Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Doesn't excuse it. Bugs me to death.<< All I'd ask is that when it is proven a candidate has told a lie, everyone (friends and foes) recognize it. That's probably Fantasyland hoping for that, but it'd sure be a good thing. And this is the problem with political parties, because as we divide into "teams" in this way, we become willing to excuse or explain away bald faced lies because, after all, they're "for the greater good." So it comes down to walking the walk for a Christian politician. While I don't think anyone expects perfection, it isn't too much to ask a politician to be sure that when he states "I'm ____ and I approve of this message" that the contents of that message are truthful. If they can't do that bare minimum, then they can just stop telling me how Christian they are. It just takes the whole religious angle off the table.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Here we have a presidential candidate who is not allowed to tell us what happens in the rituals that he has taken part in in his temples. He can't tell us the words that were used during the ritual. He can't tell us about what happened when his wife and he were sealed or endowed, or whether or not he ever acted as a proxy for a dead person in the temple. Here is a presidential candidate who held a high position within a religion that keeps it's rites secret from the world, hidden under a bushel where they cannot be seen. His religion has secret handshakes that cannot be revealed to outsiders. We know the religious messages and ceremonies that Obama took part in because they aren't hidden. Even though non-Catholics aren't allowed to take communion in a Catholic church, they could have still sat next to Kennedy on a Sunday morning. Even though a non-Muslim isn't allowed in Mecca during the Hajj, we can still see the entire ceremony on video and we can listen to our Muslim friends talk about their experience. They aren't told to keep their rites secret or else. And anyone interested in converting has complete descriptions of the most sacred rituals of the faith provided to him or her by the faith before they commit. Read the Wiki I posted earlier. Look at Romney's flip-flopping and statements in the context of what is said in the Wiki. It all makes sense.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I don't care about what religious rituals he's involved in. I do care about his taxes, though. That would shed a lot of light on how he has made his millions. But he knows that, too, and it's why he's choosing not to release them. Which is a whole other kind of lie.
Originally Posted By ecdc Tom, trust me, the LDS temple ritual is harmless. I don't personally think Romney's flip-flops fit into the "lying for the Lord" mentality that has existed in the past in Mormonism. I think, like an article I posted earlier, they do fit into his being a CEO. I work for a big company. It'd be comical if it weren't so sad when a new policy comes out that is patently not consumer friendly. Say, an additional fee that will appear on someone's bill. But the corporate psychology is astounding: those in charge will tell you with a straight face why it's actually great for consumers to pay more money and get nothing in return. They are so attuned to marketing and never, ever, admitting any wrongdoing or problems that to outsiders, it's laughable. That's what I see in Romney.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I don't care about what religious rituals he's involved in.<< Agreed, and besides that, there are tons of books written by ex Mormons which describe these secret rituals in great detail, for those who are curious. >>I do care about his taxes, though. That would shed a lot of light on how he has made his millions. But he knows that, too, and it's why he's choosing not to release them.<< This is the REAL problem.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Hardly.<< +1 There was no bigotry in that post. This is where organized religion loses me - this notion that I get to say "Hey, I believe this and it's important to me so it's immune from any criticism whatsoever." Mormonism has beliefs worth discussing in the context of a Mormon presidential candidate. I personally don't believe the temple ceremony is one of them, but I'm not about to tell others that it isn't or should somehow be off-limits.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It's funny. I send my daughter to a Catholic school even though she and I are not allowed to share in the Lord's meal with her classmates. I've been to Mosques and a Hindu Temples during their ceremonies. I've enjoyed several Seders with Jewish friends. I took part in a Bon Odori dance when I was dating a Japanese girl. I've had long talks with Mennonite neighbors in Missouri about their faith. One of my oldest friends is a psalti for the Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Portland. I've watched Bahai services, Unitarian services, and even took part in a Beltane ceremony when I was trying to impress a Wiccan girl I'd met. And I went to several services at the RLDS (Now Community of Christ) temple in Independence, Missouri with friends. I love seeing the rites and seeing the common themes that run through all of them. I like how someone's eyes light up when they talk about a beautiful service that they experienced, or seeing the change in someone's demeanor. There are only two religious groups that I've ever run across where the people I knew that participated in them weren't happy to tell me about their services, and who got uncomfortable when I asked - the Scientologists and the LDS. And those were the only two that limited access to or detailed knowledge of the most privileged rituals to people who have passed certain requirements - even to people within the faith itself. Ask a Muslim to describe the Hajj if he has ever been on it. Ask a Christian about their baptism or confirmation. Ask a Jewish person about the Seder. Ask them and you'll see a gleam in their eye as they talk about some of the most moving experiences in their lives. They are happy to tell you the details. They want to share that joy with the world. Ask a Scientologist about Xenu, or a Mormon with temple privileges about endowments or sealings or the tokens of the Aaronic or Melchezedek priesthoods and they react in a much different way. I'm not a big fan of groups with exclusionary, secret rituals. I tend to be suspicious of them. The Community of Christ is also based on Joseph Smith's writings. They also believe in what the Book of Mormon, the Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. But they don't hide their rituals from the public - they invite them to join in. They welcome them. When you join, you know exactly what you would need to do to reach the highest levels within the church itself - they don't withhold it as secret information that is only revealed after you've already committed to the group. Bigotry? Perhaps, but I don't feel the same sense of wariness or mistrust toward other religious traditions (including the Community of Christ) that I do towards the LDS and Scientology.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer ecdc, I know the ceremony is harmless. It's the psychology behind keeping it secret that is more concerning to me.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Ask a Scientologist about Xenu, or a Mormon with temple privileges about endowments or sealings or the tokens of the Aaronic or Melchezedek priesthoods and they react in a much different way.>> Hmm... sounds a lot like Skull and Bones at Yale. ;^)
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Now, defining what is or is not a lie gets tricky in politics. It sucks. Everybody does it. EVERYBODY in politics. Doesn't excuse it. Bugs me to death.>> Earlier in the thread, I referenced three blatant lies that Romney is currently spreading about Obama. All of them have been verified as lies by non-partisan sources. Please point out three blatant lies that Obama is spreading right now in his campaign. And you must verify the lies through non-partisan sources. <<But when I'm faced with a choice of Romney and his positions and Obama and his, I know Romney gets my vote.>> What positions of Romney's do you support? What positions of Obama's don't you support? You keep stating that Romney more closely matches what you want to see in government than what Obama wants. Well... what specifically is it? Unless you can come up with specifics, folks are going to keep accusing you of supporting Romney simply because he's part of Team LDS. Personally, I think you support Romney because of the Mormon connection and/or you're in the top 1% like he is. If you're not in the top 1%, then it's definitely the Mormon thing.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Remember Romney's "I've been a lifelong hunter" comment back in the 2008 race? There's a difference between someone who has shot a squirrel once and someone who hunts regularly. That lie was unnecessary. Wouldn't have been enough for Romney simply to say "I support hunters' rights?" Why take it to a laughable extreme and claim to be something he's not. That may seem like a little lie, but it is part of a pattern of saying whatever it takes to get the nomination that is downright creepy to me. And even if people can't put their finger on it, I think it explains why even now Romney remains someone that so many Republicans just don't like. If he hadn't been up against the Klown Kollege of fellow nominees, he'd have been out of it early on. I feel bad in a way for some Republicans, because they're stuck with this guy and have to go through the motions of pretending to be overjoyed with their selection. But I don't believe it for a minute.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < While I don't think anyone expects perfection, it isn't too much to ask a politician to be sure that when he states "I'm ____ and I approve of this message" that the contents of that message are truthful. If they can't do that bare minimum, then they can just stop telling me how Christian they are.> This, this, THIS! Standing O.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox OK, Josh... one of Romney's campaign advisers has now openly admitted that they are lying through their teeth and don't have a problem with it: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/republican-convention-2012_n_1823526.html#62_romney-campaign-we-will-not-be-dictated-by-factcheckers" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...checkers</a> <> Romney Campaign: We Will Not 'Be Dictated By Fact-Checkers' TAMPA, Fla. -- The Romney campaign said on Tuesday that its ads attacking President Obama's waiver policy on welfare have been its most effective to date. And while the spots have been roundly criticized as lacking any factual basis, the campaign said it didn't really care. "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said at a panel organized by ABC News. This is a different standard than the one Romney himself has held up for the election-season ad wars. Reacting to attacks by a pro-Obama super PAC, Romney recently told a radio station that "in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad." The presumptive nominee's top communications hand, Eric Ferhnstrom, was quick to make the case that the two instances were not comparable. "This is a good discussion to have," he said. "We are not accusing the president of being a felon, we are not accusing him of killing somebody." The latter was in referrence to the Priorities USA Action ad that tied the closure of a steel mill by Bain Capital to a woman's death several years later (without her husband's insurance coverage, she couldn't pay for care). "Clearly they are giving states the option to change the welfare-to-work requirement," Ferhnstrom said in reference to the basis for the anti-Obama ad. "We heard from those [Republican] governors [who requested waivers], they said, 'No we don't want to change the work requirement in our states.'" <> The Romney campaign is deliberately lying. This isn't 'tricky' because they openly admit they're lying. Why? Because it's working. They are convincing voters that Obama is bad news BASED ON LIES. Seriously... you need to stop calling yourself a Christian, Josh. Christians, true Christians, don't do this. They don't condone it. They condemn it. Deliberately lying to someone in order to steal their vote on false pretenses is unethical and immoral. I would expect it from someone like Romney. But for you to defend the guy for doing so? You just lost any modicum of respect I had left for you.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers"<< I'll give them this much -- they're being completely honest about their lying now. What a thing for them to say. To them, the electorate is one big Etch-a-Sketch, too stupid to know it.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I, UtahJosh, hereby condemn Mitt Romney for telling lies. <a href="http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/false/" target="_blank">http://www.politifact.com/pers...g/false/</a>
