Posted on 12/21/2006 11:05:18 AM PST by Utah Girl
Someone who refuses to consider voting for a woman as president is rightly deemed a sexist. Someone who'd never vote for a black person is a racist. But are you a religious bigot if you wouldn't cast a ballot for a believing Mormon?
The issue arises with Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's as-yet-undeclared bid for the 2008 Republican nomination. Romney would not be the first member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to run for the nation's highest office. He follows Orrin Hatch (2000); Mo Udall (1976); his father, George Romney (1968); and not least of all Joseph Smith, who ran in 1844 on a platform of "theodemocracy," abolition, and cutting congressional pay. Despite a strong showing in the Nauvoo straw poll, Smith didn't play much better nationally than Hatch did, and had to settle for the Mormon-elected post of King of the Kingdom of Heaven.
With his experience as a successful businessman, Olympic organizer, and governor, Romney has a better chance, but he may still have to overcome a tall religious hurdle. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, only 38 percent of Americans say they'd definitely consider voting for a Mormon for president. Yet many analysts think LDS membership is not an insuperable obstacle. Various evangelical sects continue to view Mormonism as heretical, non-Christian, or even satanic. But because of their shared faith in social conservatism, evangelical leaders seem open to supporting Romney. As far apart as they are theologically, Mormons and evangelical Christians may have more in common with each other anthropologically than they do with secular Americans watching Big Love on HBO. The remaining skepticism on the far right seems to have more to do with doubt about whether Romney has truly and forever ditched
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Ten Mormons before one Muslim.
So what if Romney's a Mormon, so's Harry Reid. I'm a Baptist and so is Bill Clinton. Big deal..........
What does a book on Thomas Jefferson have to do with a biography on Joseph Smith?
Guess I'm "dating" myself, but there was a time when a Catholic being President was thought to be an impossibility.
I would consider voting for a Mormon. I would never vote for a member of the ideology that promotes death and destruction and conversion by force.
mormon's are pretty clean cut. I remember J. edgar hoover loved to hire them as fbi agents.
The LDS church does not support poligamy
Seriously, there are plenty of reasons not to support this flip-flopping, milquetoast election-loser. Who cares what his religion is.
I am impressed by him and his proven record of accomplishment. I would vote for him, for imo he would be very able President. (Unlike McCain and Guiliani, he has no divorce baggage.)
I own a construction company that has built 10 LDS churches here on the left coast. I have had nothing but positive experiences with Mormons. They have paid on time and their checks are always good and they are fabulous people to work with.
I'm a Catholic. I don't believe a word of LDS belief wherever it departs from Catholic belief (which is in quite a few places).
I also probably won't vote for Gov. Romney.
But that's because I perceive him as a liberal, not because he's a member of the LDS.
Kennedy's religion: A Catholic President? No way.
Isn't funny how people try to pin labels on other people when the real problem is their female,black ,or Morman candidates are so flawed that they aren't worthy of serious consideration.
I recall the same concerns being expressed over the fact that JFK was a Roman Catholic. Having been raised in Salt Lake City, and being a Catholic myself, I can't think of any religion who's more patriotic, conservative or family value oriented than a Mormon-just don't expect cocktails or coffee at White House dinners!
I read Brodie's book on TJ. I found a lot of her research quite good. The problem was that she went waaay out on a limb to make assertions and come to conclusions that her research could not support. She assigned motives to TJ that she could not know. I thought she, at times, made very interesting points, but by the end, she had undermined any reputation she could have had by her dubious and unfounded psychological analysis. I was a student at Mr. Jefferson's University when this book was published and I can assure you that her ability as an historian was not well regarded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.