{"id":22877,"date":"2011-09-29T19:38:49","date_gmt":"2011-09-30T01:38:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/?p=22877"},"modified":"2014-11-05T14:42:22","modified_gmt":"2014-11-05T21:42:22","slug":"bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-mormons-are-lucky-we-graciously-let-them-practice-their-weird-religion-edition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2011\/09\/29\/bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-mormons-are-lucky-we-graciously-let-them-practice-their-weird-religion-edition.html","title":{"rendered":"Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (Mormons Are Lucky We Graciously Let Them Practice Their Weird Religion Edition)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Bryan Fischer, Dolt<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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

My argument all along has been that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the free exercise of the Christian religion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yes, I think we’ve been over that before<\/a>, Bryan. \u00a0You and pseudo-historian Dave Barton<\/a> keep going on and on about how the First Amendment only applies to Christianity. \u00a0It’s a silly argument, though it lets you feel nice and patriotic about being a Christian.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well, I think most folks would agree that Mormonism isn’t terribly orthodox from a, oh, Nicene Creed standpoint.<\/p>\n

Of course, some would argue that Roman Catholicism isn’t orthodox (compared to, say, an evangelical Southern Baptist-style norm). \u00a0Or (ironically) that Eastern, Greek, and Russian Orthodox Churches aren’t orthodox compared to Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church. \u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n

So is “unorthodox Christianity” (as defined by … well, I guess, by you, Bryan?) unprotected by the First Amendment? \u00a0Are they really, but their unorthodoxy, “non-Christian religions”?<\/p>\n

The members of the LDS church call themselves Christian. \u00a0In fact, their formal teaching is that they are a “latter-day” restoration of the orthodoxy of the early Christian church. \u00a0Most mainstream Christian sects would disagree … but that hardly means they’re correct or have the right to make the decision. \u00a0Indeed, Christianity started off in deep trouble because it<\/em> wasn’t orthodox itself …<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Mary Dyer, Quaker, hanged in Massachusetts in 1660<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

And, of course, the Founders were very used to charges of unorthodoxy. \u00a0Besides 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.”<\/p>\n

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, ….<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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. \u00a0Not 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n

… 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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<\/em>, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)<\/a>. \u00a0The 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.” \u00a0Thus, for example, human sacrifice (yes, really) could not be allowed even if were argued it was a religious duty.<\/p>\n

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

\"\"<\/a>
Joseph Smith - his problem wasn't a lack of Constitutional protection<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

You’ll notice something, though, Bryan. \u00a0SCOTUS didn’t rule against Reynolds based on the proposition that religious freedom in the First Amendment \u00a0only applied to orthodox Christian religions. \u00a0Indeed, their assumption, way back in 1878, was that the First Amendment applied in the case and to protection of Mormon beliefs<\/em>, just not (in this case) their actions<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Indeed, Reynolds <\/em>is arguably more about Congressional power<\/a>, especially over dominated \/ conquered peoples.<\/p>\n

Other SCOTUS rulings on the subject include:<\/p>\n