1.16.2008

Just Thought It Was An Interesting Find...

Tonight i googled "Socialism is of Satan." Here's how i came to do that: I've been having a daily and on-going discussion with Someone here lately. Someone has very conservative beliefs. Today i started a conversation by saying something like this:

"I think that one of the things that makes us so politically untenable is the fact that the Christian Right wants to legislate morality (he's very opposed to the notion that gay people be given any rights in our country and so therefore opposes any law that works toward those rights and supports most regressive laws). But here's my problem: I find that if one wanted to spot any theme in the New Testament, homosexuality would be way down on the list, you know? However, i find all kinds of scriptures that speak to ideas of "giving things up," generosity, and a general distrust of the accumulation of wealth. If you're gonna legislate morality, why not pick one of the major themes like that instead of focusing on sex?"

Well, the answer, roughly, was that Socialism is of the Devil. It is part of the New Testament's plan that we accumulate personal wealth as an "incentive." Socialism destroys lives like those of the people living in France and Canada. etc. etc.

So, tonight i googled "Socialism is of the Devil." The page i looked at, totally at random was this one. Check out who's quoted in this paragraph:



Socialism Contrary To True Interpretation of Constitution

Furthermore, when Latter-day Saints interpret the Constitution as scripture is interpreted, they also see clearly that the constitutional system, with its free enterprise economy and solid recognition of private property as a God given and unalienable aspect of freedom, is utterly contrary to socialism. Since the two systems are incompatible, faithful Latter-day Saints will reject the popular political philosophy of men and will cleave to the Constitution as written and intended by the Framers. This thought was well expressed by Marion G. Romney, an apostle, a lawyer, and a former Democratic office holder when he reminded Latter-day Saints of their "duty to eschew socialism and support the . . .Constitution as directed by the Lord . . . ."


I imagine that this particular page came up so early in google because it's a popular hit for those looking for Mitt's Mormonism, but it was a fun find nonetheless.

4 comments:

Curtis said...

I wonder how your "friend" would respond to my very Protestant interpretation of why Jesus does not want morality legislated. Seems to me that God wants you to behave correctly by your own choice, not because you have to. Lack of sin doesn't impress God if the opportunity for sin isn't there, or if you don't sin because you're afraid of society's punishment. Jesus wants you to be moral purely because it's moral and what He wants.I think the Protestant right-wingers shouldn't want to legislate morality on the grounds that legislation keeps people FROM God.

scexpatriate said...

who is the "us" in the first sentence of you quoting yourself?

Biffle said...

scexpatriate: I'm telling, here on the blog, a version of what i said to my companion during a conversation. The "us" refers to the two of us involved in that discussion.

However, can i guess where you're headin' with that? My companion and i have more or less agreed to see each other--for simplicity's sake-- as monolithic representatives of the Christian Right and The Liberal Left and everything those titles stand for.

For instance: Companion accuses me of "wanting to hand out condoms to 12 year old and encourage them to go have sex with as many people as possible." I accuse companion of being "an oppressor in line with what a liberal Rush Limbaugh might call a "Christofascist."

We're both pretty good sports about the whole thing, though. I wish other people could get along as well. Companion is a good-hearted, kind and patient person, just politically regressive. Other folks should be as nice.

And I mean that.

scexpatriate said...

yeah, I wasn't sure whether you were just using it to represent you or a specific political constituency (liberals, feminists, etc.)

this Someone sounds like a real treasure :/ but I know how valuable it can be to have dialogue with those we vehemently disagree with.