Be nice to people. This changes the whole environment.
- Manlobbi
Personal Finance / Macroeconomic Trends & Risks
No. of Recommendations: 7
Holy Moroni, Batman....
Ol' Pete stepped in it.
Muslims are in but Mormons are out on his list of religions that get a recognized code by the DoD.
The LSDs ain't christian enough for Kegbreath's white christian nationalist sensibilities?
https://www.deseret.com/politics/2026/06/06/lee-an...
No. of Recommendations: 1
No. of Recommendations: 0
Because they aren't real xians. Or so say many other xian sects. Though I've heard some believe Catholics to be Mary-worshipping heretics.
I find it all amusing.
No. of Recommendations: 7
No. of Recommendations: 3
They’re not considered Christian by many because they are not strictly monotheists - though I would argue Christian’s aren’t either, but they do say they are.
LDS are henotheistic - believing in many gods but exclusively worshiping one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_MormonismIt’s pretty wacky, but then aren’t they all?
No. of Recommendations: 3
Well, one of the commandments states that you will not have any gods (plural) before me, implying the Abrahamic tradition acknowledges the existence of other gods.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Well, one of the commandments states that you will not have any gods (plural) before me, implying the Abrahamic tradition acknowledges the existence of other gods.
Not really implying it, but just carrying over that language from an earlier era. The Torah took a long time to write. Modern scholars peg it at several centuries, from a few centuries before until shortly after the Babylonian exile. Give or take five hundred years, from about 900 BCE to 400 BCE.
During that time, Judaism evolved from a monolatrous religion (believing that multiple gods exist but only worshipping one of them) to a monotheistic religion (believing only one god exists). The "Abrahamic tradition" wasn't a single thing that sprung into existence at a single point in time, but evolved heavily from the polytheistic Canaanite religions through the Exile into the Hellenistic period.
I don't think it's correct to say that the Abrahamic tradition "acknowledges" (in the present tense) the existence of other gods. That hasn't been true for more than 2,000 years. The modern reading (which in this context dates back to the 1st or 2nd century) is that they're talking about other gods the way we would talk about Thor or Zeus or Quetzalcoatl - "gods" that exist as concepts or mythological characters or representations of a belief, but that don't exist as beings in the real world.
No. of Recommendations: 9
I find it all amusing.
HRC suggests it is daunting
On June 8, 1789, Representative James Madison of Virginia stood up to address the House of Representatives in order to introduce a series of amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Initially, Madison had been opposed to the idea of spelling out the rights on which the new government couldn’t intrude because he thought the document itself limited what the government could do. But he had come around to the idea of specifying the areas in which the new government could not intrude after voters opposed ratifying the Constitution until it included protections from government interference in their rights.
When Madison rose to introduce his amendments to the Constitution, ten of which would eventually be adopted and become the Bill of Rights, the Constitution had been ratified, but ratification had stalled. Two states of the original thirteen, North Carolina and Rhode Island, had not yet ratified the Constitution. Others had done so only with the promise that a list of rights would be forthcoming.
One of the amendments Madison proposed was especially dear to him. It was, as he told his colleagues, that “[t]he civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”
That proposal was the basis for what became the first part of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
With the wounds of religious persecution both in Europe and in the colonies still fresh, Madison cared deeply about keeping the government away from religion.
In 1772, when he was 21, Madison watched as the government of Virginia had itinerant preachers arrested for preaching against the established church in the state. By the next year, he had begun to question whether established religion, which was common in the colonies, was good for society. By 1776, many of his broad-thinking neighbors had come to believe that society should “tolerate” different religious practices; he had moved past tolerance to the belief that men had a right of conscience.
In that year, he was instrumental in putting Section 16 into the Virginia Declaration of Rights. It reads, “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”
In 1785, in a “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments,” he explained that what was at stake was not just religion, but also representative government itself. The establishment of one religion over others attacked a fundamental human right—an unalienable right—of conscience. If lawmakers could destroy the right of freedom of conscience, they could destroy all other unalienable rights. Those in charge of government could throw representative government out the window and make themselves tyrants.
The concerns about inequality behind the First Amendment are being illustrated right now in the twenty-first-century United States. Those concerns come from an unlikely direction.
On Thursday, June 4, 2026, Nick Mordowanec of Military dot com reported that under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Department of Defense had removed about 180 faith traditions from its number of recognized religious faiths and belief systems. As John Ismay, Alexandra E. Petri, and Aimee Ortiz of the New York Times note, of the 31 religions still recognized by the Defense Department, 22 of them are Christian denominations.
Left off the new list of Christian faiths was the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints, whose members are commonly known as Mormons.
MAGA has worked to impose the ideology of evangelical religion on America. In the military, Mordowanec notes, Hegseth has pushed Christian theocracy through extremist Christian-based prayers services with a Christian nationalist preacher who has said women’s suffrage was a bad idea and has defended slavery, has described Trump’s war on Iran as a holy war. Michelle Boorstein and Sammy Westfall of the Washington Post add that Hegseth has urged chaplains to focus on scripture rather than psychology and has said those who disagree with him are God’s enemies.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is a Mormon and represents Mormons in Utah. Lee has been a staunch MAGA supporter to the point that he was a key figure in urging President Donald J. Trump to stay in office in 2021 despite the fact he had lost the election.
But on Friday, Lee—the ultimate MAGA insider—found his religion excluded from the “Christian” category that the Trump administration embraces, turning him abruptly into an outsider.
Lee spent the weekend posting angrily about the slight that suggested Mormons aren’t Christians, only to have other posters deride his faith. He posted 37 times on social media insisting that the Defense Department’s classification be expanded to include Mormons under the “Christian” category, recording and reposting a video saying “As of two days ago, the Pentagon recognizes every Christian faith in America as Christian. Except one. That’s not okay, and it needs to change—now.”
Finally, yesterday, he posted that he had “just got off the phone with President Trump[.] We discussed the Pentagon’s ‘Christian list’[.] I won’t speak for him, but I’m thrilled about where this is heading[.] We’re most fortunate that President Trump (1) loves Latter-day Saints, and (2) is our commander in chief[.] Stay tuned[.]”
Today the Defense Department edited its list of religions so that no group is labeled “Christian.” Lee posted that he was grateful to Hegseth “for correcting the error” and said he agreed with Hegseth’s statement that “[t]he Pentagon’s job is not to adjudicate theological debates, but instead to ensure sincerely-held faith is respected and encouraged in our ranks.”
Madison and those who wrote, debated, passed, and ratified the Bill of Rights believed that making people’s religion—their right of conscience—depend on the approval of the president would destroy self-government..
A former U.S. Army chaplain told Mordowanec that the Defense Department’s limit to the religions it recognized was “horrible.” “When I raised my hand to become an Army chaplain, I swore that I would support and defend the Constitution. The First Amendment is the free exercise of religion for everybody. That’s what I was buying into.” Referring to the revised list, the former chaplain added: “As far as I’m concerned, that’s a violation of the United States Constitution.”
On June 8, 1789, Madison urged his colleagues to pass the new amendments to demonstrate that those who had pushed the adoption of the Constitution “were as sincerely devoted to liberty and republican government” as those who opposed it, and that those who wanted a strong new government were not, in fact, trying “to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. “ It would be a good thing, he said, to cement support for the government by reassuring Americans that those in favor of the new government had no “wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled.”
No. of Recommendations: 7
I don't think it's correct to say that the Abrahamic tradition "acknowledges" (in the present tense) the existence of other gods. I love how modern Christianity has managed to thread the needle, having multiple gods but one god at the same time. It’s “the Holy Trinity”. It’s God. But hey! It’s also Jesus! And for good measure, it’s the Holy Spirit.
Thou shall have no other gods before me? Make them multiple, but one and the same, even though they’re different. Quite logical, really.
“In the beginning” everything had a god. The god of thunder and lightning. The god of fertility. The god of luck, the god of planting crops, another god of harvesting. One for the underworld, one for your Uncle Harold. Yet more for protection, wealth, and so on. Eventually, and over a longish time that got whittled down to one (“monotheistic”) but that hankering for “other gods” wouldn’t go away, so now it’s THREE, except it’s one…
And the more educated a society, it starts to converge on “none”. Whew! Taken a lot of time to get here, and it’s not done yet, but it’s progress.
In other news, the Mayor of Quincy, MA, a Roman Catholic, commissioned two bronze statues of Saints to be installed on city property. Spent $850,000 of tax money to do it; now tied up in court, of course.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/10/us/quincy-mass-...
No. of Recommendations: 5
In Catholicism, saints play the role of minor deities, to say nothing of the hosts of angels.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Eventually, and over a longish time that got whittled down to one (“monotheistic”) but that hankering for “other gods” wouldn’t go away, so now it’s THREE, except it’s one…
I have always found the concept of the Trinity to be confusing, and I can't say that I fully understand the reasoning for it. But I don't think it stems from a "hankering" for other gods. Rather, I always thought of it as an effort to solve a fundamental conundrum of the New Testament. Namely, that Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) are certainly talked about as being different persons from God but are themselves divine. IOW, the Trinity isn't an effort to satisfy a need to have a separate "God of X" that's different than the main God, but rather trying to reconcile the divinity of Jesus with the fact that he is portrayed in the Bible as a person who isn't the same as God.
Again, not a comparative religion expert, but I agree that the saints seem more the concept that fills the other-god-hankering role more than the Trinity, and they certainly played that role - especially in syncretic religions that blended Catholicism with local pre-existing beliefs.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I have always found the concept of the Trinity to be confusing, and I can't say that I fully understand the reasoning for it.
I was raised Catholic, and attended Jesuit run Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Early in adulthood I migrated to atheism, while continuing to ponder the notion of a trinity.
For me it's evolved into:
existence, being, what-is;
awareness, reflection, knowledge of what-is;
identity, oneness of the two, unity.
unquarked
No. of Recommendations: 4
In Catholicism, saints play the role of minor deities, to say nothing of the hosts of angels.
And don't forget Satan, aka Beelzebub – a devilish foil for an erstwhile perfect god.
unquarked
No. of Recommendations: 2
I don't think it's correct to say that the Abrahamic tradition "acknowledges" (in the present tense) the existence of other gods.
Not "present". But one can't edit the "scriptures". And it clearly says "gods". So, it is part of the Abrahamic tradition. Jews are actually stuck with it. Xians could have avoided it, but they decided to keep the OT and just add the NT, so they're stuck with it, too. Muslims probably could have done likewise, but they also kept the first five books.
Since they can't change the "inspired word of god", the chief deity -allegedly- said "thou shalt have no gods before me". Plural. The Jews -as I understand it- accepted such existence, but only worshipped their guy. Been a long time since I saw the movie, but the Jews would accept Crom even as they worshipped the Sky God that was -by definition- above Crom. (Forget the name of that god...been a long time.)
No. of Recommendations: 3
Not "present". But one can't edit the "scriptures". And it clearly says "gods". So, it is part of the Abrahamic tradition. Jews are actually stuck with it.
No, they're not. You can't edit the scriptures, but you can interpret them. And hoo boy, do we Jews interpret the heck out of the Torah. The Talmud's 2,700 pages long. The Torah contains passages that on their face contradict each other, so Jews have to figure out how to reconcile that.
Judaism interprets that line the way you would say, "I don't believe in ghosts." The fact that ghosts are mentioned in a sentence doesn't mean they exist in the real world - it just means they exist as ideas, or concepts, or constructs, or things that other people believe in. So too the admonition to have no other gods before G-d - everyone else around you is worshipping local gods, and you shouldn't do that. It doesn't mean the other gods exist. In fact, the official Jewish line is that they don't and didn't. All the folks worshipping the local gods and idols were wrong - they were making offerings and calling out to emptiness.
Since they can't change the "inspired word of god", the chief deity -allegedly- said "thou shalt have no gods before me". Plural. The Jews -as I understand it- accepted such existence, but only worshipped their guy. Been a long time since I saw the movie, but the Jews would accept Crom even as they worshipped the Sky God that was -by definition- above Crom. (Forget the name of that god...been a long time.)
As noted upthread, Judaism did not spring into existence fully-formed from the head of Zeus (a god that we can refer to in a sentence, but does not exist). Judaism evolved from the inarguably polytheistic ancient Canaanite religions - as did the scriptures, which were written over about four to five centuries (per modern scholarship). But it's been about 2,500 years since Jews "accepted" any gods but the god of the Torah. We've been purely monotheistic for longer than Christianity has existed.
The text of what is now the Torah was finalized a few centuries BCE, roughly during the Babylonian exile. The component elements were chosen from then-existing materials from several different sources (not necessarily individual authors). Modern scholarship identifies four. The two versions of the Decalogue were from the Elohist Source and the Deuteronomist Source - and those sources probably date back to 700-800 BCE, back when Judaism was a little more monolatrist and less monotheist. But the language was included and has to be reconciled with the passages from the most recent - Priestly - source from 300-400 BCE, which pretty unambiguously say that there are no other gods.
Synthesizing the inconsistent passages, the Torah says that there's only one god, and that other "gods" are merely human constructs or mundane idols that those worshippers mistakenly believe to be divine. And those other "gods" are what the Decalogue refers to.
No. of Recommendations: 6
If I implied that modern Jews were anything other than monotheistic, it was unintentional. Clearly they are.**
I also acknowledge that the "scriptures" didn't pop out of someone's head fully formed.
I will take your word for the time frames involved, as they aren't really crucial to my point. Though I quibble about "Canaanite" since the latest scholarship says that the Jews and Canaanites are one and the same people. Again, not really germane to my point.
I'm sure modern Jews would take exception to Exodus 21, and probably Deuteronomy 15. But it's still there, and when they wrote it there is every reason to believe they meant it. The traditional Decalogue (there are actually a few variants, and usually more than 10 are enumerated) states what it states because, in all probability, they meant it at the time.
I looked it up because it's been a long time since I've read Moonglade's missives on the subject. But I was pretty close, and what you wrote generally agrees as well:
Early Israelite religion was largely monolatrous, meaning they worshipped Yahweh as their primary national god while acknowledging the existence of other deities in the region (such as Baal and Asherah).
Yahweh likely originated among the Midianites. As I said earlier, he quickly(?) became the chief deity, but not the only deity. At least not when the scriptures were written down and became doctrine. Traditional Jews say it was actually dictated by god (Yahweh?) around the 15th century BCE, but modern scholarship places it more in line with your dates (700 BCE). Regardless, there is little reason to believe that what was written was not taken as truth at the time. Whether it be slavery (EX 21), or deities like Baal (part of the Decalogue).
As for "interpretation", the Jews are not alone. At the minimum, all the Abrahamic traditions interpret liberally. Some for the better (kinder/gentler), and some for the worse (god hates homosexuals, women are chattel, kill the unbelievers). I think it's the only way one could take seriously anything written by ignorant goat herders who didn't get one scientific claim correct. You have to "interpret". The fundamentalists/literalists are generally regarded as crazy and/or hateful. I can't speak for other religions like Hinduism, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of interpreting goes on with their scriptures, too.
**Religious Jews, as distinct from non-religious Jews whom are still culturally Jewish people.
