account of peyote use, a practice of his religion, was a violation of his religious liberty. The Supreme Court rejected his claim, Justice Scalia arguing, “to make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' -- permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' -- contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.”
Let me quote him at another part at length:

But the "exercise of religion" often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts: assembling with others for a worship service, participating in sacramental use of bread and wine, proselytizing, abstaining from certain foods or certain modes of transportation. It would be true, we think (though no case of ours has involved the point), that a state would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" if it sought to ban such acts or abstentions only when they are engaged in for religious reasons, or only because of the religious belief that they display. It would doubtless be unconstitutional, for example, to ban the casting of "statues that are to be used [p878] for worship purposes," or to prohibit bowing down before a golden calf.
Respondents in the present case, however, seek to carry the meaning of "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" one large step further. They contend that their religious motivation for using peyote places them beyond the reach of a criminal law that is not specifically directed at their religious practice, and that is concededly constitutional as applied to those who use the drug for other reasons. They assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning.

So I think the critical question for a veil ban (at least as it relates to US jurisprudence) is, would it be directed at the religious practice itself or is there (or could there be) a law against covering one’s face for other reasons? If we do not find just cause in fining people for wearing, say, Halloween masks, I can’t think of a good reason to apply it to burkas, except as a restriction on religious exercise. You might be able to argue it under the rubric of women’s rights, but it seems disputable enough that prudence would come down on the side against a ban.
It is interesting to note that religion has languished the most in the countries of Europe that have established churches. One could argue that it is precisely the fact that religion is freely chosen in the US that has given it its vitality here. As for whether humanity can make the right choices, I think that’s a question that exists whether the humans in charge of the state or the ones acting in the “marketplace” are choosing. The real question is which context is preferable, and there’s good reason to think it’s the latter.
Other people may be more knowledgeable on this than I, but I don’t think religion plays a terribly big role in the neoconservative movement. The religious right and neoconservative foreign policy experts have both played a role in the contemporary conservative political coalition, but they’re generally coming from different places with different concerns. If anything, neoconservatism has played a bigger role in the religious movements than the other way around. Reshaping the Middle East has been an occasion to muse about the fulfillment of end-times prophecies. If there is a connection in the opposition direction, it lies in the Straussian respect for religion that most neocons adhere to ( http://www.reason.com/news/show/34900.html ).

Economist

Not sure if anyone gets the Economist, but in this months issue there is a quick little article talking about the ability of Muslims to assimilate and openly practice their faith in both the U.S. and Europe. This has long been the discusion to have, and rightly so, since 9-11.

Generally speaking, Europe has strict wall between church and state (i.e. the banning of veils, relgious symbols, etc. in public buidlings) while the U.S. is much more "tolerant" in terms of the letter of the law.

Given the troubles of the LDS church with U.S. law and society in the past, this is an intersting concept that some might be interested in. Muslims generally feel alot "freer" inthe U.S. than in Europe. If anyone is interested in looking at the way Europe and the U.S. treat religion differently in the eyes of the law, which has its inevitable effect on societal views in general, let me knwo and I will find some further resources for you.

It is worthy of note that for every country that mandates the wearing of the veil for women, there are two countries that ban the wearing of the veil in public places. Just something to think about when we talk about freedom to worship, how far we should take it (since if LDS members want to fully rpactice their faith which has not always been popular, should we grant the same privelage to all or if the LDS church is the true church, if we get the opportunity, shoudl LDS members push for special legal privelages to fall upon the LDS church and no one else?) Just something to think about. I am always alot better at asking questions than answering them.

some (possibly) relevant thoughts on the History of God

Karen Armstrong used to be a nun; now she's made a transition increasingly popular in the modern world: she's "spiritual, but not religious." There's something to this, but it strikes me as possible but certainly not the inevitable or necessary dichotomy that it's often held up to be.

This book is a popular and fairly worthwhile introduction to the three monotheistic faiths, though it's useful to remember that it's written from the above perspective; that is, Armstrong is more attracted to the mystical and subjective in religion than she is in the doctrinal and concrete. She tends to sneer a bit at the latter and celebrate the former. In addition, though I, unfortunately, am not as well informed in the history of Judaism or Islam as I could be, I do have a number of quibbles with her interpretation of the origins and history of Christianity. We'll get to those.

Anyhow, this sort of overview is useful particularly for Mormons, I think, because there are some issues with the very concept of traditional monotheism that we either take so for granted that we don't recognize how extraordinary they are, or don't really grasp in the first place. Among these are:

1)Monotheism implies universalism; that is, there's one God for everybody. This is fairly radical, if you think about it, especially if you're an eighth century BC Canaanite who isn't convinced that the Persians are actually human beings.

2)The nature of God. Mormons, with our tangible and literally paternal God, often don't quite realize how much of an 'other' God is in the other monotheistic faiths. The impassibility and abstraction of God from his creation elevates the importance of Christ; as Aquinas argues, Christ is necessary for God to actually interact with human beings because he (to use a convenient but not accurate term) bridges the gap between us and the absolute divine. God is personal, to these faiths - that is, he has a personal identity and self awareness, but he is not a person, as we are. He does not experience the universe in the same ways we do. The Eastern Orthodox mystic Gregory of Nyssa said that we must realize that it is as true to say that "God is not" as it is to say "God is," because the concept of 'is' is insufficient to truly describe the nature of God.

In addition to these facts, the book itself raises some issues that John brought up, which are worth thinking about. If we are believers (as Armstrong no longer is), what does it mean to think about monotheism having a history in the way historians use the term - that is, developing and changing over time, driven by human situation and social change? Certainly Armstrong's history of God does not reflect the sacred history of "true" religion that we interpret the Bible to contain. How can we deal with this and remain true both to reason and to faith?

A Few Notes on Posting to the Blog

You'll notice to the right a list of contributors to this blog. Please add a couple of details about yourself to you your profile (i.e., why you wanted to join this group) so we can get to know each other a little.

When you create a new post, attach labels with the name of the book and the topic of your post. If the post is about administrative details, us the label "admin."

Also, don't be alarmed when you start getting e-mails from the group "Holy Joes" -- it's our group e-mail address that will alert you each time something new is posted to the blog.