Let me first say that my previous post wasn't about shitting on Mormonism or on Mormons as a whole. I have many Mormon readers, and they have been kind to me. I'm a great fan of Mormons and I wish more people were like them.
That said, I think Mitt Romney is an evil profiteer and a dishonest hack, "weeping" when his church finally kneeled to Leftist pressure and accepted blacks in their church. Aren't you supposed to follow your church leadership, whatever they say? Why do you weep when they say something which just happens to be good for you? You'll note that Mitt Romney's father was the man who presided over the Detroit riots, and made a career of his "moderate" conservatism, i.e. swimming left and dragging his church with him.
Rumor has it the GOP establishment wants to nominate Romney again. Which again shows they don't really want to win. If all they want is to lose, they could nominate Cruz and lose even worse. But what they want is to send a message about what is tolerated. People like Trump will be crushed; people like Cruz aren't tolerated either. People who weep when freedom of association is abolished in favor of blacks are to be favored and lionized.
A common theme of this blog is that people using religion for their personal benefit is not only possible; it's to be expected. People tend to take religion seriously only to the extent that interests them. See an even more jarring example.
The Pope, Francis I, had this to say in a recent meeting with a group of "French Social Christians". I take it there are other French Christians which aren't social. There he said (Google Translate works well with Italian):
"Emmanuel Levinas bases its philosophy on the meeting with the other," sums up Francis. "The other has a face. We must go out of ourselves to contemplate. "The adventure of the caravels would therefore something metaphysical? "From Magellan onwards, he has learned to look at the world from the south. That's why the world is best seen from the periphery to the center and I understand better my faith from the periphery, but the periphery can be human, linked to poverty, health, or a feeling of existential periphery ". We understand well the importance of this issue has taken on in the preaching of Francis.
Emmanuel Levinas being some Jewish philosopher bullshit artist who made a killing in France, the mecca of all bullshit artists. Apparently the Pope takes his insight from Jewish philosophers, instead of the Catholic catechism.
"There's something that bothers me," the Pope said. "Of course, globalization unites us and thus has positive aspects. But I think there are good and less good globalization. The less good can be represented by a sphere: every person is equal distance from the center. This first scheme separates man from himself, uniformizes him and eventually prevents him to express himself freely. The best globalization would be quite a polyhedron. All are united, but every people, every nation, retains its identity, its culture, its wealth. The stakes for me is this good globalization, which allows us to keep what defines us. This second vision of globalization allows to unite people while preserving their uniqueness, which favors dialogue, mutual understanding. So that there is dialogue, there is a condition sine qua non : starting with his own identity. If they are not clear with myself, if I know my religious, cultural, philosophical, I can not turn to another. There is no membership dialogue ".
Got it? Me neither. That's the crap the Catholic Church is selling these days. The global polyhedron.
"The only continent that can bring some unity to the world is Europe," the Pope added. "China has perhaps a more ancient culture, more profound. But only Europe has a vocation of universality and service. " Francis returns then on the theme of his speech in Strasbourg, on 25 November 2014, when he compared Europe to a grandmother a little 'tired. "But here is the mother became a grandmother" sorridecon a hint of irony. I think of the biblical stories, the old Sarah who laughs when he learns that gets pregnant. The question may seem strange, but I can not not do it. It's too late? Grandma can once again become a young mother? "A head of state I have already asked this question," replies the Pope. "Yes, it can. But under certain conditions. Spain and Italy have a birth rate close to zero. France gets along better because he built a family policy that encourages the birth. Being a mother means having children. "But the renewal is not only quantitative. "If Europe wants to rejuvenate, he must rediscover their cultural roots. Of all the Western countries, Europe has the stronger and deeper roots. Through colonization, these roots have even reached the new world. But forgetting its own history, Europe weakens. It is then that risks becoming an empty place. "
Don't get it? It doesn't make a lot of sense. Europe having "a vocation of service". The grandmother becoming a young mother. Rejuvenating by rediscovering cultural roots. Come on Francis, what are you talking about? Spell it out.
"We can speak today of Arab invasion. It is a social fact, "he says with detachment, as if observed that the weather is cold. But he immediately added - and theorists of the "Great Replacement", dear to the far right, would remain disappointed - "how many invasions has experienced Europe in the course of its history! But he has always been able to overcome herself, go ahead then they find themselves as increased by the exchange between cultures."
Now I get it. He finally said it, Francis. We are under an Arab invasion. That is a fact. But it's no big deal! We have been invaded before, amirite? And we're still around, amirite? What, untold numbers of people were killed, mamed, raped and kidnapped during those past invasions? The Arab invasions of the past were only repelled by physically expelling the Arabs after centuries of fighting? Details, details. The Pope doesn't bother himself with details. He has more important things to care about. The Big Picture. The Polyhedron. The Other.
A while ago I quoted Scott Atran on religion being a coordination mechanism based on preposterous assertions (as I had put it previously, unfalsifiable crap), which are useful to check out who is loyal and who isn't. Turns out it doesn't really need to be preposterous or unfalsifiable. You can say obviously false things and still get away with it as long as your frame is strong enough. Or as long as you have power.
