Bloomberg Businessweek has become known for its provocative magazine covers, and its latest is already drawing controversy for its depiction of Mormons.
Here's a look at the cover. It depicts the moment when John the Baptist appeared before Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church. The story is tied to an investigative report about the business dealings of the church.
There were immediate complaints, with some tying the cover to the candidacy of Mitt Romney. "It should anger anyone who finds it low and, frankly, un-American, to attack a candidate – directly or indirectly – through his religion," conservative media watchdog Newsbusters wrote.
In the final analysis, religion - belief in the supernatural - is absurd. If anyone is attacked for public belief in such absurdity and has to defend his belief, does he have a defense other than that others agree with his belief, that it is a norm of society and an accepted tradition?
This is yet another case of The Emperor Has No Clothes, though in this case, I imagine the mormons are wearing their magic underwear at least. If they get called on it, are the whistle-blowers to be blamed for calling bullshit or are the mormons for indulging in bullshit?
The difference between a religion and a cult is the amount of real estate they own. Frank Zappa.
Mormonism, under that definition, certainly qualifies as a religion. As does the Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, and Scientologists, among others. And, I've got to give it to the Mormons. Like their Catholic brethren, they know how to milk $$$ out of their after-life protection racket.
The Zappa quote is a new one on me, Pat - thanks!
We discussed elsewhere about if Romney were elected POTUS.
Does anyone think this maybe a push from the mormons? ie: having a POTUS that represents them? Presidents in the past have certainly 'said' the were christian in some shape or form but I don't think it has ever been a major factor, just as long as he was god loving in some way. I would have to research each Presidents religious agenda to note that perhaps each one was in a 'mainstream' church, that is to say nothing radical. I deem the mormons to be radical because of the crazy shit they believe, ok it's all crazy shit but theirs is craziER!.
And what influence would the mormon church have? How would they benefit (on top of the benefits they already receive).
Can and has the mormon church donated to SuperPac's ? I know it is highly possible and probable that members could certainly donate privately.
I am very surprised and the strict lifestyle structure of the mormons and yet they have no problem with owning shares in Burger King etc. Seems kind of hypocritical. Oh yes, sorry, no one said they couldn't be.
The mormons backstopped the putsch for Prop 8 in California. If they can do that and get away with it, what's to stop them from doing anything else?
The Mormon problem is this. We are caught up in a post 9/11 America. After 9/11 and the backlash at the Muslim population, I believe what we have is people afraid of being accused of being discriminative against him and his superstition. If this were before them clowns flew the planes into the buildings for their so called paradise with 72 crystal raisins, we would be seeing a different story. I think most people these days realize that their superstition is wrong logically, but choose to follow only due to tradition and fear of stepping out from underneath the umbrella of ignorance.
People know that once you pull someone's Bullshit card on being stupid for something, odds are your is next. The thing is with Mormons, everybody knows they are fuck nutz! But only a few will step out into the realm of honesty and call them out on it. Do you think a band of Mormons will burn down a newspaper stand for selling this? I don't think so...