Originally Posted By ecdc "Have I been disrespectful? Has anyone in this thread?" You most certainly have not. You have been your typical, thoughtful self, and I always appreciate it a great deal. You're one of the reasons I happily visit these boards daily. I don't think anyone has been intentionally disrespectful - even jonvn. But I think things have been said throughout this thread that could certainly get a rise out of different people. I reacted strongly to Doug's comments on Mormonism because I saw what I felt was a stereotypical jab at my family's faith from a certain religious perspective. If I talked more freely about my own feelings about Mormonism, I guarantee you Elderp and other still active Mormons would take issue with it. It's why I'm wary of religion at all - just talking about it is almost always an invitation to disaster. I guess I didn't see jon's comments as deliberately trying to get a rise because his comments are analogies that I can relate to and that I've used myself to describe how I feel about religion. But I suppose only he know what his intentions were and perhaps I was wrong.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So while you may see something that involves people living happy and peaceful ways, I don't.<< Not even in the examples I gave? Okay. >> I see something quite different, and I see something very distressing and historically hostile.<< So really, any evidence that suggests a religion isn't 100% bad is going to be trumped by that experience. I'm pretty moderate on this subject, and already you view me as something from the religious right. I don't stand a chance at making a point. You win.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 But it's worth pointing out that (among other things), The stars came after the earth in Genesis - not true. The moon is not a source of light. Land reptiles such as snakes do predate birds. Etc. It's close but it's not "dead on" as some would have it (not including you in there).
Originally Posted By DlandJB Sometimes, just by asking, you get some amazing responses about people's faith, what it means to them. This thread was amazing -- everyone was civil, respectful, honest...>>> I don't know how I missed that thread. Thanks for the link -- it was a wonderful read.
Originally Posted By DlandJB And the truth is that while I am not a religious person, people treat me differently because of my heritage. People who you see as trying to live a happy and peaceful life, all of a sudden treating me differntly--and markedly so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what your heritage is.
Originally Posted By jonvn "So really, any evidence that suggests a religion isn't 100% bad is going to be trumped by that experience." No, I don't mean to say that. I simply mean to say that what you see as a positive, I don't. "you view me as something from the religious right" Of course I don't view you from the religious right.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I have no idea what your heritage is." French. It doesn't matter. I was talking about personal experience, not what here.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper Okay ... I have scanned the 260+ posts on this topic to find one shred of discussion on Mitt Romney's qualifications for president. There is plenty of opinion on Mormonism, and all it's "weirdness," but very little about how Romney got to this point, and what qualifies him for the job. 1. Mitt Romney is not plagued by scandal. 2. Romney works well with Democrats and Republicans. 3. Romney is fiscally and socially conservative, but not extremely so. 4. Romney is an executive, with managerial experience. (As opposed to senators, who have little executive experience and don't do well when running for the White House.) 5. Romney is great with budgets. He got the Salt Lake Olympics to wind-up with a hefty profit, and brought the Massachusetts budget in line. 6. Romney is great with PR. (Again, I point to the Salt Lake Olympics, which Romney rescued from scandal to become the most successful, organized and praised Olympic games ever.) Now, no other candidate at this stage, Democrat or Republican, has a resume like Romney's. Though John McCain can offer military service Romney can't, McCain's achievements as a senator are less significant when looking for someone who will be the chief executive. Plus, McCain is not exactly a "people-person." Romney presents himself well in public. He is a great communicator, which is THE icing-on-the-cake any presidential candidate must have. The experience and personal appeal of Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and any other presidential wanna-be are hardly comparable to Romney's. Romney's "Mormonism" won't be a problem, except for the media and religious elites who will try to squeeze drama, conflict and controversy out of anything. If, given Romney's preparedness for office, either the media, evangelicals or any other group are going to write-off Romney simply because he is LDS, they will be broadcasting to the nation and the world how truly shallow they are. American voters are smarter than that. They vote on a candidate's policy, character, and ability to lead and communicate. (Clinton interrupted the trend in the character department, but Perot split the vote in '92, and Dole in didn't seem to want the job in '96.) Neither Kennedy's Catholocism, Reagan's and Bush's goofiness, Bush's English or Clinton's, um, friskiness stopped them from winning the support of the people. In other words, weird, odd or unusual don't disqualify. Americans are not as bigoted as the media thinks they are. They are certainly not as bigoted as the media elites themselves are. Given an opportunity to scrutinize Mormons and Mormonism more closely, it's just as likely people will finally recognize long-established myths regarding the faith, and may actually find that Romney's faith is his strongest asset. After all, Mormonism stresses (among other things) 24-7 integrity, hard work, personal responsibility, family, health, compassion, education, and loyalty to God and country. Anyone who ignores on that to rail on bits of inconsequential doctrinal dispute is going to come-off looking quite petty indeed. Americans vote on meat, and substance (though sometimes they're forced to pick the lesser of two bad choices). The only way Romney can lose the Republican nomination or the presidency is if he makes a big gaffe, or if the Republicans or Democrats put forward someone with credentials that outshine Romney's. They're not even close, so far. By the way, I'm a Mormon. Being well-acquainted with Mormonism's quirks and oddities, I've found that peculiarity is relative. For example, I can't imagine, for the life of me, why anyone would want to drink something so bitter-tasting, breath-souring, teeth-discoloring, habit-forming and downright weird as coffee! (No offense.) But I can easily support a coffee-drinker for President. Also, by the way, I'm not partial to Romney merely because I'm Mormon. You wouldn't ever find me casting a vote for Harry Reid (also a Mormon) ... even if I was a Democrat. (And I've voted for a Democrat before.) One more thought about these ridiculous polls. They say some 40% wouldn't ever vote for a Mormon. They don't mention that Mormons are clearly seen as conservative, and that perhaps 40% of the respondents would never vote Mormon because liberals don't agree with the mostly conservative Mormon population. If all Romney gets is the other 60%, he's in! No one here will admit to being so religiously bigoted as to withold a vote from someone because they are of a lesser-known faith. I think we can assume your typical American voter is the same.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Romney's "Mormonism" won't be a problem" Yeah it will. It's a problem for people on this very topic. And it's a pretty liberal board.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^^I have conducted my own straw poll lately. Almost every evangelical that I have asked has told me that they would not vote for Romney, especially if the Dems field a moderate candidate in '08.
Originally Posted By jonvn Makes me want to vote for him. Except, I wouldn't vote for him under any circumstance, unless the Dems nominate a complete whack job (always possible). But with this gay marriage thing, this guy has already shown himself to be a nut already. No one cares. The world has bigger problems. And the issue with someone doing this is that people see that there are bigger problems now. And if, as a politician, you decide to ignore those problems and go for something as basically inconsequential as gay marriage, you should have your career cut short. You obviously can not prioritize well.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The main point in this thread wasn't specifically about Romney. It was about whether or not people would vote for someone in the LDS church in the abstract. That's the way the question in the poll was asked: Would you vote for a Mormon? I guess I was wondering if a person's particular religion was a huge factor for people. I didn't think it would be, but based on all the responses on this thread, I think it really is a much bigger factor than I believed.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And the issue with someone doing this is that people see that there are bigger problems now.<< Absolutely correct.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I didn't think it would be, but based on all the responses on this thread, I think it really is a much bigger factor than I believed." Told you. You want to think that common decent people do not harbor religious intolerance. Well, I can tell you from personal experience they do. In spades. No one on here is a "bad" person. No one on here would go out and kill someone, or espouse that they be locked up in a camp and gassed. But bring out these religious things, and then you see what I see all the time. I literally see people's physical composure change, I see them behave differently, I see them look at me differently. It doesn't matter who you are, it matters what you are, and that's not ever going to change.
Originally Posted By ecdc So Hyper, since you're a supporter of Romney who thinks his religion shouldn't be an issue, how should Romney respond to the following questions: 1) As an active, practicing Mormon in the 1970s, did you support the Mormon ban on African Americans from holding the Mormon priesthood, from holding leadership positions, and from attending the Mormon temple? Why or Why not? 2) Your grandfather, Miles P. Romney, was a polygamist who helped found the Mormon colony of Colonial Juarez in Mexico for the purpose of housing and hiding Mormon polygamists as the federal government cracked down on cohabitation. Mormon leaders fought the federal government and defied them for the right to practice an alternative form of marriage; Mormon prophet John Taylor had the flag flown at half-mast on the 4th of July to protest anti-polygamy laws; Joseph F. Smith fled prosecution to Hawaii; Lorenzo Snow was hiding under the floorboards of his house when federal authorities came to arrest him. Given your own family and peoples history with defying federal laws for the right to practice marriage as they saw it, is it not hypocritical of you to oppose gay marriage? Why or why not?
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^So neither the secular left nor the religous right is going to be crazy about him (and I suspect, more than a few middle of the roaders as well). Doesn't sound promising to me.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> Yeah it will. It's a problem for people on this very topic. And it's a pretty liberal board. Precisely my point. If it's a problem for liberals, where's the news there? Are liberals opposed to Mormons because they are Mormon, or because they are generally conservative? If it's the former, then liberals are not as "open-minded" as they want us to think. If it's the latter, then liberal thinking won't keep Romney from taking the Republican primary, and the weren't going to vote for the Republican candidate in the general election anyway. >>> ^^^I have conducted my own straw poll lately. Almost every evangelical that I have asked has told me that they would not vote for Romney, especially if the Dems field a moderate candidate in '08. What "moderate" Democrat is poised for a run at this point? There are plenty who call themselves "moderate," but evangelicals sure don't view any leading Democrats (other than perhaps Lieberman) that way. >>> But with this gay marriage thing, this guy has already shown himself to be a nut already. ...No one cares. The world has bigger problems. The issue is bigger than gay marriage. The issue is who gets to decide what social agreements the government will support? A few justices? Or the elected representatives of the people? Working to limit the power of justices making new policy on their own isn't nutty. It's supporting sound constitutional theory in place since the birth of the country. >>> As an active, practicing Mormon in the 1970s, did you support the Mormon ban on African Americans from holding the Mormon priesthood, from holding leadership positions, and from attending the Mormon temple? Why or Why not? I can't speak for Romney, but I can speak for me. In the early days of the church, doctrine towards African Americans was actually liberal. The restriction didn't come about until after Joseph Smith ... when Brigham Young was leading. Even then, official church doctrine was clear that the stipulation was temporary, and that people of all backgrounds would eventually receive all church blessings. The church opposed slavery from the beginning, long before it was really popular to be anti-slavery ... even in the north. In the 1970s, most people in the church wanted desparately for the restriction to be lifted, including those in the highest leadership positions. It was a matter of getting the OK from the Lord. (Which you can believe or not, likely not.) When the word came, it was a time of rejoicing for blacks, and whites too. (With the exception of a few, particularly in the deep south, whose opposition was cultural, not supported by the church.) There is plenty of precedent in Judeo-Christian history for witholding certain religious blessings from people of certain ancestry. It occurs throughout the Bible, and all Judeo-Christian faiths ought to square with that if they are going to be critical of the LDS church for the past policy. Even Jesus Christ himself limited his message mainly to the Hebrews, though he could have taken it to other people. But it was those who followed him who took the Christian message to others. Finally, was John F. Kennedy less of a president because his faith barred women from positions in its church? As Mormons, we don't support policies and expect God to take a poll. We learn, as best as we can, God's will, and then we support him. The timetable is his, not ours. For your second question: There was an understandable reluctance to accept the federal position on polygamy. LDS people had been persecuted for years (before polygamy was practiced or became an issue), and the government made no attempt to aid LDS people whose rights were being violated. The church's loyalty after all those years of persecution remained strong. Mormon soldiers fought with the U.S. military (in the Mexican American war). No church had been more vocal in support of the American principles of freedom and democracy. In the end, church leaders decided that the law (and the people) had spoken, and that fighting it was going to be counter-productive. Plural marriage was discontinued, and those who did not follow the law were held accountable by church law. This is what happens in a society. By the way, the LDS church never asked the federal government to give its blessing to plural marriage ... only that the people be allowed to live in peace. As far as I know, the church has never called for prosecuting same-sex couples. It has merely opposed governmental endorsement of same-sex marriage. Also, you have to take into account that polygamy (plural heterosexual marriage) is vastly different in nature from same-sex marriage. Yes, there is a religious prohibition against homosexuality, and polygamy has, throughout history, been treated as a different matter by religious law. But even on a secular level, marriage is also about family and children. In a plural-marriage family, children still have a mother and a father. The same does not exist in a gay-parent family with children. The two lifestyles are a world apart. In the end, the LDS church has consented with the will of society. They tried to make their case for polygamy and legal acceptance. They failed, and lived with it. (The gay movement shows no sign of doing so.) The church has never treated gay people the way the church was treated by the U.S. in the 1800s. So I don't see anything conflicting or hypocritical about the LDS position on same-sex marriage. >>> ^So neither the secular left nor the religous right is going to be crazy about him (and I suspect, more than a few middle of the roaders as well). Doesn't sound promising to me. And yet Romney was quite successful in Massachusetts. If Mass., of all places, could put him in office, with pleasant results, why are so many people so interested in talking him down so early? I think it's because they're scared he will actually win. They would put faith in a snap poll, rather than putting faith in the American people to choose the best-qualified candidate, regardless of his mode of worship. People have their weird prejudices, but many can be talked-out of them when they get to truly know a guy. But people who hang-out in newsrooms and message boards, like us, are here for a reason. We're stubborn and strong-willed. It sounds like everyone here has made-up their minds that a Mormon makes a worthless presidential candidate, and that not only will voters agree, but they should. I still have yet to read one good reason beyond the brand of his religion. I think many here may be in for a big surprise during the next two years. Take heart ... I don't think it will be an unpleasant one.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It sounds like everyone here has made-up their minds that a Mormon makes a worthless presidential candidate, and that not only will voters agree, but they should.<< Whoa, hold on, cowboy! I haven't decided that at all, in fact, I think I made the point in post numero uno that it wasn't really something that would affect my vote one way or the other. My initial post was in reaction to this poll -- I was surprised that 40% of people responded that they simply wouldn't ever vote for a member of the LDS church. But after reading the various strong reactions of some posters here in regards to the LDS, it's clear that at least to some folks, they have very strong feelings about the church and its teachings. If those strong feelings are mirrored in the country at large, as the poll suggests, then 40% is a mighty large amount of people. Perhaps once they get to know a specific candidate, such as Romney, then perhaps the issue of his religion would play less of a factor. Remember, this question wasn't asked about Romney in particular but about the LDS in abstract terms.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>What "moderate" Democrat is poised for a run at this point? There are plenty who call themselves "moderate," but evangelicals sure don't view any leading Democrats (other than perhaps Lieberman) that way.<< That's a starter. Some Evangelicals are staring to warm up to Obama. I'm not saying that they will need to be crazy about the Democratic candidate, but as long as the candidate isn't someone like Pelosi or Hillary, I could see many Evangelicals holding their noses and voting Democrat.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>And yet Romney was quite successful in Massachusetts.<< But Mass. isn't a hotbed of Evangelicalism or conservatism of any stripe. Few blue states would choose Romney over a Democrat and because of the potential loss of the Religious Right vote he would probably lose many borderline red (purple?) states as well.
