Mitt Knows How the Economy Works

Mitt Romney knows how the economy works.    Damn straight he does!   That's what is so frightening about him.

Joe Huster

Pants On Fire!

I was just listening to Mitt Romney repeat the latest charge against President Obama.  In summary, the charge is “Obama said that if you have a business, you didn’t build it yourself.  The government did.”  After repeating this charge, Romney added that “saying something this outrageous demonstrates just how out of touch Obama is” [Paraphrase].

Where to begin!

First, Obama did not say that business owners “did not build their businesses” and/or “the government did.”  Obama was talking about the roads and bridges that were built by all of us collectively, that allow businesses to operate.  Although he may have experienced a slip of the tongue, the unmistakable message was that businesses do not thrive solely by the efforts of entrepreneurs.  They also benefit from the collective investment we all make in our infrastructure.  Entrepreneurs do not build their businesses on their own – they do so with help from the rest of us in the form of government.

Second.  Romney obviously knows this.  He is not stupid.  Anyone of reasonable intelligence who watched the clip of Obama’s speech knows what he meant to say.  So Romney is intentionally lying.  Not that lying is anything new to Mr. Romney.  He lies so reflexively and continuously that it is difficult to keep up – fortunately, someone is up to the task.

Third, I find it amazing that Mitt Romney and other conservatives think this will be an effective line of criticism.  I mean, Mr. Romney is correct about one thing – Obama would have to be pretty out of touch to say something that stupid.  No one except a die-hard partisan Obama hater could bring themselves to believe that Obama actually thinks the government, rather than business owners, builds private businesses – and Romney’s already got their votes.  I’d be embarrassed to publicly assign that belief to anyone – much less to the president of the United States.

So not only is Mitt Romney a liar, he’s a political fool.  And to think I used to admire the man!

Forth, I find it astonishing that Romney is willing to lie so brazenly and repeatedly in public.  He is a Mormon, after all.  From what I know about Mormon teaching, the entire reason every human being is put on earth by God is to perfect themselves - morally speaking.  And perfect honesty is an element of that moral perfection.  Didn’t Jesus say “what should it profit a man if he gain the entire world only to lose his soul.”  I’ve never seen a more public display of someone rejecting that teaching.

According to his own professed beliefs, Mitt Romney is apparently willing to lose his soul to gain the entire world.  And none if his fellow Mormons appear concerned about this.

I’m just saying . . .

Joe Huster

Constitutional Crisis

Hi Everyone,

Our local church is going through a transition regarding its association with the Missionary Church.  The Constitution of the Missionary Church limits membership to those who affirm an extensive set of moral and doctrinal positions.  It seems that some of the members of our Church (me obviously) are not on-board with all of these doctrines and we’re debating whether this fact should force us to disassociate ourselves and start a new church.

So I read through the Missionary Church’s constitution this morning.  Got a big kick out of it!  Frankly, if the Missionary Church is committed to limiting its membership to individuals who agree with each of their stands, there needs to be a serious membership purge.

But I digress.  Of particular interest to me were the sections that began “we recognize that sincere Christians have conscientious differences as to their understanding of the teaching of the word of God regarding . . .” and “we recognize there are committed Christians who hold different views concerning . . .”

The issues being discussed were “participation in war” and the doctrine of “assurance.”  The constitution explicitly stated that “sincere Christians” can reasonably disagree about these issues – implying that sincere Christians could not reasonably disagree about the issues on which the Missionary Church was willing to take a stand.  On those issues, the rightness of their views is so obvious that no genuine believer could, in good faith, take a different position.

It takes a remarkable degree of arrogance to think, for example, that the doctrine of inerrancy is so obviously correct that no sincere Christian could question it.  The doctrine is absurd on its face, given that the only way confirm it would be to check the bible for errors - and the doctrine itself expressly forbids such checking.  I’m guessing that we’re supposed to believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures because the scriptures themselves claim to be inerrant.  But how do we know that scriptural claims of inerrancy (assuming they exist) aren’t themselves errors of the very sort some of us are worried about?

I mean, come on guys.  This is low hanging fruit!  I can’t make myself accept a doctrine justified by such obviously circular reasoning.  Add to that the fact that the scriptures endorse some pretty questionable ideas, practices and historical narratives and I’m wondering how anyone in their right mind could believe in inerrancy.

Don't even get me started on Gay rights!

And yet the Missionary church is so confident about this doctrine that it is willing to say every genuine Christian accepts this doctrine as obviously correct?

I’ve long believed that we should always remain open-minded.  I don’t believe open mindedness is an intrinsic virtue – that it is valuable in and of itself.  I don’t think that we should expose ourselves to new ideas just because they are new, particularly when older ideas have served us well.

But open-mindedness has “instrumental” value because it is a necessary condition for correcting error.  An interesting feature of having beliefs is that everyone necessarily thinks their current beliefs are true.  It is impossible to think otherwise.  Of course, everyone also knows that they have believed wrongly in the past, so it is reasonable to assume that at least some of our current beliefs are wrong.  The problem is that we don’t know which of our current beliefs are incorrect.  They all seem correct right now (or we would have already abandoned them).

And there is only one way to find out – we must listen to those who reject our beliefs with an open mind.  By “open,” I don’t mean uncritical.  Beliefs that have served us well are entitled to some deference.  And criticisms of our beliefs should themselves be subjected to scrutiny.  “Open” means actively entertaining the possibility that my current belief or understanding may be wrong, or partially wrong, or incomplete.  It means giving those who dissent a fair hearing – not for their sake, or out of some silly notion that all beliefs are entitled to respect – but for our sake, so that we might have the opportunity to exchange error for truth.

That’s why I think constitutions of this sort are so problematic.  There’s nothing wrong with a statement of beliefs.  What’s wrong is the attempt to protect these beliefs from criticism by constitutionally excluding members who disagree. That is not only wrong.  It is foolish.  It guarantees that all members of the Missionary Church will continue to hold false beliefs to the extent that the constitutional drafters were wrong about anything.

Joe Huster