Ship of Fools: Why is Mitt Romney's religion a non-issue?

Thread: Why is Mitt Romney's religion a non-issue? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022999

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

People with longer memories than U.S. voters will remember that one of the seemingly major reasons why Barack Obama shouldn't be president of the U.S.A. was -or apparently still is for some- his alleged secretly being a Muslim.

What puzzles me is that Mitt Romney's being a Mormon has been a non-issue to this present day.
Is this the result of decades of downplaying by Mormons of the fundamental differences with orthodox/mainstream Christianity?
Or is it basically that for Republican candidates religious affiliation is irrelevant as long as they parrot supposedly conservative values, while for Democratic candidates any religious affiliation can and must be used to invalidate them?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Or is it basically that for Republican candidates religious affiliation is irrelevant as long as they parrot supposedly conservative values, while for Democratic candidates any religious affiliation can and must be used to invalidate them?

Bingo.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

As someone who is not an American, may I say that I think the Romney candidacy has focussed many Americans' attention on the disparate courses in national life and history that mainstream Christianity and the Mormon Church have taken?

'Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints really Christian?'

'If not should a Mormon be President of what is still essentially a Christian nation?'

I think many Americans would answer 'No' to both and vote accordingly.

[ 18. April 2012, 08:18: Message edited by: Sir Pellinore (ret'd) ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Or is it basically that for Republican candidates religious affiliation is irrelevant as long as they parrot supposedly conservative values, while for Democratic candidates any religious affiliation can and must be used to invalidate them?
Bingo.

Also, white heretics are less scary than black people (because you can't SEE heresy the way you can constantly see skin colour), but it's no longer acceptable to focus on skin colour so there's a need to pick on some other 'concern' that might pass muster.

Frankly, I also think that Barack Obama wouldn't have had that line of attack if his name was John Smith. Secretly a Muslim was basically a variation on secretly not born in the USA. A heck of a lot of that nonsense boiled down to "he's got a funny foreign-sounding name". Why a country who elected people named Millard, Rutherford (as a first name) and Grover should be bothered by this is a matter for further speculation, but people basically grasped for a REASON why his name sounded funny.

[ 18. April 2012, 08:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
As someone who is not an American, may I say that I think the Romney candidacy has focussed many Americans' attention on the disparate courses in national life and history that mainstream Christianity and the Mormon Church have taken?

'Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints really Christian?'

'If not should a Mormon be President of what is still essentially a Christian nation?'

I think many Americans would answer 'No' to both and vote accordingly.

That is not true. There is a visceral hatred of Obama on the right and con evos will hold their noses and vote for Romney. Polls right now are showing Romney with a lead over Obama. I'd say the economy will decide the election. If there are significant changes before November Obama stands a good chance of winning. If things stay the same or get worse Romney has a very good chance of winning.

[ 18. April 2012, 08:30: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Can I broaden this out to a more general discussion about whether a person's religious, or other ideological position (e.g. Randian Objectivism), is relevant to their candidacy? To me it's obvious that it is, and any other view seems plain nuts. That does not mean it's the only factor, and I could possibly vote for someone who held a view I objected to, if other factors made this the least bad choice. Hell, if I'd been French I'd have voted for Chirac against LePen. Not that being crooked is an ideological position.

So the argument is: If you believe something there is a reasonalbe chance that it will affect your actions. I know many will laugh at the idea that a person's religious views do affect their actions - but it has been known.

So, if you hold to a religious worldview that holds homosexuality to be a sin against All That is Holy, then all things being equal, if you can influence policy to impede acceptance of homosexuality you will. That's point 1.

Point2 is that if you're dumb enough to believe against all evidence that the amerindians are descendents of the tribes of Israel, then you're pretty dumb. Of course, dumbness is selective. Many people (even Nobel Laureates) are financially dumb (I'm sure you can think of names), and hold beliefs no more rational than that the Kingdom of God will be centred in Jackson Missouri. Or that black people were black because of the curse of God.

(Now I realise that the Mormon church has rescinded the restrictions on black people. But SFAIK (and I am willing to be corrected here), the revised stance is not that the idea of the curse of black skin is bullshit (which any sane person would believe) but the curse has now been lifted. So this means that previous discrimination against blacks was correct behaviour, even though it would no longer be correct today. And the many offensive references to black skin remain in the BoM).

I think that nothing could bring me to vote for someone who was a missionary for a racist church (assuming Romney's mission years were pre 1978 which is likely).

Now if the other candidates were just as bad? Dunno. But how that's irrelevant, I just do not get.

[ 18. April 2012, 10:02: Message edited by: anteater ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

I agree with Anteater, but put another slight slant on the Mormon issue when it refers to someone like Romney who was born into the religion. If Romney had first embraced the religion when he was a young man, I would agree that he must have been rather stupid, racist, sexist, or else extremely lost and lonely when the missionaries came to the door.

But he simply grew up with it and never broke away. To me this says that he's more interested in pleasing his family and friends and in best serving his financial and ambitious interests than he is in searching for truth or questioning the status quo that has given him such a great life so far. In other words I think Romney's a Mormon like Nixon was a Quaker.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

People often don't understand that the Mormon church doesn't emphasize its peculiar teachings and is really mostly about "clean living."

I have a friend who is a Mormon bishop and he pointed this out to me. He has no deep understanding of Mormon theology and is never interested in having a conversation about it. But he is all about maintaining the system of social enforcement that is the strength of the Mormon lifestyle. That lifestyle can be characterized as garden-variety clean living - no drinking, no smoking, no extramarital sex, tithe to your church, church service work, church attendance, etc. Every Mormon is rigorously checked on these points on an annual basis.

While I think that Mormon theology is ludicrous and its system of social control scary, I can't help but applaud the lifestyle. Everyone knows that Mormons are great people with conservative values.

So Romney's religion is a non-issue. Added to that is the fact that there have been many Mormons in US government over the years, from many senators such as Orrin Hatch, cabinet members such as Stewart Udall, and governors such as George Romney, Mitt's father. George was also a presidential candidate in 1968. So if Romney's religion was going to be an issue it would have been one a long time ago.

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So Romney's religion is a non-issue.

But only if your assumption is correct that Mormons in general, and Mitt Romney in particular, do not take their church's theology seriously.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Ithink, Freddy, you might have pointed out that the clean-living Mormons own and promote that den of vice, Las Vegas!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So Romney's religion is a non-issue.
But only if your assumption is correct that Mormons in general, and Mitt Romney in particular, do not take their church's theology seriously.

Well it's more than that. The question isn't whether it's an issue from a Mormon's perspective. The question is whether it's an issue from a non-Mormon's perspective. Freddy's explanation only works if non-Mormons understand that Mormons don't take the crazy theology seriously. And Freddy negated that, to at least some extent, at the start of his post.

The reality of Mormon life is beside the point, rightly or wrongly, when asking about perception of Mormons.

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

I tend suspect that Mr. Romney very much wants to be the first Mormon President, a goal his father failed to achieve. I will go so far as to suggest that such a goal may even be Mr. Romney's primary motivation. I can't, of course, confirm truth of my suspicions, but I don't think that they are preposterous.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

I agree that ones religion generally impacts ones actions (or at least how one views the actions of others, since we know many devout believers who nevertheless don't act accordingly). However, I think that in a candidate, it's relevant only to the extent that it does indeed impact their actions. if a candidate believes X, but does not allow this to shape their policy becuase they recognise that it's a matter of personal choice, then their belief is irrelevant to my support/non support. it's what they DO about that believe that matters to me.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Romney's Mormonism has been an issue.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Romney's Mormonism has been an issue.

Yes, me too.

I thought the reason that Santorum did well in more traditional 'Bible Belt' states was the fact that he was a Christian, albeit a Catholic one. Whilst Romney is not a Christian, or belongs to a sect that in many quarters is seen as a rather wacky off shoot of orthodox Christian belief.

Joseph Smith's teaching are classic ''I've had a special revelation'' garbage with some sort of odd angel showing him these special plates. It is way off and not part of the main Christian tradition - IMHO and hence Romney being rather timidly being supported by some Republicans.

Saul

Saul

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Can I broaden this out to a more general discussion about whether a person's religious, or other ideological position (e.g. Randian Objectivism), is relevant to their candidacy?

If a person seriously claims to believe that Ayn Rand crap then either they are lying or they are not fit to run a shithouse, never mind a whitehouse.

quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
.... a sect that in many quarters is seen as a rather wacky off shoot of orthodox Christian belief.

"many quarters"? Who on earth doesn't think its a wacky offshoor of orthodox Christian belief?

Mormons themselves probably think its less wacky than the rest of us do, and Christians can argue among ourselves about how far it has in fact shot off, but...

[ 18. April 2012, 13:21: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Freddy's explanation only works if non-Mormons understand that Mormons don't take the crazy theology seriously. And Freddy negated that, to at least some extent, at the start of his post.

The reality of Mormon life is beside the point, rightly or wrongly, when asking about perception of Mormons.

I'm not sure that my statement that people don't understand how the Mormon church works negates my point. And Mormons do take their crazy theology seriously, they just don't make a big deal of it. What they make a big deal about are the things that all Christians tend to have in common - prayer, church attendance, the Gospels, etc.

I think that many people would say that the public perception of Mormons focuses on their reputation as clean-living, pious people who are sincere, upright, and family oriented. Some would also say that they are scary and cult-like with crazy misogynist teachings.

I think the bigger point, though, may be the sheer numbers of Mormons who have been and are involved in the government. There are, for example, currently fifteen Mormons in Congress, and there have been scores of them in the past. By contrast the first Muslim in Congress was not elected until 2007.

Here is an article from the Pew Forum on Mormons in public life.

Posted by BessHiggs (# 15176) on :

My cynical self thinks that if there were another viable candidate within the GOP, then his religion would be more of an issue. I seem to recall that was the case four years ago. The Dems aren't going to make it an issue because it will bring the whole Obama-Muslim thing back into the mainstrem meadia, and the GOP aren't going to make it an issue because they really don't have anyone else to support at this point. If, for instance, Huckabee had been in the mix this time around, my feeling is that we would have heard a great deal more about it.

YMMV

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Ken:

quote:
If a person seriously claims to believe that Ayn Rand crap then either they are lying or they are not fit to run a shithouse, never mind a whitehouse.

Like Alan Greenspan, the longest serving US Treasury Secretary?

Or does the USA rate below shithouse in your hierarchy of human institutions?

Actually unlike most, I think she has some virtues (and many vices) as a writer. But I agree she was batshit crazy.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Freddy:

quote:
And Mormons do take their crazy theology seriously, they just don't make a big deal of it.

What exactly is that meant to mean? And why not include exclusion of same sex relationships for their garden variety morality?

I agree they keep quite about them. Wouldn't you? I mean the story of how the negroes (to use the preferred Mormon term) got their black skin makes L. Ron Hubbard sound like a sane person. Not to mention the Adam Christ theory et al ad nauseam.

So doesn't all this re-inforce the image of Mitt Romney as someone who wouldn't know what a conviction was if it bit him through the sacred underwear? So he believes all this shit except he doesn't really (wink, wink). Or not so that he'd actually do anything about it.

Just like his politics. Everyone knows he's really gritting his teeth to appease the Tea Party Numpties, to get the nomination and then get serious with a middle-of-the-road programme. Which is what he believes - and of course is a good thing.

Reminds me of a statement by that exemplification of how brilliance and stupidity can exist in the same person (in this case David Pawson) who said: One of the most stupid things ever said is that it doesn't matter what a person believes so long as he is sincere. Actually the reverse is true. It doesn't matter so long as he is insincere, because then his beliefs will not affect his actions. It was the sincerity of Hitler's anti-semitism that made it so deadly.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Ken:

quote:
If a person seriously claims to believe that Ayn Rand crap then either they are lying or they are not fit to run a shithouse, never mind a whitehouse.
Like Alan Greenspan, the longest serving US Treasury Secretary?

Or does the USA rate below shithouse in your hierarchy of human institutions?

Well, I suspect that most folks in this country would readily acknowledge that Greenspan was a major force behind the credit default swap fiasco that nearly destroyed the world's economy. He had the authority to enforce his view, and his view was that government oversight was bad and markets were self-regulating. If that doesn't make him unfit for the office that he held for so long, it is hard to imagine what would count as such.

--Tom Clune

[ 18. April 2012, 13:46: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Romney's Mormonism has been an issue.

For example Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas and organizer of the Values Voter Summit, called Mormonism a 'cult' and claimed Romney wasn't a Christian. The implication being that Christianity was an important characteristic for a candidate.

Of course, Pastor Jeffress has also recently had to adjust to certain political realities. In a lot of ways this is the American Christian Right in miniature: not happy about backing a Mormon candidate, but willing to do so unenthusiasticly as a means to oppose the Secret Muslim Communist Atheist Negro Dictator in the White House.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Freddy:

quote:
And Mormons do take their crazy theology seriously, they just don't make a big deal of it.
What exactly is that meant to mean? And why not include exclusion of same sex relationships for their garden variety morality?

I just mean that they keep quiet about their theology. Good point to note their exclusion of same-sex relationships - a fairly common position among conservative Christians.

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I agree they keep quiet about them. Wouldn't you?

Yes.

I am in no way defending Mormon theology. My point is that they are generally considered to be fine people and are a long-accepted fixture in US politics. Making an issue of Romney's religion is as repugnant as it would be if he were Jewish or Catholic. Clearly the dim-witted suggestions that Obama was Muslim were also repugnant to almost all Americans. Attacking someone on the basis of their religion is un-American (despite the fact that we have a long tradition of doing just that [Biased]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Ithink, Freddy, you might have pointed out that the clean-living Mormons own and promote that den of vice, Las Vegas!

While there are a good number of Mormons living in Nevada, they don't "own" it the same way they "own" Utah.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Sorry, I should have said casinos etc.!

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Could it be that Romney's religion is a non issue because there is no religious qualification in our constitution?

I think so.

The bigger issue is his ability to stand on everyone's side. (He flip flops so many times he can't keep track of his own positions himself.)

Note to nightowl. The most recent poll I have seen shoes more people like Obama (56%) to Romney (35%). Women are still trending to Obama by 2 to 1.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Gramps Could it be that Romney's religion is a non issue because there is no religious qualification in our constitution?
I think so.

I think not. Constitutional constraints or otherwise should not be confused with factors deciding voter preferences. Catholicism helped to do for Al Smith, and was a problem for JFK. By and large mainstream protestantism has been the safest bet.

Incidentally, Reagan was referred to as "Born again and married again!"

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Depends on how you define issue. Any US citizen age 35 or older at the time of inauguration can serve as president regardless of their religion. Nothing prevents voters from taking a candidates religious views into account when they go into the voting booth. So, no, Romney's Mormonism has not been an issue as far as him getting on the ballot. However, his Mormonism has been an issue for some primary voters and will likely be an issue for some in the general election. How big an issue remains to be seen.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
So he believes all this shit except he doesn't really (wink, wink). Or not so that he'd actually do anything about it.

The question is not whether he believes it. The question is whether he will try to force everyone else to act as if they believe it as well.

To give a trivial example, I don't care if a politician believes it's wrong to eat pork. Just so long as they don't try to stop me eating it as well.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Freddy:

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
People with longer memories than U.S. voters will remember that one of the seemingly major reasons why Barack Obama shouldn't be president of the U.S.A. was -or apparently still is for some- his alleged secretly being a Muslim.

What puzzles me is that Mitt Romney's being a Mormon has been a non-issue to this present day.
Is this the result of decades of downplaying by Mormons of the fundamental differences with orthodox/mainstream Christianity?
Or is it basically that for Republican candidates religious affiliation is irrelevant as long as they parrot supposedly conservative values, while for Democratic candidates any religious affiliation can and must be used to invalidate them?

The three frontrunners until recently in the Republican primaries were a Mormon and two Roman Catholics. For a party traditionally associated with WASPs and now associated with evangelical Protestantism, this is pretty remarkable. As recently as 1960 there were serious questions about electing a Roman Catholic (JFK), because he was an outsider to the Protestant mainstream and many believed he would take marching orders from the Pope.

The evangelicals and conservative Catholics have made a fairly comfortable marriage of convenience advocating for social conservatism. The Mormons can fit into this. If the conservative evos can make nice with the Catholics (whom many believed 50 years ago to be followers of the Antichrist), and with Orthodox Jews, there's no reason they can't tolerate conservative Mormons.

The question, though, is how conservative Mitt Romney is (or will act). He's thoroughly old-school country-club Republican, conservative on fiscal matters but essentially indifferent about social policy.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
And Mormons do take their crazy theology seriously, they just don't make a big deal of it.

Again, it matters little whether Mormons make a big deal of crazy Mormon theology. It matters far more whether non-Mormons make a big deal of crazy Mormon theology.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Mormonism has made a concerted effort to be "accepted" by mainline churches and the middle class. It has by and large succeeded.

Most Mainline Protestants don't view Mormonism as crazy; it may be different, and not their cup of tea, but it there and accepted. It has ceased to be scary. Unless you are someone like my Minister or myself, our church's resident Theology junkies, most mainline Protestant don't give a second thought for Mormon theology.

For instance the local Mormon church here had a group nativity display at Christmas, all local churches were invited to participate in putting their nativity scenes in a exposition held at the Mormon church. Ok, seems safe, no wacky theology, makes the Mormon church look like just another one of us, part the community, and their clean-cut tie-wearing Elders look respectable.

In North America the Mormon church has gained acceptance and respectability.

Secondly, since the 1960's "Christian Values" conservatives have learned to make peace with Catholics. Protestant/Catholic bashing has almost ceased to exist, witness Santorum. The Abortion dead horse showed this group that there was much common ground and many votes to be gained by respecting Catholicism and frankly any other religious confession that professed the same personal morality. This is why old-fashioned "Whore of Babylon" Protestant bigotry is hard to find nowadays. It's amazing how this group has opened itself to its own form of diversity and toleration.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
This is why old-fashioned "Whore of Babylon" Protestant bigotry is hard to find nowadays.

It's harder to find, but in parts of the country its demise is greatly exaggerated (greetings from Georgia).

I still have a sneaking suspicion that Mike Huckabee would have sewn up the Republican nomination by now, even if he had a stroke and started espousing positions far to the left of Ted Kennedy.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Or is it basically that for Republican candidates religious affiliation is irrelevant as long as they parrot supposedly conservative values, while for Democratic candidates any religious affiliation can and must be used to invalidate them?

You are trying very hard to make the Republicans the hypocrites here, but you still manage to hit on a broad truth. People of either party are going to vote for someone who shares their values, even if they don't share their religion. How many liberal atheists who otherwise spend time mocking Christians and the Catholic Church pulled the lever for John Kerry? Quite a few, I imagine, because he shared their social values. Likewise, people who have "how to talk to a Mormon" books on their shelves will pull the lever for Romney because he shares their social values.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
You are trying very hard to make the Republicans the hypocrites here, but you still manage to hit on a broad truth. People of either party are going to vote for someone who shares their values, even if they don't share their religion. How many liberal atheists who otherwise spend time mocking Christians and the Catholic Church pulled the lever for John Kerry? Quite a few, I imagine, because he shared their social values. Likewise, people who have "how to talk to a Mormon" books on their shelves will pull the lever for Romney because he shares their social values.

The difference is that there doesn't seem to be a Democratic equivalent of Robert Jeffress or Pat Robertson (who seems to both support Romney and regard him as a Satan-worshipping cultist [Confused]

). The Republican party have given religiousity a political emphasis in a way the Democrats haven't.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

In North America the Mormon church has gained acceptance and respectability.

Some of that is going to be just familiarity. Over here Mormons are rare. The only ones most of us ever see are those missionaries, who with their name-badges, their dress code that looks like IBM management trainees circa 1962, their almost creepily excessive politeness, and their apparent interest in taking Mormon theology very seriously indeed, strike most of us as really quite weird.

On the Ship I think I might have noticed the same thing the other way round about Jehovah's Witnesses. Although they are American in origin they seem to be stranger to a lot of the US posters than to some of the British ones - I don;t know about the rest of Britain but round where I live they are actually quite common. So perhaps they look more "normal" to us. Heretical, but not alien. Mormons seem alien.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

The very fact that someone could consider a candidate a cultist and still support them because the candidate shares the voter's social values proves my point. For social issues voters of either party, the box the candidate checks for "religion" matters less than the box the candidate checks on "was Roe v. Wade correctly decided." If you vote on social issues, when you get into the ballot box and have a choice between someone who shares your values and someone who doesn't, you are going to vote for the person who shares your values, regardless of their religion. So what if some prominent religious conservatives are outspoken about the religious differences between themselves and their candidates? In the end, most social issue voters vote on the issues, not the religion.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

In North America the Mormon church has gained acceptance and respectability.

Some of that is going to be just familiarity. Over here Mormons are rare. The only ones most of us ever see are those missionaries, who with their name-badges, their dress code that looks like IBM management trainees circa 1962, their almost creepily excessive politeness, and their apparent interest in taking Mormon theology very seriously indeed, strike most of us as really quite weird.

On the Ship I think I might have noticed the same thing the other way round about Jehovah's Witnesses. Although they are American in origin they seem to be stranger to a lot of the US posters than to some of the British ones - I don;t know about the rest of Britain but round where I live they are actually quite common. So perhaps they look more "normal" to us. Heretical, but not alien. Mormons seem alien.

And I think that varies neighborhood to neighborhood around here. I grew up with a lot of Mormons, and went to law school with a lot of Mormons, so I don't think of them as alien at all. My wife, who grew up 45 minutes away from me, had no idea that Mormon missionaries actually do dress in white short sleeved shirts, black ties, bicycle helmets, and backpacks, until she actually saw some about a year ago.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

An interesting case to compare to Romney is Senator Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Majority leader and a fairly classic liberal-progressive party member and legislator as far as I can tell -- also a Mormon, and actually a convert to the LDS church in his young adulthood.

Reid is sort of the anti-Romney and had a very hard-scrabble, disadvantaged upbringing. He's really a kind of classic by-one's-own -bootstraps American success story. I'm not sure what exactly motivated his conversion to the Mormon sect. However, whereas I subjectively find Romney alien and distasteful, I quite like Reid because his political ideology is congruent with my own. This tends to support the point made that it's really all about ideological values congruence rather than religious beliefs.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
On the Ship I think I might have noticed the same thing the other way round about Jehovah's Witnesses. Although they are American in origin they seem to be stranger to a lot of the US posters than to some of the British ones - I don;t know about the rest of Britain but round where I live they are actually quite common. So perhaps they look more "normal" to us. Heretical, but not alien. Mormons seem alien.

I agree that this is opposite over here in the US. JWs are very strange indeed and often unreasonable when they insistently come door to door telling you that your beliefs are wrong. I've had the experience of having to forcefully ask them to leave and even been cursed. But in the US Mormons are all-American types, very polite about your religion, and do not come across as weird at all.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

For anyone who needs a quickie course on Mormonism. [Big Grin]

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
For anyone who needs a quickie course on Mormonism.

I encourage anyone to watch the entire episode. What they do in this episode (and, as I understand it, in "The Book of Mormon" musical) is lampoon the beliefs, but acknowledge that Mormons in the end are generally really friendly, really well-meaning people, and probably great neighbors. Essentially, they do for Mormons what the writers of the Simpsons did to evangelical Christians in their mocking but still loving depiction of Ned Flanders. It is very intelligent commentary, disguised as a crass cartoon.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

To those who think Romney's Mormonism is an issue, I will respectfully disagree. I believe JFK's election put much of that type of concern to rest. True, there are some hardliners out there who may say they cannot vote for a Mormon, but even they will probably have no choice but to vote for Romney if they really want to get rid of Obama, or just stay home.

Again, it is not one's faith that will make or break this election--it will be one's vision for America's future. Much of the debate looks like it will be on the Ryan Budget Plan.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
True, there are some hardliners out there who may say they cannot vote for a Mormon, but even they will probably have no choice but to vote for Romney if they really want to get rid of Obama, or just stay home.

A gallop poll taken a little less than a year ago showed that 20% of Americans would not vote for a Mormon. The same poll showed that 18% of Republicans would not vote for a Mormon, and 27% of Democrats would not vote for a Mormon. So don't think that everyone who wouldn't vote for a Mormon is going to just stay at home on election day. Lots of those people are going to show up to support Obama.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

In my previous life in Texas I had occasion to know or talk to quite a few Southern Baptists. IME their denomination was generally formidably opposed to Mormonism, so much so that I find it unlikely that the more orthodox/bigoted Southern Baptists could bring themselves to vote for a Mormon for POTUS. I mean, the view seemed to be that Mormons were like the Soviet Union to the Baptist's America-City-on-a-Hill -- there was a unique Southern Baptist cultural opposition to Mormons that went beyond mere theology, although Baptists I knew certainly expressed vociferous scorn for Mormon beliefs.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

The fact that it clearly isn't an insurmountable issue doesn't mean it isn't an issue at all--there is a difference between voting for Romney because one dislikes him less than Obama and voting for Romney because one enthusiastically supports him. The main difference is how hard one might be willing to work at getting out the vote, stuffing envelopes, manning phones (or whatever the modern equivalent of all those things is).

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

Romney also has the image of a liberal that he has not been able to shed. That, IMO, is more of a problem for him than his Mormonism.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Recently, the conservative members of Congress put on a round table discussion with conservatives nationwide. When asked if they could support the nomination of Romney, their responses, at best, were tepid. Most said they would support Romney if only to defeat Obama. Romney has an overall enthusiasm gap among his own party members. You can't win an election without enthusiasm.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
As someone who is not an American, may I say that I think the Romney candidacy has focussed many Americans' attention on the disparate courses in national life and history that mainstream Christianity and the Mormon Church have taken?

'Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints really Christian?'

'If not should a Mormon be President of what is still essentially a Christian nation?'

I think many Americans would answer 'No' to both and vote accordingly.
That is not true. There is a visceral hatred of Obama on the right and con evos will hold their noses and vote for Romney. Polls right now are showing Romney with a lead over Obama. I'd say the economy will decide the election. If there are significant changes before November Obama stands a good chance of winning. If things stay the same or get worse Romney has a very good chance of winning.

The election may, indeed, be very close.

Somehow I don't think America - from Detroit to Florida - is quite ready for a Mormon presidency.

I'm grateful to L. Sv. K. for his elucidations on Mormon politicians and Romney.

I'm not predicting.

Posted by Tom Paine's Bones (# 17027) on :

His religion is very much an issue.

Any member of a highly secretive, hierarchical sect - especially one with dominating ambitions and deep financial and political ties, which already governs one US state - is highly suspect in my book.

But I'd be even more worried about his reputation as a money-grubbing, job-destroying, out-sourcing, union-bashing capitalist.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
And I think that varies neighborhood to neighborhood around here. I grew up with a lot of Mormons, and went to law school with a lot of Mormons, so I don't think of them as alien at all. My wife, who grew up 45 minutes away from me, had no idea that Mormon missionaries actually do dress in white short sleeved shirts, black ties, bicycle helmets, and backpacks, until she actually saw some about a year ago.

*tangent* While visiting my LDS daughter & SIL in Orem, they delighted in showing off the Missionary Mall (no airquotes-- that really is it's name) an entire mall devoted entirely to the selling of these coveted items. Across the street was the smaller Sister Missionary Mall for the devout LDS female. My SIL is particularly taken with the large inflatable missionary that stands atop the mall.

Posted by 205 (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
If things stay the same or get worse Romney has a very good chance of winning.

Just in case the other thread remains dormant: Romney by 5% of the popular vote, short of Significant Islamicist Intervention. And maybe even long.

Obama has screwed the pooch and left no tip.

You heard it here first.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BessHiggs:
My cynical self thinks that if there were another viable candidate within the GOP, then his religion would be more of an issue. I seem to recall that was the case four years ago. The Dems aren't going to make it an issue because it will bring the whole Obama-Muslim thing back into the mainstrem meadia, and the GOP aren't going to make it an issue because they really don't have anyone else to support at this point. If, for instance, Huckabee had been in the mix this time around, my feeling is that we would have heard a great deal more about it.

YMMV

Yes, that is pretty much the suspicion I have had from a fairly early stage in the campaign. One thing I have noticed in my parish is that neither Obama nor Romney is energizing the middle class rank and file of their respective parties at this stage. This could be a very dull and, I suspect, a very, very dirty election season. In the end it will be money not ideas that will count this time, and BHO had already been feeding his war chest pretty well.

PD

[ 19. April 2012, 00:06: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
*tangent* While visiting my LDS daughter & SIL in Orem, they delighted in showing off the Missionary Mall (no airquotes-- that really is it's name) an entire mall devoted entirely to the selling of these coveted items. Across the street was the smaller Sister Missionary Mall for the devout LDS female. My SIL is particularly taken with the large inflatable missionary that stands atop the mall.

I thought you were kidding until I saw this! I live a few miles from the Mesa Arizona Temple -- I thought I'd seen it all!

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

It's been an issue, and probably still is, for many people.

But none of the Republican candidates were much good, from a fund/evo point of view--except for utmost fringe folks who liked the utmost fringe candidates. There was a rich Mormon; an RC serial philander and divorcer; someone who wanted to ditch public education altogether (Santorum), etc.

I still wonder if a shiny new candidate will appear at the Rep. convention.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

While it's been amusing to watch the fundamentalists come out and support conservateive Catholics and Mormons during the primary, I think the center won't care. The biggest losers in the "I'd never elect a president who was" in the past have been atheists. A jew was a plausible VP candidate a few years back.

The weirdness of the Mormons hardly registers in a national political scene where prominent leaders cite gods's promise to reason as a reason to ignore global warming and support Israel Right Wingers to bring on the end days.

My own side bet is that the Mormons are going to
be the first major church to pivot directly from Homosexuality is a sin to if you're gay you have to get married to another man and raise little mormon children.

Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :

Can an Independent candidate pick up the conservative Christian vote from the Republicans?

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

I would say not unless they have a LOT of money.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
People with longer memories than U.S. voters will remember that one of the seemingly major reasons why Barack Obama shouldn't be president of the U.S.A. was -or apparently still is for some- his alleged secretly being a Muslim.

By the way, I am a U.S. voter, and while I do know that there were (and are) some crackpots who believe that Obama is a secret Muslim, I also have a long enough memory to recall that that theory wasn't a serious issue in the election. To the extent that his religion did come up, it was the discussion of his relationship with his actual pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Edit: corrected spelling of "Jeremiah"

[ 19. April 2012, 18:10: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Before someone jumps on me, I probably overstated the extent to which Obama being a secret Muslim did or didn't come up in the election. It did. But Sen. McCain went out of his way to deny the rumor. I guess I would re-state my point, that yes, the rumor that Obama was a Muslim did get press, but the better comparison would be Obama getting scrutinized for his actual religion, not his made-up connection to a religion.

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

I wasn't planning to jump on you. But do appreciate your addendum.
Thank you for indirectly pointing out that I should have started my OP with a less sweeping assertion about the memory of U.S.-voters. You are quite right.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
*tangent* While visiting my LDS daughter & SIL in Orem, they delighted in showing off the Missionary Mall (no airquotes-- that really is it's name) an entire mall devoted entirely to the selling of these coveted items. Across the street was the smaller Sister Missionary Mall for the devout LDS female. My SIL is particularly taken with the large inflatable missionary that stands atop the mall.
I thought you were kidding until I saw this! I live a few miles from the Mesa Arizona Temple -- I thought I'd seen it all!

Yep, that's the place!

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

Why do evil and juvenile thoughts go through my head when i think of inflatable missionaries? [Snigger]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Why do evil and juvenile thoughts go through my head when i think of inflatable missionaries?

Probably because you mind throws the word 'position' in next!

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Why do evil and juvenile thoughts go through my head when i think of inflatable missionaries?
Probably because you mind throws the word 'position' in next!

A thorough analysis of the problem might make him want to probe deeper.
[Killing me]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Waiter! Check please!

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Sen. McCain went out of his way to deny the rumor.

An old trick... "I want to make it clear here and now that I believe my opponent is a decent man and the alleged secret meetings with prostitutes in Naples in early February of last year never happened."

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Sen. McCain went out of his way to deny the rumor.
An old trick... "I want to make it clear here and now that I believe my opponent is a decent man and the alleged secret meetings with prostitutes in Naples in early February of last year never happened."

So you'd have preferred McCain to remain silent? Speak up in direct agreement? What exactly?

Oh, right...

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

Romney's religion seems to be an issue to Martin Bashir, who calls himself a christian, but looks pretty muslim to me.

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Romney's religion seems to be an issue to Martin Bashir, who calls himself a christian, but looks pretty muslim to me.

If you were to set eyes on Jesus Christ, he would probably look pretty muslim to you too.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
but looks pretty muslim to me.

Don't see it myself. Beard - absent. Muslim long robe - absent. Muslim head-dress or hat - absent. Copy of Koran lurking in background - absent.

So what is it that looks Muslim?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Bashir is a fairly common Orthodox name, although Martin would suggest that he might be Melkite. It's difficult to tell, as there's a lot of inter-marriage and inter-godparenting between Antiochians and Melkites. Roman Lion is likely aware that it is likely that the majority of Arab Americans are Christian and from the Canadian census, we know that about 2/3 of Arab Canadians are Christian.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Sen. McCain went out of his way to deny the rumor.
An old trick... "I want to make it clear here and now that I believe my opponent is a decent man and the alleged secret meetings with prostitutes in Naples in early February of last year never happened."
So you'd have preferred McCain to remain silent? Speak up in direct agreement? What exactly?

Oh, right...

But Senator McCain spoke up in direct disagreement. Ken is just making up his own version of history here.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
but looks pretty muslim to me.
Don't see it myself. Beard - absent. Muslim long robe - absent. Muslim head-dress or hat - absent. Copy of Koran lurking in background - absent.

So what is it that looks Muslim?

Well, he's got fairly dark skin and an unusual name. Doesn't that make him "Muslim"? <wink, nudge> You know, just like that other guy?

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

Jeez...I'm glad somebody is paying attention here!!

[Snigger]

[ 23. April 2012, 15:27: Message edited by: romanlion ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Romney's religion seems to be an issue to Martin Bashir, who calls himself a christian, but looks pretty muslim to me.

So holding someone accountable to their own self-proclaimed beliefs/doctrines is somehow a uniquely "Muslim" practice?

Or are you just frustrated because Republicans have backed themselves into a corner where this particular rhetorical device is off limits? If you were to catch Obama in a lie, you can't use the Bible to rebuke him, as you've painted the President as a "secret Muslim". But you can't use the Koran to rebuke him with out exposing your lie that the Koran teaches nothing but hate and violence.

To borrow yet another religious image, Karma's a b****.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Romney's religion seems to be an issue to Martin Bashir, who calls himself a christian, but looks pretty muslim to me.
So holding someone accountable to their own self-proclaimed beliefs/doctrines is somehow a uniquely "Muslim" practice?

Or are you just frustrated because Republicans have backed themselves into a corner where this particular rhetorical device is off limits? If you were to catch Obama in a lie, you can't use the Bible to rebuke him, as you've painted the President as a "secret Muslim". But you can't use the Koran to rebuke him with out exposing your lie that the Koran teaches nothing but hate and violence.

To borrow yet another religious image, Karma's a b****.

I guess when you have a 24 hour news network and you have to fill it with something, using another person's book of faith as a source of proof texts to condemn them to hell counts as a legitimate "rhetorical device." I wouldn't put it past some commentators on Fox to do something similar. But when you start believing that the average American voter is going to find said "rhetorical device" persuasive, then I think we can officially declare political silly season open.

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

I couldn't possibly care less what the republicans do or don't do. I have never voted for their candidate, and I never will.

Similarly, I don't care about the dims either.

It was a joke, man!

I will say that Bashir is shite, though, and so is that other one, something Morgan.

They're like a couple of hysterical women, I can't stand either of them, and based on their ratings I'm not alone.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess when you have a 24 hour news network and you have to fill it with something, using another person's book of faith as a source of proof texts to condemn them to hell counts as a legitimate "rhetorical device." I wouldn't put it past some commentators on Fox to do something similar. But when you start believing that the average American voter is going to find said "rhetorical device" persuasive, then I think we can officially declare political silly season open.

What's illegitimate about it? He caught Mitt in 3 lies. He pointed out what the B of M says about lying, and the penalty called for in the B of M. Thousands of evangelical preachers do the same every day. As well as, yes, Fox commentators. Whether anyone finds the argument persuasive is another matter. But it is not dishonest. Which is more than you can say about Mitt.

Which was the point.

[ 23. April 2012, 15:48: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Typically, a rhetorical device is used to persuade. Here, the speaker took a reasonable point which could have been used to persuade (the facts, in the view of the commentator, do not line up with what Mr. Romney is saying,) but instead used it to personalize the issue in a raw, emotional way. If you believe what you say you do, you are going to hell. It was calculated to give people who agree with the speaker a chance to feel smug, and to anger people who don't agree with the speaker. This is just someone feeding partisan viewers what they want to hear in an effort to drive ratings. It's not worth defending this as intelligent political discourse.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Romney's religion seems to be an issue to Martin Bashir, who calls himself a christian, but looks pretty muslim to me.

This is a joke, right? You are trying to parody the kind of idiot who goes on about Obama being not a real American citizen?

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Bashir is a fairly common Orthodox name, although Martin would suggest that he might be Melkite.

Martin Bashir is British. I have no idea where his ancestors came from but Wikipedia says his parents were from Pakistan. He used to be quite a well-known TV presenter and journalist here before he moved to the USA (to be honest I didn't even know he was known in the USA till I read that article) He was best known for celebrity intervierws but he occasionally used to present or appear on explicitly Christian TV programmess in Britain.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

@Ken. Not being an aficionado of television news people, I did not know this, but wrote from the assumption that he was from the US.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Oh I see. It was a joke. Trying to get a reaction.

Stereotyping according to skin colour is pretty funny actually.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
He pointed out what the B of M says about lying, and the penalty called for in the B of M... But it is not dishonest.

I think Mitt Romney' religion is an issue, but in the interests of fairness it does actually seem a little dishonest for a Christian to be picking a verse in someone else's book which, on the face of it, seems a bit OTT and difficult to justify.

[ 23. April 2012, 19:31: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
People with longer memories than U.S. voters will remember that one of the seemingly major reasons why Barack Obama shouldn't be president of the U.S.A. was -or apparently still is for some- his alleged secretly being a Muslim.

He was probably hurt more by certain spewings of his preacher, Jeremiah Wright.

quote:
What puzzles me is that Mitt Romney's being a Mormon has been a non-issue to this present day.
Is this the result of decades of downplaying by Mormons of the fundamental differences with orthodox/mainstream Christianity?

It is probably because the Obama re-election effort hasn't yet needed it to be an issue. Wait until after Romney is the official nominee and see what happens. Otoh, Harry Reid is a mormon, too.

quote:
Or is it basically that for Republican candidates religious affiliation is irrelevant as long as they parrot supposedly conservative values, while for Democratic candidates any religious affiliation can and must be used to invalidate them?

For both parties it is probably more important to parrot the party line than show up at the right religious activity.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Mormonism can't be anti-American. It came about in this country. Whereas many American conservatives really believe Islam is inherently anti-American, either in the sense of being against core American values (even if only vaguely defined as something like "freedom") or in the sense of plotting attacks against us.

BTW, this came up really early in the thread, but RE: the Romneys and the Mormon church as racist: George Romney, when he was governor of Michigan, got into trouble with his church for marching in support of the Civil Rights movement. He didn't march with MLK because MLK marched in Detroit on a Sunday, and as a Mormon, Gov. Romney wasn't allowed to march on a Sunday. However, he participated in a march in Detroit the next day.

This may or may not say anything about Mitt Romney, but his dad, anyway, was on the right side of history re: Civil Rights for African-Americans, even though it meant going against his church! And that he chose to observe Sunday according to the teachings of his church meant he was really taking a principled stand within his religion.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
He pointed out what the B of M says about lying, and the penalty called for in the B of M... But it is not dishonest.
I think Mitt Romney' religion is an issue, but in the interests of fairness it does actually seem a little dishonest for a Christian to be picking a verse in someone else's book which, on the face of it, seems a bit OTT and difficult to justify.

I don't think Bashir was mocking the B of M-- at least I didn't take it that way. I think he was calling Romney out for lying.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

It seems a very distracting way to do it then.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Paine's Bones:
Any member of a highly secretive, hierarchical sect - especially one with dominating ambitions and deep financial and political ties, which already governs one US state - is highly suspect in my book.

But I'd be even more worried about his reputation as a money-grubbing, job-destroying, out-sourcing, union-bashing capitalist.

Agreed, but if only the voters are smart enough to think about either point. Most of them think about only what they're told to think about. I just don't hear much mention of Romney's religion at all, and nothing very specific. How much this silence is due to the continuing ability of the LDS to squelch critical voices, I have no idea. Probably people just aren't well enough informed to care particularly.

Congregationalism is more alive and well in the U.S. nowadays than denominational identity. The noisiest evangelists don't tout a particular denomination in so many words. They just say "Christian." To the extent that the Mormons, as well, represent themselves as part of the Christian mainstream (and they do-- the small print comes later), they become just one more thread in a vast crazy quilt. Usually, all a candidate needs to do is wave the red, white, and blue wildly enough; and Mormons can do that as well as anyone if not better, because their whole mythology reeks of American exceptionalsim from the beginning.

One problem I have in theory is the number of novel Mormon tenets that defy common sense. But Romney seems to be a level-headed enough guy, as did his father. The former candidate Huntsman, who was my favorite in the race, is also a Mormon, and I didn't even know it until shortly before he dropped out of consideration.

An Anglican organist doesn't have much opportunity to discover what happens in various conventicles-- even vicariously, as there is no regular coverage from a secular press which too often dismisses religious activities as beneath its notice. Romney's candidacy might cause anti-Mormon feelings to be burnished from Southern Baptist and other pulpits; but I'm not so naive as to suppose that church doctrine will play as big a part in that decision as where the preacher sees his interest lying. Will he feel more threatened by Romney in the White House than Obama? Why should he? The codependency between them and the GOP (God's Own Party) will probably carry the day once again.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Here's a news piece that bears on this thread. From the article we can discern two facts:

1) Romney feels the need to burnish his fundie credentials by getting the Jerry Falwell (junior edition) seal of approval.

2) The student body are outraged at having Romney inflicted on them. For those unfamiliar with the ironically misnamed Liberty University, it's where the U.S. Christian right trains its next generation of loyal political operatives. The most ideologically committed (and the least qualified) junior staffers in the Bush II White House were Liberty U grads.

[ 24. April 2012, 20:50: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Romney and Florida Senator Rubio have been
campaigning together. Rubio is rumored to be Romney's contemplated running mate.

It might be a smart move. In addition to his being from a populous southern State, Rubio's parents were Cuban refugees. Therefore, he would help Romney's numbers among Latino voters, which are currently among his weakest.

I'm a little amused to see the Philadelphia Inquirer questioning whether a 40-something first-term senator is qualified to be "a heart-beat away from the Presidency." Excuse me, but didn't we elect someone like that to the Presidency a few years ago? The Inquirer is not having second thoughts about that, I hope. [Confused]

Rubio even shares Romney's penchant for committing candor. He denied that his campaigning for Romney (way up in Pennsylvania, of all places) has anything to do with VP prospects. But a few minutes later he was heard to say, "If I do a good job as Vice President..."

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Here's a news piece that bears on this thread. From the article we can discern two facts:

1) Romney feels the need to burnish his fundie credentials by getting the Jerry Falwell (junior edition) seal of approval.

2) The student body are outraged at having Romney inflicted on them. For those unfamiliar with the ironically misnamed Liberty University, it's where the U.S. Christian right trains its next generation of loyal political operatives. The most ideologically committed (and the least qualified) junior staffers in the Bush II White House were Liberty U grads.

Isn't this just sort of the standard graduation speaker season stuff that we see every May? Obama speaks at Notre Dame, a portion of the student body is outraged. Bush speaks at Yale, a portion of the student body is outraged. Romney could speak at BYU and some member of the Student Body would be outraged. Student bodies are hard to please.

Posted by savedbyhim01 (# 17035) on :

1. The "church" of latter day saints is not Christian. Many of its core beliefs are contradictory to Christianity.

2. I think for most conservative Republicans, religion does make a difference. All things being equal, we would probably vote for someone who seems to be a genuine Christian (like Huckabee) over a Mormon.

3. Right now, that is not an option. The real choice is Mormon or atheist/Muslim (Obama is clearly not a born again Christian). Neither choice is particularly good so you have to make a choice if you want to vote for the lesser of two bad choices or just not vote.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by savedbyhim01:

2. I think for most conservative Republicans, religion does make a difference. All things being equal, we would probably vote for someone who seems to be a genuine Christian (like Huckabee) over a Mormon.

3. Right now, that is not an option. The real choice is Mormon or atheist/Muslim (Obama is clearly not a born again Christian).

No. Your choice is between a Mormon and a mainstream Christian. Obama has been a member of a mainstream Protestant church since long before he entered politics. What one means by "born again" is obviously open to debate-- definitions are myriad-- but he is an adult convert, one who had an "aha" moment and made an intentioned, informed choice to follow Christ, which comes pretty close to "born again" as it's described in John 3. Certainly he has as much claim to the label as many other right wing evangelicals.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by savedbyhim01:

2. I think for most conservative Republicans, religion does make a difference. All things being equal, we would probably vote for someone who seems to be a genuine Christian (like Huckabee) over a Mormon.

3. Right now, that is not an option. The real choice is Mormon or atheist/Muslim (Obama is clearly not a born again Christian).
No. Your choice is between a Mormon and a mainstream Christian. Obama has been a member of a mainstream Protestant church since long before he entered politics. What one means by "born again" is obviously open to debate-- definitions are myriad-- but he is an adult convert, one who had an "aha" moment and made an intentioned, informed choice to follow Christ, which comes pretty close to "born again" as it's described in John 3. Certainly he has as much claim to the label as many other right wing evangelicals.

This exchange pretty well illustrates why romanlion's blind fumblings towards "humor" earlier were both tasteless and doomed. Kind of a variant of Poe's Law for jokes: it's not funny if it's indistinguishable from something people are advancing as a serious argument.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by savedbyhim01:

1. [...]
2. [...]
3. [...]

Two out of three ain't bad...

Buit the Obama-is-a-Muslim bullshit kind of makes the rest of the post look worse than it is.

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by savedbyhim01:
2. I think for most conservative Republicans, religion does make a difference. All things being equal, we would probably vote for someone who seems to be a genuine Christian (like Huckabee) over a Mormon.

Why? What difference is it going to make? I'd rather have an intelligent atheist in office than a stupid theist. I'd rather have a gifted Mormon than a hopeless Christian. I'm not saying that I think Romney is that, mind you, I just think that politicians are better judged on their behaviour as politicians (and there's plenty of arsenal on both sides of the Obama/Romney aisle, from an outsider's perspective) without needing to talk religion.

[ 25. April 2012, 13:58: Message edited by: MarsmanTJ ]

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Obama has been a member of a mainstream Protestant church since long before he entered politics.

Mainstream? Thats a stretch.

Mainstream Chicago maybe...

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Obama has been a member of a mainstream Protestant church since long before he entered politics.
Mainstream? Thats a stretch.

Mainstream Chicago maybe...

Whether you like Jeremiah Wright or not, or like Obama or not, the United Church of Christ is a mainstream Christian denomination. You and Saved may, of course, have reasons to vote for Romney rather than Obama, but you'll have to find something other than "religion" to base it on.

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

I wouldn't vote for Romney if his life depended on it.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

You try and you try and you try to convince people that the “Obama is a Muslim” people are a small portion of the population, and that anyone attempting to characterize any disagreement with Obama as being based in this myth is making a straw man argument.

But then in one fell swoop...

[brick wall]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
You try and you try and you try to convince people that the “Obama is a Muslim” people are a small portion of the population, and that anyone attempting to characterize any disagreement with Obama as being based in this myth is making a straw man argument.

But then in one fell swoop...

Have you considered the possibility that the biggest obstacle to convincing people that the "Barack Obama is a double secret Muslim Atheist CommuNazi" position is only held by a small group of fringe cranks is that it isn't?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
You try and you try and you try to convince people that the “Obama is a Muslim” people are a small portion of the population, and that anyone attempting to characterize any disagreement with Obama as being based in this myth is making a straw man argument.

But then in one fell swoop...

Have you considered the possibility that the biggest obstacle to convincing people that the "Barack Obama is a double secret Muslim Atheist CommuNazi" position is only held by a small group of fringe cranks is that it isn't?

Yes. And it scares the bejeezus outta me.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

When was the last time they took a national number on that one? I got surveyed a lot before the Colorado primary, and they never asked me if Obama was a secret Muslim. The last one I found was 2010, when it was one in five Americans. And as anyone will tell you, one in five Americans are total dumbasses.

[ 25. April 2012, 17:02: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
And as anyone will tell you, one in five Americans are total dumbasses.

More like 27%.

quote:
John: Hey, Bush is now at 37% approval. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is --

Tyrone: 27%.

John: ... you said that immmediately, and with some authority.

Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.

John: Objectively crazy or crazy vis-a-vis my own inertial reference frame for rational behaviour? I mean, are you creating the Theory of Special Crazification or General Crazification?

Tyrone: Hadn't thought about it. Let's split the difference. Half just have worldviews which lead them to disagree with what you consider rationality even though they arrive at their positions through rational means, and the other half are the core of the Crazification -- either genuinely crazy; or so woefully misinformed about how the world works, the bases for their decision making is so flawed they may as well be crazy.

John: You realize this leads to there being over 30 million crazy people in the US?

Tyrone: Does that seem wrong?

John: ... a bit low, actually.

Originally posted October 7, 2005.

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
And as anyone will tell you, one in five Americans are total dumbasses.

Does this count as inside confirmation? [Frown]

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
And as anyone will tell you, one in five Americans are total dumbasses.
Does this count as inside confirmation?

Well, the survey cited above suggests it's in the ballpark:

quote:
Q24 Do you think that interracial marriage should be legal or illegal?
Legal 67%
Illegal 21%
Not sure 12%

Well, that's depressing. [Frown]

OliviaG

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Once again, we should ask what the national average on that question would be. The survey numbers you guys are citing are from a survey that was only given to voters in Mississippi and Alabama, the two traditional outlier states.

(The original source of my phrasing, incidentally, was stolen from a South Park episode, in which it is used to explain why one in four Americans believe that 9-11 was an inside job. The clip was crass enough that I thought it probably shouldn't be posted, even with a "not safe for work" warning.)

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Once again, we should ask what the national average on that question would be. The survey numbers you guys are citing are from a survey that was only given to voters in Mississippi and Alabama, the two traditional outlier states.

No, to likely Republican voters in Mississippi and Alabama. That probably skews the results even further. Still, given that's the general demographic targetted with this kind of disinformation campaign it's a valuable measure of that campaign's success.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[q] No, to likely Republican voters in Mississippi and Alabama. That probably skews the results even further. Still, given that's the general demographic targetted with this kind of disinformation campaign it's a valuable measure of that campaign's success.

But probably not a valuable measure of the number of people who will actually not vote for Obama because they believe that he is a secret Muslim.

[ 25. April 2012, 19:00: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[q] No, to likely Republican voters in Mississippi and Alabama. That probably skews the results even further. Still, given that's the general demographic targetted with this kind of disinformation campaign it's a valuable measure of that campaign's success.
But probably not a valuable measure of the number of people who will actually not vote for Obama because they believe that he is a secret Muslim.

I think you're missing the point. The the reason the "Obama is a secret Muslim" or "Obama's not really a citizen" conspiracy theories exist isn't to convince people not to vote for him. It's to give people who would never vote for him a reason they can cite instead of the real source of their revulsion with the man; "OMG! the president's a negro*". It's a way they can say "he's not really one of us, if you know what I mean" without sounding like complete throwbacks.

--------------------
*The term "negro" will only be used if they're feeling exceptionally charitable.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

That is an interesting analysis of the secret Muslim myth. But it sidesteps out discussion here. I said that the secret Muslim believers are a fringe. You said they aren't, and used a particular poll to prove your point. We then established that the poll numbers you cited were skewed. So yeah, it may be that the Muslim thing is a cover for racism. But you still have not shown that this is more than a crackpot fringe.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
That is an interesting analysis of the secret Muslim myth. But it sidesteps out discussion here. I said that the secret Muslim believers are a fringe. You said they aren't, and used a particular poll to prove your point.

Actually I was questioning whether the "fringe crankery" explanation has anything behind it other than preference. If you prefer national polling, that exists too, though it's not as current. As of a year-and-half ago the secret Muslim position was polling at 18% nationally. And rising.

For comparison, that's about the same percentage as Americans that belong to mainline Protestant churches.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

What is really shocking about that poll is that the religion question is really a multiple choice test with a right answer (Obama is a Christian) and only 34% of the people who responded got that one right. [Ultra confused]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

An interesting take on the poll would have been;

a) Is Obama a Muslim? Y/N

b) Is Obama an Atheist? Y/N

c) Do Atheists believe in God? Y/N

d) Do Muslims believe in God? Y/N

e) Can Muslims be Atheists? Y/N

You could do a version with Communism and Fascism as well. Finishing then with

j) Is black white? Y/N

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0