PDA

View Full Version : Mitt Romney's Faith



Ironduke
21 May 07,, 21:43
With Mitt Romney in the lead -- in fundraising anyways -- does anybody think if nominated his Mormon faith will pose a serious problem to him during an election?

dalem
21 May 07,, 22:20
Aside from the fact that his executive skills and political acumen seem really solid to me, I'm an atheist, so it's all rattle-shaking and sacrificing goats to me. :)

The rest is just details. :)

-dale

FibrillatorD
21 May 07,, 23:18
As a governor, where making budget is priority 1, it seems to have been a non-issue. In fact, his fiscal record seems pretty sound.

But as president, in the 21st century, in the global war on terror, following G-dub, yeah. I can't see him appeasing moderates here or abroad on social or IR issues.

Bigfella
22 May 07,, 00:16
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I am fascinated by the importance of a candidate's religion in American politics. I read a poll recently where a huge majority of people said they wouldn't vote for an athiest. Allow me to offer some facts from my own nation's history as a comparison.

In our 107 years of democracy Australia has had around 20 Prime Ministers (I haven't counted 'caretaker' PMs who served for a matter of days following the death of a leader). I don't actually know the specific religious beliefs of all of Australia's past leaders, but I do know that there have been at least 2 athiests and at least 2 Catholics (and quite probably more). At one point during the 1980s both the PM & opposition leader were athiest/agnostic.

As an aside, we've almost certainly had at least one homosexual PM, though he wasn't 'out'. Ironically he was a conservative .

Australia also has a Governor General. This is the Queen's representitive in Australia, though in reality he is an entirely local figure who is the effective head of state (acting on government advice). he is appointed by the PM of the day. Our first Australian born GG was Jewish. A later GG was an Athiest.

Most people list our greatest PM as WW2 leader John Curtin. Curtin was an athiest, socialist pacifist who was jailed during WW1 for opposing the draft. He was also a former journalist, recovering alcoholic & probably suffered from severe depression. There is no way he would ever have been elected in the US, and sad to say he wouldn't get up in modern Australia.

I think that any society that limits its choice of potential leaders by factors such as religion or gender risks the entrenchment of mediocrity.

GVChamp
22 May 07,, 00:40
I'm an apatheist. No one shares my religious beliefs, so Romney's faith sure isn't a problem.

glyn
22 May 07,, 08:43
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I am fascinated by the importance of a candidate's religion in American politics. I read a poll recently where a huge majority of people said they wouldn't vote for an athiest. Allow me to offer some facts from my own nation's history as a comparison.

In our 107 years of democracy Australia has had around 20 Prime Ministers (I haven't counted 'caretaker' PMs who served for a matter of days following the death of a leader). I don't actually know the specific religious beliefs of all of Australia's past leaders, but I do know that there have been at least 2 athiests and at least 2 Catholics (and quite probably more). At one point during the 1980s both the PM & opposition leader were athiest/agnostic.

As an aside, we've almost certainly had at least one homosexual PM, though he wasn't 'out'. Ironically he was a conservative .

Australia also has a Governor General. This is the Queen's representitive in Australia, though in reality he is an entirely local figure who is the effective head of state (acting on government advice). he is appointed by the PM of the day. Our first Australian born GG was Jewish. A later GG was an Athiest.

Most people list our greatest PM as WW2 leader John Curtin. Curtin was an athiest, socialist pacifist who was jailed during WW1 for opposing the draft. He was also a former journalist, recovering alcoholic & probably suffered from severe depression. There is no way he would ever have been elected in the US, and sad to say he wouldn't get up in modern Australia.

I think that any society that limits its choice of potential leaders by factors such as religion or gender risks the entrenchment of mediocrity.

A superb post, Bigfella. Food for thought here.

Archer
22 May 07,, 09:27
Superb post Bigfella, I second that.

Incidentally, the fundamentalist evangelical protestantism that has entrenched itself in US society causes a huge ripple effect worldwide thanks to their funding power. And as any powerful group, they too seek political power.

yoda9999
22 May 07,, 11:30
I voted Yes, because I think there will be some fundamentalist hardcore Christians, both legitimate ones and the usual UFO nutjob types, who will make a big stink over Romney's Mormonism. And all that noise can get distracting, and the media might have to give time to the fruitcakes. Romney's opponents will probably exploit all that indirectly by promoting how great Christians they have been.

Personally I have absolutely no problem with Romney, and infact, right now, I think he is the best GOP candidate, and unless something else happens, I will probably vote for him. I like Romney. He seems to have a stable family, personal life, and is a successful business leader. I'm Catholic but not religious, and got no problems voting for a Mormon. I have heard that Pat Robertson has had good dealings with Romney. I hope Pat can support Romney, and if he does, that will silence some of the nutjobs out there waiting to exploit Romney's faith.

Debbie
22 May 07,, 14:36
Will a Mormon in the White House Promote Diversity?
By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, New America Media
Posted on May 21, 2007, Printed on May 22, 2007
AlterNet: Will a Mormon in the White House Promote Diversity? (http://www.alternet.org/story/52195/)
Now that Mitt Romney has been certified on the cover of Time Magazine as a bonafide GOP presidential contender he'll be peppered with even more tough questions about his politics and philosophy. He'll also be peppered with questions about his Mormon faith.

One of the questions is would his administration be truly inclusive, namely would he preach and practice diversity. The pithy one line answer that he gave when Jay Leno recently asked him that nagging question won't cut it. He simply said that he believed discrimination is wrong.

It's hard to image a candidate, any candidate running for an office, saying anything else. Romney's record as Massachusetts governor is anything but reassuring on diversity. In fact, when it came to appointing minorities and women to judicial posts his record was atrocious. It took a big pounding by the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association in his last year in office before he made a slew of appointments of minorities and women to the state bench. By then Romney had his eye firmly set on a presidential bid, and that put him in the national public spotlight.

His record on diversity would be closely scrutinized. Romney's successor Deval Patrick, a Democrat, and the state's first African-American governor, strongly hinted in his inaugural address that he would make diversity and inclusion a huge part of his administration. This was a not-so-veiled slap at Romney. (Romney did not attend Patrick's inaugural).

Now with Time's imprimatur, his knack for raising tons of campaign cash, and the race for the GOP presidential nomination still in the early stage, and with leading GOP contenders John McCain's penchant for gaffes and Rudy Guiliani's stumbles on abortion, Romney is poised to be the GOP's go to guy if McCain or Giuliani tumble from the top.

The question of diversity in a Romney White House would nag even more. That also brings in the question about Romney's faith. The Mormons clung tightly to their well-documented, race-tinged dogma for more than a century that blacks were an inferior race, could not be priests, serve on missions or be married in the Temple. Mormons were hardly the only religious group that hid behind the Old Testament curse of Ham as a cover for their blatant racial bigotry. Many evangelical fundamentalists did the same. The Mormons simply held to this racial belief longer and more doggedly than the others, and scrapped it only after church leaders say they got a revelation from God in 1978. That was a decade and a half after the great civil rights battles of the 1960s.

The Mormon leaders claim that they have convincingly junked their racist past, and tout their much-publicized genealogical research on African-American families, their aggressive missions in Africa, and the handful of blacks that serve in the important church body known as the Quorums of the Seventy to proof it. But Mormon leaders have also have rejected calls for the church to apologize for its century plus defense of that past.

Mormon change efforts are certainly commendable, but that doesn't lessen suspicion that the attitudes of rank and file Mormons toward race and gender issues aren't still frozen in time. The inherent social conservatism in the Mormon faith and practices further deepens the suspicion that a Mormon in the White House would hardly be prone to make diversity the watchword of their administration.

Romney himself is a near textbook example of that conservatism. He has aggressively courted the evangelical right, is loudly pro-life, opposes same-sex marriage, proposes big cuts in taxes and government spending, and would pack the Supreme Court with conservatives. He has wrapped himself more snugly in the cloak of Ronald Reagan than the other GOP contenders.

Romney probably wouldn't do what President Bush did and appoint a bevy of high profile African-Americans to top echelon positions. Diversity, of course, was hardly the mantra of the Reagan administration. In opinion polls nearly half of all Americans have an unfavorable view of Mormons. They still see the faith as clannish, cultish, polygamy practicing, and far out of the mainstream of American religious traditions. They are troubled that Romney's faith and conservative politics may be so meshed that a Mormon could not keep church and state matters separate.

Romney bristles at this notion and his backers point to a possible backlash against John F. Kennedy's Catholic faith. It was feared that would derail his White House bid in 1960. That didn't happen because Catholicism is much closer to the religious mainstream than Mormonism is and because Kennedy didn't dodge the issue.

In a speech, early on he put the fears to rest that his faith would not be an issue in his governing. Romney's right that his faith shouldn't be the determining issue in whether he's fit to be president. He was also right when he told Leno that Americans don't pick candidates based on the church they go to but on the values they share.

However, those values more often than not can't be separated from their religious beliefs and in Romney's case it's far from clear that diversity is one of them. And that's a matter of more than faith.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a political analyst and social issues commentator, and the author of the book, The Emerging Black GOP Majority (Middle Passage Press, September 2006), a hard-hitting look at Bush and the GOP's court of black voters.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: AlterNet: Will a Mormon in the White House Promote Diversity? (http://www.alternet.org/story/52195/)

FibrillatorD
22 May 07,, 16:42
Romney bristles at this notion and his backers point to a possible backlash against John F. Kennedy's Catholic faith. It was feared that would derail his White House bid in 1960. That didn't happen because Catholicism is much closer to the religious mainstream than Mormonism is and because Kennedy didn't dodge the issue.

More importantly, Kennedy was socially liberal -NOT characteristic of American Catholicism in 1960.

If Americans pick candidates by the values they share, then where has Romney brought himself closer to mainstream by placing himself at odds with his religion? Romney's popularity extents far beyond the tiny Mormon community. Therefore, where has Romney stepped out of the domain of Mormonism (even if only at the most lunatic points) and into a place which more Americans value?

So far all I see is a Mormon who holds only Mormon values.

dalem
22 May 07,, 20:54
Why is diversity important anyway? Would that FEMA guy Brown have been any less deserving of criticism if he were actually brown? Or female? Or missing an eye, or whatever?

Isn't qualification the important thing?

-dale

FibrillatorD
22 May 07,, 21:46
Why is diversity important anyway? Would that FEMA guy Brown have been any less deserving of criticism if he were actually brown? Or female? Or missing an eye, or whatever?

Isn't qualification the important thing?

-dale

Democracies are supposed to be representative.

How many government positions uniquely discriminate against candidates who are for example, black and from a working class background -significant blocks of society- but are otherwise qualified?

dalem
22 May 07,, 22:49
Democracies are supposed to be representative.

They are supposed to be representative for elected positions, hence the vote. There is neither a prescription nor need for anything like "diversity" for diversity's sake in appointed offices.



How many government positions uniquely discriminate against candidates who are for example, black and from a working class background -significant blocks of society- but are otherwise qualified?

I don't know and I don't care. Do you know? Do you care?

-dale

ArmchairGeneral
22 May 07,, 23:19
Yes, although I don't have a problem with it myself. There will be some who will object, both hardcore religious people and people who just think Mormons are weird. But I don't think it will have a decisive effect.

FibrillatorD
22 May 07,, 23:46
I don't know and I don't care. Do you know? Do you care?

-dale

I don't know. But I can't imagine its many, if any at all.

I'm not advocating quotas. But if you're an elected official who's in a position to appoint, say, 10 people to various positions, then why wouldn't you appoint a mix of persons that roughly resembles the demographic mix of your constituency? especially if let to choose between otherwise-equally qualified candidates?

dalem
23 May 07,, 01:19
I don't know. But I can't imagine its many, if any at all.

I'm not advocating quotas. But if you're an elected official who's in a position to appoint, say, 10 people to various positions, then why wouldn't you appoint a mix of persons that roughly resembles the demographic mix of your constituency? especially if let to choose between otherwise-equally qualified candidates?

If they were all equally-qualified, then sure, why not. But not being a white male is NOT a qualification in my book.

-dale

Parihaka
23 May 07,, 01:34
The primary duty of any manager employing someone, is that given they have the necessary skills, is to decide which candidate best fits the team. Mixing in decisions based on ethnicity goes against the best interests of the employer.

FibrillatorD
23 May 07,, 02:02
The business team analogy doesn't work. In fact it sounds like something the businessman Romney would use; another stretch like the Kennedy comparison.

Democratic government is a whole different cookie.

No doubt Romney could put together a fantastic team of like-mindeds and kick ass in the marketplace. (He's a businessman by trade after all).

Government is not even a direct player in the game (except in certain cases -here in the states at least). If anything, its the rule-maker, the official, and the coaches all in one. Its supposed to derive its authority from a higher standard than strictly self-interested principles and competition.

Economically, government is supposed to balance efficiency with equitability (although the two need not necessarily be at odds).

Businesses aren't democratic. The most efficient ones are often the most dogmatic, even authoritarian, fascist. When that kind of single-mindedness occurs in government, particularly government of large and diverse nations, the output is neither sustainable, representative, or fair. History has proven this over and over.

As I said, his conservative credentials seem better suited for a Governor (capital G), where year after year priority 1 is making budget -NOT, as the head of the game altogether with federal executive powers, on the international stage with the ability to start wars, and appoint Supreme court justices, among everything else. At least not unless he's willing to break from his religion.

Btw, I'd still like to hear about those places where Romney's values break from the Mormon community, and into more mainstream values like Kennedy broke from the conservative Catholic community of the 60s.

I know we're not a Mormon nation!

Parihaka
23 May 07,, 02:09
The business team analogy doesn't work. Sorry
Not in your head, no. Ever employed anyone?

LibertyBelle
23 May 07,, 06:59
It's only his liberalism and flip flopping on conservative issues that bothers me...

dalem
23 May 07,, 08:06
It's only his liberalism and flip flopping on conservative issues that bothers me...

Which specfic points?

-dale

JAD_333
05 Jun 07,, 05:01
With Mitt Romney in the lead -- in fundraising anyways -- does anybody think if nominated his Mormon faith will pose a serious problem to him during an election?

That's a tough call. It's not the same as John Kennedy fighting the bias against Catholics. That had been a legacy of British protestanism. Romney's problem is that mainstream Christians and Jews of all stripes are somewhat bemused by the unusual origins of the Mormon church. Silver plates found in a field; the angel Gabriel's role; the thing about the Lamenites. Fantastic. It's really no worse than claims made by other churches; just more recent and therefore more easily dismissed. If Romney can put himself over as a regular guy not controlled by the Salt Lake elders, he might stand a chance against a weak democratic candidate, but in a tight race with a strong opponent he'll lose points because of his religion. BTW, I worked for a Mormon, a women who once served as Secty of State for Utah. One of the best bosses I ever had and a great, caring lady. I will have no hesitation voting for Romney if he is the GOP candidate. I'm pulling for McCain in the meantime.

dalem
05 Jun 07,, 05:26
I'm pulling for McCain in the meantime.

Lord McCain's campaign is dead-dead-dead. He done killed it with his fiendish immigration thingie.

-dale

chankya
05 Jun 07,, 08:53
Government represents people. Businesses do not.

As such diversity in Government is helpful for two reasons: 1. To prevent group think. 2. To ensure that in the corridors of power there are people of all hues to provide different sides to an argument that matters to them. The two are close but not the same.

While not necessary it does make for better government.

JAD_333
05 Jun 07,, 17:12
Lord McCain's campaign is dead-dead-dead. He done killed it with his fiendish immigration thingie.

-dale

lol...what a little punctuation or lack of it will do...Lord McCain! Aye, a Scottish nobleman on yet another futile mission. I like the Scottish. True to their beliefs and lots of grit. What we need is a good man to lead us, not the creation of a handful of campaign consultants. I'll go down with the ship.:biggrin: So, what do we do about immigration, or do you mean illegal immigrants?

dalem
05 Jun 07,, 18:15
lol...what a little punctuation or lack of it will do...Lord McCain! Aye, a Scottish nobleman on yet another futile mission. I like the Scottish. True to their beliefs and lots of grit. What we need is a good man to lead us, not the creation of a handful of campaign consultants. I'll go down with the ship.:biggrin: So, what do we do about immigration, or do you mean illegal immigrants?

Immigration? I dealt with that a bit in the immigration thread. It doesn't incite my passions.

-dale

JAD_333
05 Jun 07,, 23:51
Immigration? I dealt with that a bit in the immigration thread. It doesn't incite my passions.

-dale

Right now if you're a Republican, immigration is one of those hot button issues you want dominating the news to shift some attention away from Iraq. Not that it isn't a major issue in its own right.

JAD_333
05 Jun 07,, 23:54
Government represents people. Businesses do not.

As such diversity in Government is helpful for two reasons: 1. To prevent group think. 2. To ensure that in the corridors of power there are people of all hues to provide different sides to an argument that matters to them. The two are close but not the same.

While not necessary it does make for better government.

Ever notice that France is governed more by engineers than by lawyers? Their rail system is second to none. Here we have Amtrak, an abomination crafted by lawyer politicians.

dalem
06 Jun 07,, 06:51
Right now if you're a Republican, immigration is one of those hot button issues you want dominating the news to shift some attention away from Iraq. Not that it isn't a major issue in its own right.

What does this mean? I'm not a Republican although they serve my needs these days.

-dale

FibrillatorD
06 Jun 07,, 09:56
Ever notice that France is governed more by engineers than by lawyers? Their rail system is second to none. Here we have Amtrak, an abomination crafted by lawyer politicians.

What are you saying? That the US would have a better rail system if we elected train engineers?

The diversity of government talked about was for an administrative kind of level. Not a contracted level.

chankya
06 Jun 07,, 19:21
Ever notice that France is governed more by engineers than by lawyers? Their rail system is second to none. Here we have Amtrak, an abomination crafted by lawyer politicians.

Yes, Amtrak is an abomination. I tried it once for the sake of it and it took me 12 hrs to get from Dallas to Austin. In fact the train left Ft. Worth 6 hrs after I boarded in Dallas.

Still the government is about administration in general and not just about running trains. You could as easily argue that the US does not have the kind of violent assimilation problems that France does because the US does not have a color blind system. (I say color blind but I mean it applied to the widest swath of differences)

Once again the members of WAB demonstrate a keen ability to move away from the original topic of discussion (Romney.):biggrin:

JAD_333
07 Jun 07,, 04:22
I'm not a Republican although they serve my needs these days.

-dale

What does that mean?:)

JAD_333
07 Jun 07,, 04:25
Once again the members of WAB demonstrate a keen ability to move away from the original topic of discussion (Romney.):biggrin:

Who's he? :biggrin:

dalem
07 Jun 07,, 07:48
What does that mean?:)

The Republican Party supports more things that I agree with than the Dems. So though I am registered as an Independent I have voted R the last couple of elections. Before that I voted D, and I may again someday, if they can ever get their heads out of their butts and kick loose the nutty Leftburgers.

-dale

JAD_333
07 Jun 07,, 22:47
ok, I get it. You're a thinking man.

chankya
07 Jun 07,, 23:49
Who's he? :biggrin:

The guy who wants to nuke Iran.:biggrin:

dalem
08 Jun 07,, 04:00
ok, I get it. You're a thinking man.

Most days. :)

-dale

JAD_333
08 Jun 07,, 16:12
Most days. :)

-dale

Ok, what do you think this means "God smiles down on those who follow his commands."
No jokes now; be serious. :)

glyn
08 Jun 07,, 18:45
[QUOTE=JAD_333;380250]Ok, what do you think this means "God smiles down on those who follow his commands."

Who says so?

JAD_333
08 Jun 07,, 20:26
[QUOTE=JAD_333;380250]Ok, what do you think this means "God smiles down on those who follow his commands."

Who says so?

Was I talking to you?:) Lot's of people say it. You've never heard the saying?

Wooglin
08 Jun 07,, 21:02
Government represents people. Businesses do not.

As such diversity in Government is helpful for two reasons: 1. To prevent group think. 2. To ensure that in the corridors of power there are people of all hues to provide different sides to an argument that matters to them. The two are close but not the same.

While not necessary it does make for better government.

Both reasons make the assumption that the color of your skin determines how your brain works. So basically your argument is to categorize and qualify people by the color of their skin to prevent group think. That's beyond irony.

dalem
08 Jun 07,, 21:37
Ok, what do you think this means "God smiles down on those who follow his commands."
No jokes now; be serious. :)

I don't think I follow you. I know what the phrase means but it doesn't hold for me, if that's what you mean.

-dale

FibrillatorD
08 Jun 07,, 21:56
Both reasons make the assumption that the color of your skin determines how your brain works. So basically your argument is to categorize and qualify people by the color of their skin to prevent group think. That's beyond irony.

Not at all.

But we do assume that, in America, skin color is a strong indication of a general sub-culture that a person's born into and influenced by, and whose members not only deserve representation, but in certain cases may be able to offer unique perspectives based on their unique cultural upbringing, and additionally, help check against group think.

chankya
08 Jun 07,, 22:29
Both reasons make the assumption that the color of your skin determines how your brain works. So basically your argument is to categorize and qualify people by the color of their skin to prevent group think. That's beyond irony.

Nope. My argument goes that people of different color, faiths and gender come from different backgrounds and therefore have different perspectives.

Edit: I didn't see FibrillatorD's comment above. He put it a lot better I think.

glyn
08 Jun 07,, 22:40
[QUOTE=glyn;380282]

Was I talking to you?:) Lot's of people say it. You've never heard the saying?

I'm afraid not, my old darling:) Sorry.

Wooglin
09 Jun 07,, 00:49
Not at all.

But we do assume that, in America, skin color is a strong indication of a general sub-culture that a person's born into and influenced by, and whose members not only deserve representation, but in certain cases may be able to offer unique perspectives based on their unique cultural upbringing, and additionally, help check against group think.

No. You assume that. I don't equate Colin Powell to Al Sharpton because they share the same skin color. Your line of thinking only serves to perpetuate that which you think you're remedying.

dalem
09 Jun 07,, 02:17
Not at all.

But we do assume that, in America, skin color is a strong indication of a general sub-culture that a person's born into and influenced by, and whose members not only deserve representation, but in certain cases may be able to offer unique perspectives based on their unique cultural upbringing, and additionally, help check against group think.

YOU may think that, but many of us do not.

-dale

chankya
09 Jun 07,, 02:20
YOU may think that, but many of us do not.

-dale

So your assumption is that everyone can see everyone else's point of view?

You would think that the last five-six posts alone would indicate the variance in views that are present in he general population.

dalem
09 Jun 07,, 02:30
So your assumption is that everyone can see everyone else's point of view?

You would think that the last five-six posts alone would indicate the variance in views that are present in he general population.

Hmmm? I'm not claiming I can put myself in all other peoples' shoes, but I am claiming that no one ethnic or socio-economic group deserves to be treated differently from any other one.

-dale

chankya
09 Jun 07,, 02:42
Hmmm? I'm not claiming I can put myself in all other peoples' shoes, but I am claiming that no one ethnic or socio-economic group deserves to be treated differently from any other one.

-dale

Will you admit the different ethnic groups(Edit: any large distinct groups by religion even) do however live through different experiences? That they see things differently? That while you might see a cop car and not care, in another street that might just be pause to wonder which neighbor they were after this time? While not the best example, given segregated neighborhoods its a fair example of variance in perception of state power.

dalem
09 Jun 07,, 02:55
Will you admit the different ethnic groups(Edit: any large distinct groups by religion even) do however live through different experiences? That they see things differently? That while you might see a cop car and not care, in another street that might just be pause to wonder which neighbor they were after this time? While not the best example, given segregated neighborhoods its a fair example of variance in perception of state power.

Sure, but I don't care what people have lived through, I care what standards they are expected to meet.

-dale

chankya
09 Jun 07,, 03:54
Sure, but I don't care what people have lived through, I care what standards they are expected to meet.

-dale

A government is not a corporation. It makes policies that affect everyone... people who continue to live in very different circumstances and have different perspectives on a policy or act.

Will it potentially make government more inefficient? Possibly, but I'd rather live in a country where everyone (Even that minority 4%) is treated as equally as possible than 90% get an uber-efficient govt. and the views of the 10% go ignored. The distinction is that I don't care so much about color-blind fairness (again applied to a broader spectrum) in government as I do about fairness in the treatment of the citizenry.

Wooglin
09 Jun 07,, 04:48
A government is not a corporation. It makes policies that affect everyone... people who continue to live in very different circumstances and have different perspectives on a policy or act.

Will it potentially make government more inefficient? Possibly, but I'd rather live in a country where everyone (Even that minority 4%) is treated as equally as possible than 90% get an uber-efficient govt. and the views of the 10% go ignored. The distinction is that I don't care so much about color-blind fairness (again applied to a broader spectrum) in government as I do about fairness in the treatment of the citizenry.

The only way to achieve the fairness you desire is to judge people as individuals instead of qualifying them based on groups, and the preconceived perceptions of such. Lose the group mentality. "Diversity" practices that qualify people based on some group identity uses the same group mentality as the racist does.

dalem
09 Jun 07,, 06:02
A government is not a corporation. It makes policies that affect everyone... people who continue to live in very different circumstances and have different perspectives on a policy or act.

Will it potentially make government more inefficient? Possibly, but I'd rather live in a country where everyone (Even that minority 4%) is treated as equally as possible than 90% get an uber-efficient govt. and the views of the 10% go ignored. The distinction is that I don't care so much about color-blind fairness (again applied to a broader spectrum) in government as I do about fairness in the treatment of the citizenry.

A society has standards. A government has laws. There should be no law preventing you from devoting your time and money to addressing the needs of particular groups of people, and there should be no law requiring you to do it.

A society's standards should (hopefully) expect you to want to help somebody, but should require you to only not hurt somebody.

Here endeth the Lesson. ;)

-dale

chankya
09 Jun 07,, 06:16
A society has standards. A government has laws. There should be no law preventing you from devoting your time and money to addressing the needs of particular groups of people, and there should be no law requiring you to do it.

A society's standards should (hopefully) expect you to want to help somebody, but should require you to only not hurt somebody.

Here endeth the Lesson. ;)

-dale

Well then you took the wrong course because you're missing the point.

A govenrment makes policy for everyone. Policy doesn't neccesarily have to do with helping people. It can be as mundane as housing regulations.

dalem
10 Jun 07,, 20:01
Well then you took the wrong course because you're missing the point.

A govenrment makes policy for everyone. Policy doesn't neccesarily have to do with helping people. It can be as mundane as housing regulations.

I suspect we're both driving around the point here. In my opinion, you think the concept of ethnic diversity has inherent value and that certain groups need more or less attention than other groups to be treated equally.

On the other hand, I don't even think we should be going out of our way to enforce equality, and I don't really care about anyone's ethnicity, so ethnic diversity has no value for me. In fact, I think "diversity" in its social engineering sense is an inherently harmful concept.

-dale

FibrillatorD
11 Jun 07,, 02:23
No. You assume that. I don't equate Colin Powell to Al Sharpton because they share the same skin color. Your line of thinking only serves to perpetuate that which you think you're remedying.

I see what you mean, and you're right. I'm not sure how we got off on race, because there's definitely more to diversity than skin color. Although, I maintain, skin color is usually pretty indicative of a pretty specific sub-cultural experience. One needs only to spend enough time with enough 1st-generation African immigrants, enough time with enough "African-Americans" -black people-, or to witness the many different flavors of American art in order to appreciate the impact of American subcultures on group approaches to things.

Still, I don't like quotas. In practice they've been both inflammatory and in many cases, patently un-diversifying.

But let's examine the hypothetical Romney administration, where only the most "qualified" individuals are appointed to various cabinet, district court, and ambassador positions.

What would this mean? For starters, "Qualified" is hardly an objective term, as witnessed most vividly by the Bush administration Supreme Court nomination proceedings.

Secondly, Romney's a Mormon. And I maintain my request for someone to explain where Romney has demonstrated a sincere, definitive willingness to break from Mormon fundamentals. (For example, has he made so modest a concession as to concede that maybe the US is not the new Zion? Would he never base social policy on the Mormon "plan of salvation" wherein all persons have a pre-mortal existence? Does he even admit that prancing around and knocking on neighborhood doors at all hours of the day like some pretentious carpet-bagging insurance salesman selling his religion to otherwise intelligent and satisfied individuals is, well, rude?

So far, I haven't seen, read, or heard him openly and plainly reject these or any other Mormon beliefs which are similarly OUT OF LINE with the rest of America. As such, I must assume that such beliefs would influence presidential decision-making.

Furthermore, if President Romney were to appoint white like-minded conservative evangelical door knocking-type men to such high-level positions, men whose philosophies wavered little from that of their Mormon "boss," then surely, Dale, you don't see this as a good thing for America? (Imagine someone like this officiating the Palestinian issue. How about Iran? Imagine the evangelical possibilities with regards to the immigration issue! Internet freedoms? Intellectual property rights? Abortion? Censorship?)

Hell, its written right into (http://www.jefflindsay.com/art_faith.html) the "Articles of Faith" that a Mormon is religiously-bound to subject himself to the will of the state.

Well, what if the statehead is a Mormon?

AceofproZ
13 Jul 07,, 11:06
I dont think Mitt's Mormon religion has anything to do with how he will fare in the run up to 08, but he doesnt seem to have that socio liberal views that someone like rudy giuliani would have. With the GOP pretty much divided itself, and alot of democrats, this is not a good thing to have for 08.

FibrillatorD
28 Jul 07,, 04:27
I dont think Mitt's Mormon religion has anything to do with how he will fare in the run up to 08, but he doesnt seem to have that socio liberal views that someone like rudy giuliani would have. With the GOP pretty much divided itself, and alot of democrats, this is not a good thing to have for 08.

Social liberalism is sooo '06, man. At this point it seems the '08 candidate will be chosen on foreign policy, healthcare and social security plans, economic promises, and quality campaign strategizing.

The question should not be how Mitt will fare, but whether his religion skews his approach to things. And, if so, whether or not this bias should qualify or disqualify his candidacy.

I for one am not inclined to elect someone whose values are so far out of line with mainstream America. I disagree with lots of the usual conservative principles, but I can accept that they're pretty representative of a nation that's pretty conservative. But where Mormonism is concerned, I think its fair to give Mitt the chance to comment on some of the more extreme Mormon principles, and go from there. (afaik, this hasn't happened).

Also, Giuliani has indicated more than once recently that he will appoint judicial candidates that toe the line on precedent - a tacit acknowledgment of the pro-life & anti-gay rights agenda, and a political maneuver meant to ditch the "liberal Republican" vibe felt by some on the right-wing.

ArmchairGeneral
28 Jul 07,, 05:16
I for one am not inclined to elect someone whose values are so far out of line with mainstream America. I disagree with lots of the usual conservative principles, but I can accept that they're pretty representative of a nation that's pretty conservative. But where Mormonism is concerned, I think its fair to give Mitt the chance to comment on some of the more extreme Mormon principles, and go from there. (afaik, this hasn't happened).

Ahh, but you assume that there is a mainstream America. I'm not so sure. And I'm not so sure that the Mormons are very far out of the norm. As the fastest growing religion in the world, it seems like they have a lot of appeal. What, exactly, is extreme about Mormon beliefs? Door to door evangelizing? Not exactly confined to Mormons, and not exactly a defining trait for a president. I really don't think the Mormons' political positions are far out of line with most conservative Christians.


Also, Giuliani has indicated more than once recently that he will appoint judicial candidates that toe the line on precedent - a tacit acknowledgment of the pro-life & anti-gay rights agenda, and a political maneuver meant to ditch the "liberal Republican" vibe felt by some on the right-wing.

Giuliani's statements on the judiciary are one of his weakest points for conservatives. Toeing the line on precedent is worthless if the precedent is wrong. I really think the liberal Republican tag is there to stay, because, well, that's what he is.

Stan187
08 Aug 07,, 08:09
For example, has he made so modest a concession as to concede that maybe the US is not the new Zion?

Imagine someone like this officiating the Palestinian issue.

I can imagine it. He'd tell the Israelis and Palestinians to get over themselves, because America is the real Holy Land, and that they are just fighting over worthless desert.

Then, because he lives in the new Zion, he would call himself the real Zionist.

Then the Israelis and Palestinians would both come to the US. The former to establish "settlements", the latter to wage a campaign of "resistance" against infidel occupiers.

FibrillatorD
08 Aug 07,, 23:32
I can imagine it. He'd tell the Israelis and Palestinians to get over themselves, because America is the real Holy Land, and that they are just fighting over worthless desert.

Then, because he lives in the new Zion, he would call himself the real Zionist.

Then the Israelis and Palestinians would both come to the US. The former to establish "settlements", the latter to wage a campaign of "resistance" against infidel occupiers.

All that cynicism makes me twitch.

AmosGraber
13 Aug 07,, 09:13
A central theme to this thread seems to be if a candidate’s personal belief are an important consideration for the office of the presidency. The question becomes more important if candidate’s beliefs are perceived from the public as being extreme. I am a history major with a minor in religious studies. Most people who seem to not have a problem with Romney's Mormon faith, at the same time do not know anything about the Mormon doctrine. Mormon history compared to what is accepted as academic history is quite different. Although I do not wish to go into details, for that information can easily be found with a quick google search. What is bothersome to me as an historian is: Having a president who believes in a false religious based history, will that lead him to make decisions based on that false religious based history.
For instance, the Mormon trail is used as a bragging point with most Mormons of how they were able to help settle the west, and how kind the Mormons were to non-Mormons using the trail. This is taught at BYU. The actually history documented by diaries, biographies and other research shows that Mormons manning the river crossings would charge exceedingly high tolls to non-Mormons along the trail. And if a settler could not pay the price of the toll they would have to cross somewhere else and many times this would be just down river from the toll ferry or crossings, this resulted in many documented deaths by drowning when the settlers tried to cross. The Mormons to this day deny this, and go further to believe it is a plot to discredit the church. I for one personal have no bothersome feelings towards anyone’s faith of any kind, but most religions will tolerate some form of dissent, when a faith tolerates no dissent it resembles more of a form of a cult. One amazing thing Romney has been able to do is to rally the evangelical Christian vote to his side, as a religious studies student I would be curious if they would still support him if they knew that latter-day saints do not describe themselves as Christians, in fact they believe it is sinful. Their reasoning being no one is Christ-like. Mormons view all non Mormons as gentiles of need of conversion. They believe they are protected from the evils of the gentiles by wearing sacred undergarments, which are just t-shirts and underwear wish are given to them at temple. So in conclusion it does bother me we might have a president who believes his underwear will protect him from evil.

FibrillatorD
14 Aug 07,, 09:12
A central theme to this thread seems to be if a candidate’s personal belief are an important consideration for the office of the presidency. The question becomes more important if candidate’s beliefs are perceived from the public as being extreme. I am a history major with a minor in religious studies. Most people who seem to not have a problem with Romney's Mormon faith, at the same time do not know anything about the Mormon doctrine. Mormon history compared to what is accepted as academic history is quite different. Although I do not wish to go into details, for that information can easily be found with a quick google search. What is bothersome to me as an historian is: Having a president who believes in a false religious based history, will that lead him to make decisions based on that false religious based history.
For instance, the Mormon trail is used as a bragging point with most Mormons of how they were able to help settle the west, and how kind the Mormons were to non-Mormons using the trail. This is taught at BYU. The actually history documented by diaries, biographies and other research shows that Mormons manning the river crossings would charge exceedingly high tolls to non-Mormons along the trail. And if a settler could not pay the price of the toll they would have to cross somewhere else and many times this would be just down river from the toll ferry or crossings, this resulted in many documented deaths by drowning when the settlers tried to cross. The Mormons to this day deny this, and go further to believe it is a plot to discredit the church. I for one personal have no bothersome feelings towards anyone’s faith of any kind, but most religions will tolerate some form of dissent, when a faith tolerates no dissent it resembles more of a form of a cult. One amazing thing Romney has been able to do is to rally the evangelical Christian vote to his side, as a religious studies student I would be curious if they would still support him if they knew that latter-day saints do not describe themselves as Christians, in fact they believe it is sinful. Their reasoning being no one is Christ-like. Mormons view all non Mormons as gentiles of need of conversion. They believe they are protected from the evils of the gentiles by wearing sacred undergarments, which are just t-shirts and underwear wish are given to them at temple. So in conclusion it does bother me we might have a president who believes his underwear will protect him from evil.

I wouldn't hold Romney accountable for the behavior of the Mormon trailers. What's particularly unique about Mormonism is its intentional binding of the church with America as a state. Its central tenets command what amounts to religious obedience to the state. The last thing the Israeli situation needs is an America that pushes a unique, third opinion about the claims to Zion. Of course, Dems will still own the House and probably the Senate - with Al Franken representing MN. That's how democratic the Congress is going to be, regardless of president. So I wonder if particular domestic issues (Supreme Court Justice nominees) will be affected. It would be a miracle if a Romney presidency - Democratic-dominated Congress produced any immigration reform at all in four years.

Now a Ron Paul - Liberal Congress could push through civil legislation (gay rights, gun rights, states rights), maybe even agree on a Supreme Court nominee - on the important issues that harmonize liberals and libertarians. :frown:

Julie
14 Aug 07,, 17:45
Elected in 2002, Governor Romney presided over a dramatic reversal of state fortunes and a period of sustained economic expansion. Without raising taxes or increasing debt, Governor Romney balanced the budget every year of his administration, closing a nearly $3 billion budget gap inherited when he took office. By eliminating waste, streamlining the government, and enacting comprehensive economic reforms to stimulate growth in Massachusetts, Romney got the economy moving again and transformed deficits into surpluses.

At the beginning of Governor Romney's term, Massachusetts was losing thousands of jobs every month. By the time he left office, the unemployment rate was lower, hundreds of companies had expanded or moved to Massachusetts and the state had added approximately 60,000 jobs from the low point of the recession.

One of Governor Romney's top priorities was reforming the education system so that young people could compete for good paying jobs in the global economy of the future. In 2004, Governor Romney established the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Program to reward the top 25 percent of Massachusetts high school students with a four-year, tuition-free scholarship to any Massachusetts public university or college. He has also championed a package of education reforms, including merit pay, an emphasis on math and science instruction, important new intervention programs for failing schools and English immersion for foreign-speaking students.

In 2006, Governor Romney proposed and signed into law a private, market-based reform that ensures every Massachusetts citizen will have health insurance, without a government takeover and without raising taxes.

Governor Romney was elected to the Chairmanship of the Republican Governors Association by his fellow Governors for the 2006 election cycle, and raised a record $27 million for candidates running in State House contests around the country.

Romney first gained national recognition for his role in turning around the 2002 Winter Olympics. With the 2002 Games mired in controversy and facing a financial crisis, Romney left behind a successful career as an entrepreneur to take over as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee.
__________________________________

With the above said, I don't see where Romney's faith has hindered him at all. He has a good record, and very qualified. I would vote for him and I am a Christian Democrat.

FibrillatorD
14 Aug 07,, 21:53
Elected in 2002, Governor Romney presided over a dramatic reversal of state fortunes and a period of sustained economic expansion. Without raising taxes or increasing debt, Governor Romney balanced the budget every year of his administration, closing a nearly $3 billion budget gap inherited when he took office. By eliminating waste, streamlining the government, and enacting comprehensive economic reforms to stimulate growth in Massachusetts, Romney got the economy moving again and transformed deficits into surpluses.

At the beginning of Governor Romney's term, Massachusetts was losing thousands of jobs every month. By the time he left office, the unemployment rate was lower, hundreds of companies had expanded or moved to Massachusetts and the state had added approximately 60,000 jobs from the low point of the recession.

One of Governor Romney's top priorities was reforming the education system so that young people could compete for good paying jobs in the global economy of the future. In 2004, Governor Romney established the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Program to reward the top 25 percent of Massachusetts high school students with a four-year, tuition-free scholarship to any Massachusetts public university or college. He has also championed a package of education reforms, including merit pay, an emphasis on math and science instruction, important new intervention programs for failing schools and English immersion for foreign-speaking students.

In 2006, Governor Romney proposed and signed into law a private, market-based reform that ensures every Massachusetts citizen will have health insurance, without a government takeover and without raising taxes.

Governor Romney was elected to the Chairmanship of the Republican Governors Association by his fellow Governors for the 2006 election cycle, and raised a record $27 million for candidates running in State House contests around the country.

Romney first gained national recognition for his role in turning around the 2002 Winter Olympics. With the 2002 Games mired in controversy and facing a financial crisis, Romney left behind a successful career as an entrepreneur to take over as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee.
__________________________________

With the above said, I don't see where Romney's faith has hindered him at all. He has a good record, and very qualified. I would vote for him and I am a Christian Democrat.
The "look at my record" argument flies further when you're talking about a Senator or Congressman running for the prez than a governor. Still, I'll take Mitt as his word, which so far hasn't included any mention of the more dubious Mormon fundamentals (unless someone has finally discovered one...) and has included a preposterous likening of Barack Obama with Osama bin Laden.

He might be good with a checkbook, but I don't see how his record in MA necessarily qualifies him to, for example, coach Iraq to some kind of peace or appoint federal judges. Romney's penchant for double-talking, and Mormonism's devotion to the state are two immediate causes for question, I think. Maybe the guy's well-grounded in reality, maybe he rigidly adheres to Mormonism. The vacuum of commentary by Mitt about his faith does not make it safe to conclude that Mitt is fit to be president of a people that doesn't share some of his religion's most essential values.

From The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (http://lds.org)


9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Joseph Smith

What a mandate! Not only would number 12 be a wash, but as a Mormon (and an American) his privileged right to worship according to his own conscience would certainly spill into number 10 in the State Department and Defense (and every other department for that matter). Which is to be expected. But what religious-person presumes himself to be morally-infallible as commander-in-chief except a Mormon?

Stan187
15 Aug 07,, 05:12
He might be good with a checkbook, but I don't see how his record in MA necessarily qualifies him to, for example, coach Iraq to some kind of peace or appoint federal judges.

How does say, Obama, stack up to coach Iraq, in your opinion?

Julie
15 Aug 07,, 13:37
Oh please, there is going to be so much work to do in Jan. 2009, religion will be the FARTHEST from anyone's mind. The first term will be nothing but a juggling act, and no room for error in dropping the ball.

What Americans WANT (their views), and what Americans will NEED, the gap will be far.

The very first thing we WILL need is someone that is VERY good with a checkbook. Mitt has plenty of money, so his pursing policy based upon how much money he can line his pockets with will be moot, which will be a good thing.

I'm not trying to take up for Romney, heck I'm a Democrat, but Romney seems to be the shiner among the Republican candidates as to the situation of our country at this moment.

Stan187
15 Aug 07,, 21:14
The very first thing we WILL need is someone that is VERY good with a checkbook. Mitt has plenty of money, so his pursing policy based upon how much money he can line his pockets with will be moot, which will be a good thing.

Come again? You will excuse me I'm somehow not understanding or misinterpreting your logic here..

FibrillatorD
15 Aug 07,, 21:42
How does say, Obama, stack up to coach Iraq, in your opinion?

I don't see what Obama has to do with Mitt or his record in MA.

Have you seen John Edwards answer to dems at the Yearly Kos about his views on gay rights? John's a Methodist, and by these religious beliefs he derives anti-gay marriage political beliefs. He's been questioned about this already, and he answered the questions.

Why hasn't Mitt? about... say, foreign policy (specifically, Palestine/Zion?) Actually, why hasn't he been questioned by Repubs in the first place? I mean, if Mitt were a Muslim or a Jew, would you not be concerned about how his faith could influence U.S. policy in the ME?

Stan187
15 Aug 07,, 21:57
I don't see what Obama has to do with Mitt or his record in MA.

Have you seen John Edwards answer to dems at the Yearly Kos about his views on gay rights? John's a Methodist, and by these religious beliefs he derives anti-gay marriage political beliefs. He's been questioned about this already, and he answered the questions.

Why hasn't Mitt? about... say, foreign policy (specifically, Palestine/Zion?) Actually, why hasn't he been questioned by Repubs in the first place? I mean, if Mitt were a Muslim or a Jew, would you not be concerned about how his faith could influence U.S. policy in the ME?

Being sworn in as president makes you (if were not already) committed to the American nation and its interests first, and everything else second. If your faith conflict with America's interests, you best put your faith on the backburner when it comes to decision-making.

Julie
15 Aug 07,, 23:15
Come again? You will excuse me I'm somehow not understanding or misinterpreting your logic here..You know, like buying GE shares/pharmaceutical shares and sitting in on energy meetings and medicare issues; being a vietnam war dodger, but pushing for war; having no college degree but having a high level political position. That's the kind of incompetent mess that's got America the tattered shape that it's in.

I don't forsee Romney being that type of person in his biography.

dalem
15 Aug 07,, 23:23
That's the kind of incompetent mess that's got America the tattered shape that it's in.


Tattered shape? A powerful, driving economy, supreme military, haven and wellspring for the arts, sciences, and freedom of expression; a transparent political process, and as Bluesman rightly points out, host to an endless line of people willing to risk everything, even death, to come here.

Tattered indeed.

-dale

Julie
16 Aug 07,, 01:14
Tattered shape? A powerful, driving economy, supreme military, haven and wellspring for the arts, sciences, and freedom of expression; a transparent political process, and as Bluesman rightly points out, host to an endless line of people willing to risk everything, even death, to come here.

Tattered indeed.

-daleThere is much more room for improvement. :)

JAD_333
16 Aug 07,, 02:22
I'll take this tattered country over any other, as I am sure the Canadians, Brits, Aussis, Turks, Estonians, Chinese and other nationalities here would their country...and that includes Californians.:biggrin:

JAD_333
16 Aug 07,, 02:24
There is much more room for improvement. :)

There is and always will be. And we all have to get on with it, dems, GOP, independents, and Harley owners.

FibrillatorD
16 Aug 07,, 04:32
Being sworn in as president makes you (if were not already) committed to the American nation and its interests first, and everything else second. If your faith conflict with America's interests, you best put your faith on the backburner when it comes to decision-making.

Amen, brother.

Stan187
16 Aug 07,, 20:01
There is much more room for improvement. :)

My point was, Julie, that you said Romney won't be worrisome in the checkbook respect because he already has money. My implicit answer, and question, was that so does every other president and presidential candidate.

And trust me, as Dale pointed out, there is still no shortage of people wanting to come here, and that is a very good indicator of how we are doing. I can assure you that my immigrant family's American flag is flying high and mighty, not a slight bit tattered. ;)

AmosGraber
21 Aug 07,, 07:37
The extreme irony with Romney is if elected he would become the first non-christian in the white house, and the irony is he would be elected by an overwhelming support of the Christian right, who seem to be oblivious to the fact Mormons do not profess to be Christian.

JAD_333
21 Aug 07,, 17:20
The extreme irony with Romney is if elected he would become the first non-christian in the white house, and the irony is he would be elected by an overwhelming support of the Christian right, who seem to be oblivious to the fact Mormons do not profess to be Christian.


false: to quote Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon religion, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:

"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it" (TPJS, p. 121).

AmosGraber
22 Aug 07,, 05:47
That is the standard Mormon missionary answer also, when a Mormon is asked if they are a Christian, they are coached to quote exactly that. That might identify a spiritual connection to Jesus. However, Islam claims the same, (for their believe in Christ as a great prophet and the virgin birth of Mary) But why do Mormons have such a problem with the question of Are you a Christian? Yes or no...It is not complicated. This country has a right to know if Romney is a Christian or not; for if no then he would be the first non-Christian in the white house.

JAD_333
22 Aug 07,, 06:18
That is the standard Mormon missionary answer also, when a Mormon is asked if they are a Christian, they are coached to quote exactly that. That might identify a spiritual connection to Jesus. However, Islam claims the same, (for their believe in Christ as a great prophet and the virgin birth of Mary) But why do Mormons have such a problem with the question of Are you a Christian?

Amos:

If a Mormon says he's a Christian, I have no problem with that. If a Muslim says he's a Christian, I wouldn't believe him, and I strongly doubt a practicing Muslim would make such a claim.


Yes or no...It is not complicated. This country has a right to know if Romney is a Christian or not; for if no then he would be the first non-Christian in the white house

I have to be honest with you, Amos; all I care about is that he's a loyal, law abiding American with a good dose in him of courage, intelligence, and humanity, and of course that he likes babies and dogs. :biggrin: Whether he's a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist or atheist doesn't matter a whit to me, as long as doesn't push his religious beliefs down my throat. Seeing as how the Tzars of Russia were Christians and exiled million of people to Siberia without trials, I don't see how being a Christian guarantees anything.

You seem to have an axe to grind with Romney or Mormons in general. Instead of beating around the bush, come right out with it. What's your beef?

AmosGraber
22 Aug 07,, 07:15
I am a junior at Indiana University working on a history degree with minor in religious studies. I also have no problem with a Mormon saying he is a Christian. The core to the exploration with this question, "Are you a Christian?", when posed to Mormons they never answer yes; it is always followed by Romney's answer in the debates (I believe in God, believe in the Bible, and believe Jesus Christ is my Savior.) Or by the quotation of one of Smith's precepts. After listening to Romney's answer, I asked the local Mormon missionaries who refused to ever answer yes; instead, it seemed as some rather dodge answer. In addition, I agree the most important qualities of a candidate should be courage, intelligence and humanity. These qualities (maybe it’s my religious studies curiosities) can be best explored by examining the faith one proclaims to have. And in this instance it seems to be a common held core value of the creed of Mormonism to embrace Christ, without describing themselves or accepting the label of "Christian", and even if this is the case I can respect that belief, but that would take me back to the first point I was making, "Romney will be the first non-Christian elected to the Whitehouse by mainly a strong Christian right electorate, which must spur the historian side of me.