Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (Mormons Are Lucky We Graciously Let Them Practice Their Weird Religion Edition)

So in a couple of weeks, Mitt Romney is speaking at the Value Voters Conference. And once he’s done, he hands off the podium to my Favorite Dolt, Bryan. Yes, you.

Of course, one wonders, Bryan, if he might have a few things to say first about, oh, this pronouncement by you that Mormons aren’t actually protected by the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion.

My argument all along has been that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the free exercise of the Christian religion.

Yes, I think we’ve been over that before, Bryan.  You and pseudo-historian Dave Barton keep going on and on about how the First Amendment only applies to Christianity.  It’s a silly argument, though it lets you feel nice and patriotic about being a Christian.

One evidence that [the Founding Fathers] were not dealing … they weren’t even intending to deal with non-Christian religions is what they did with Mormonism in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Mormonism – they call themselves by the name of Christ, but it is not an orthodox Christian network of churches, it just is not. […] Mormonism is not an orthodox Christian faith. It just is not. They have a different Gospel, they have a completely different definition of who Christ is and so forth, I mean, the list could be multiplied endlessly.

Well, I think most folks would agree that Mormonism isn’t terribly orthodox from a, oh, Nicene Creed standpoint.

Of course, some would argue that Roman Catholicism isn’t orthodox (compared to, say, an evangelical Southern Baptist-style norm).  Or (ironically) that Eastern, Greek, and Russian Orthodox Churches aren’t orthodox compared to Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church.  The Episcopal Church is not considered orthodox by many, even many Anglicans, given that it ordains women (even as bishops, fergoshsakes) and is increasingly accepting of (gasp!) gays.

So is “unorthodox Christianity” (as defined by … well, I guess, by you, Bryan?) unprotected by the First Amendment?  Are they really, but their unorthodoxy, “non-Christian religions”?

The members of the LDS church call themselves Christian.  In fact, their formal teaching is that they are a “latter-day” restoration of the orthodoxy of the early Christian church.  Most mainstream Christian sects would disagree … but that hardly means they’re correct or have the right to make the decision.  Indeed, Christianity started off in deep trouble because it wasn’t orthodox itself …

And, of course, the Founders were very used to charges of unorthodoxy.  Besides the example of Catholics, you had Quakers who were persecuted for their unorthodoxy, Baptists who were tossed in prison, dissenters of all sorts from what was Right and True and Holy who were excluded from public office, prevented from building houses of worship, and beaten, tarreed and feathered, or tossed in jail for their “unorthodoxy.”

And it was very clear that the Founding Fathers did not intend to preserve automatically religious liberty for non-Christian faiths, so when Mormonism came along, ….

Actually, what was clear when Mormonism came along, a half-century after the Bill of Rights, was that social religious intolerance trumped any Constitutional protection.  Not that the Mormons were all peace-loving Quakers, but the issue of the Constitutional protections offered to Mormonism (especially in this pre-14th Amendment era) never came up during those early persecutions and conflicts.

… they practiced polygamy, they believed in polygamy, just like Muslims do today. It was a part of their revealed religion. God had commanded Joseph Smith to have multiple wives and commanded Joseph Smith to go tell your wife Emma, look you gotta room, I want my son Joseph to be able to have as many wives as he wants so you’re just going to have to accept it. So God is telling Emma through Joseph Smith, look you’re just going to have to live with this deal. So multiple wives in the Mormon Church until 1890 when the Mormon Church told their folks to obey the law.

There was finally a constitutional challenge over the Mormon religion, over the subject of polygamy, culminating in the Supreme Court case, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878).  The basics of the ruling were that Congress could not suppress opinion, but could legislate against “actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.”  Thus, for example, human sacrifice (yes, really) could not be allowed even if were argued it was a religious duty.

(Next up, Bryan, I’m sure you’ll crow about how the Supreme Court compared polygamy to human sacrifice.)

You’ll notice something, though, Bryan.  SCOTUS didn’t rule against Reynolds based on the proposition that religious freedom in the First Amendment  only applied to orthodox Christian religions.  Indeed, their assumption, way back in 1878, was that the First Amendment applied in the case and to protection of Mormon beliefs, just not (in this case) their actions.

Indeed, Reynolds is arguably more about Congressional power, especially over dominated / conquered peoples.

Other SCOTUS rulings on the subject include:

• Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890) upheld an Idaho law that required voters to take a test oath that they did not support bigamy or polygamy. “Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. […] However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation.” Similarly unacceptable subjects would be fornication (!) and human sacrifice.
• The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890) upheld the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which disincorporated the LDS church with the government seizing its assets, due to its support for and practice of polygamy. “The state has a perfect right to prohibit polygamy, and all other open offenses against the enlightened sentiment of mankind, notwithstanding the pretense of religious conviction by which they may be advocated and practiced.” Some lovely comparisons are made to human sacrifice, suttee, and the Thugees of Kali.  As it turns out, this loss in court was a proximate  cause of the 1890 Manifesto (see below).

Again, Bryan, you might want to note, Bryan, that there’s a distinct lack of any identification of Mormonism as an unprotected religious faith.  There’s no appeal to Mormons not being Christian, and thus not protected by the First Amendment.  Instead, again, it’s argued that it’s the particular action being taken is so godawful that even religious freedom can’t stand up to it.

Those damned late-19th Century liberal courts …

The Mormon Church, by the way, has never denounced the practice of polygamy. It has not. What it did in 1890, if you go back to the Doctrines and Covenants, what the Mormon Church did is they advised – it wasn’t even an order – they advised the members of the LDS Church to obey the law which said one man, one woman, period.

You’re right, Bryan, the 1890 Manifesto did so advise Mormons. Those crafty bastards, telling them they should obey the law!  Downright un-American!

The Second Manifesto in 1904 went further to declare that any polygamous marriages that had occurred were not sanctioned by the LDS church, and that such marriages were prohibited upon pain of excommunication.

So the change in formal LDS policy was more than just mere nudge-nudge “advice.”

So my guess is that if those that are trying to legalize polygamy, and they are working on it right now … [Fischer cites court case pushing for recognition of polygamy and says it the same as using courts to push for gay marriage] … If there is some activist court that says you have to recognize polygamous marriages in your state, you’re going to start seeing the LDS church, I believe go back to the exercise of polygamy. If it’s legal, because all they told their folks is obey the law, if the law says you can have multiple wives, I believe the LDS Church will be out in the front of the pack.

That could very well be.

Um … so?

I mean, I suspect there would be a number of folks, Mormon and non-, who would engage in (or openly engage in) polygamy were it legal.  It’s not my cuppa, but neither’s listening to a preacher in a polyester suit ranting about hellfire.

I mean, not everybody in the LDS Church is going to do it any more than all the members of the LDS Church ever did it. It was a minority even in Joseph Smith’s day – I mean, Brigham Young set some kind of world record for number of wives, I mean he was up there in Muhammad territory frankly.

How did he compare to King Solomon, Bryan?

But most Mormons didn’t do it, it was just a small percentage that had the resources to be able to do it. But I think it will come back, it will come back pretty vigorously in the Mormon Church, again, because all the church fathers said in 1890, just obey the law. Well, if the law says you can have multiple wives, they’ll be back.

Well, there would need to be a change in official doctrine, but it wouldn’t surprise me greatly.

But what’s your point, Bryan?  I mean, you started off by asserting that Mormonism isn’t protected by the First  Amendment.  But now you’re just getting into a “Mormons are weird!” kind of rant.

Well, that’s not unusual.  I mean, given that you’ve basically already done the “Mormons believe weird things, so Mitt Romney should be grilled about which of those weird things he really believes in.”

I have to ask — while the two of you are up on stage together … are you gonna grill him right then?  If not … why not? As you’ve earlier said:

[H]is Mormon theology could be a serious problem for him in 2012 and I believe frankly that his Mormon theology ought to be an issue in 2012. I mean, we’re talking about the most powerful person in the world. […] I think it’s appropriate for Mr. Romney to be asked about the various distinctions of LDS theology, does he believe them. […] No Christian needs to have any hesitation about publicly embracing the fundamentals of Christian theology and I think it’s important to ask Mr. Romney, does he embrace the fundamentals of LDS theology and let the American people decide whether they want somebody with those convictions sitting in the Oval Office.

Given that, I expect some serious interrogation when you guys share some stage space at the conference.

Of course, by the same token it does make one wonder why Romney would agree to be on stage at any event where you’re appearing, too.

(via Right Wing Watch)