Replies

Furthermore, it is impossible to make the argument that LDS members vote "only" or even "primarily" for other Mormons, because there are very few elections that have LDS candidates.

Please educate yourself on this area before you launch out on an unstable limb.

I think you meant to say there aren't as many "major"elections involving LDS candidates (Governor races, Congressional races, etc.). I think it'd be news to, for example, Utah voters that "there are very few elections that have LDS candidates" when they vote for a slew of them serving as state reps, city council members, county commissioners, the slate that run for state positions beyond the legislature, educational candidacies at local & state level, possibly judges, etc. (Please try again)

Since LDS voters overwhelmingly vote GOP, and apparently have no qualms about voting for non-Mormon religious conservatives, your logic is flawed.

Like Evangelicals who prefer to/or not to/ vote for LDS candidates, some LDS voters have no such qualms as you reference; others who live in highly concentrated LDS population areas DO HAVE the luxury available to them in many races to NOT vote for non-Mormon religious conservatives.

They have not said, "I will not vote for XYZ because he isn't Mormon." If they did, the GOP wouldn't have them as a reliable voting bloc.

Your logic in this area makes complete sense when applied to general elections. It makes no sense at all beyond that...I mean, it's almost like you haven't heard of a thing called "primaries" where an LDS candidate might run vs. a non-LDS candidate in states like Idaho, Utah, Eastern Nevada, southwest Wyoming, and parts of Arizona--all states where there are significantly higher portions of LDS folks.

Furthermore, the reverse argument does not apply anyway. If someone says; "I'm voting for Hillary because she is a woman.", that may be a stupid reason but it doesn't mean the voter is bigoted against men. If the voter says; "I won't vote for men." then the voter is a bigot. In one case, you're voting for an attribute you like. In the other, you're excluding an entire group, based not on issues or qualifications, but on identity. Got it????

Actually, thank you for conceding my point!!! Unless you're an unusual voter who is able to vote for more than one candidate for the same race (I seem to recall that those ballots seemed to be disregarded in some important Florida race in 2000...hmmm), the fact is: By the very act of choosing to vote FOR someone (say because they are a woman), you are simultaneously voting against the rest of the competitors. The male candidate, in this instance, gets the "non-vote" simply because he is a man!

[BTW, just so you get this straight when it comes to issues like polygamy and bigamy, once you slip on your husband's wedding ring--and you don't exercise "term limits" within your marriage--then you have VOTED FOR your husband, which means you have VOTED AGAINST everybody else!!! To use your own wording, "Got it?!!"]

In the other, you're excluding an entire group, based not on issues or qualifications, but on identity.

I would imagine there are some evangelicals who might vote for an LDS candidate at the local or regional level but not the national or certainly at the POTUS level. For example, in a Jack Bauer-type crisis situation, I'd wanna a president who actually prays to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and not a president who prays to the "council of gods" mentioned in LDS "scripture."

An LDS congressman is not going to have the same unilateral decision-making for foreign policy & national security as would an LDS POTUS. If an LDS POTUS can't accurately define what a "historic Christian" is (read LDS think members of other churches are "apostates" who have a 100% abominable creedal track record), what kind of assurance does that give us that he'll be able to accurately distinguish sub-groups within Islam?

First of all, if one has multiple reasons NOT to vote for someone, then his religion shouldn't even be an issue.

Well, that makes sense if you've got a "fave" candidate who stands out on a number of issues. But what if you're voting in a lesser-of-two-"evils" race? (to use that word in a non-literal way)

What do you care what someone believes about the afterlife, unless that belief somehow calls for action in this life that impacts you?

Can we take the LDS matter out of this for just a moment? Go back to what I said on an earlier post on this thread:

Say that when Fred Thompson declares @ a declaration speech he says he's runnin' cause it's a good "career move" on his way to becoming a god. And the press asks him to elaborate. And he says, "Well, I'm going to run my own planet one day; and runnin' a country is a good prepatory stepping stone toward that objective."

Believe me! Both the MSM and public-at-large would blink at such a raw statement, prompting follow-up MSM questions & queries & speculations. Columnists would wonder, "What kind of power trip is Fred on?"

So what would automatically draw MSM & public reactions with one candidate seemingly gets a wide yawn when it comes to another (just because it's encoded in the foundational religious belief system).

I mean, if we had a "Heaven's Gate" religiously affiliated candidate (for any race), ya better believe that what this guy thinks about "other dimensions" has relevance to "this life." (Heaven's Gate, if you recall, is the UFO cult that committed mass suicide because they thought that was the open-door to meeting aliens).

What do you care what someone believes...unless that belief somehow calls for action in this life that impacts you?

What? You think we live in a vacuum? A president makes a decision to go to war; what? that doesn't impact our sons & daughters serving in the military? Even one seeming innocuous line in the Book of Mormon can have an impact on how open-armed that very influential person is to receiving or deflecting the grace of God (and believe me; every POTUS needs plenty of grace no matter what their faith is!!!).

[As an explanation: The LDS belief that "we're saved by grace AFTER all we can do" (Book of Mormon) tells me that LDS folks aren't open-handed about receiving grace UNTIL they've done ALL they can do? (And who can ever even say, "I've done all I can spiritually and physically and emotionally do?") I don't think it'd be wise to place somebody in a POTUS position who's purposely deflecting that grace just because of their religious beliefs.

I'd want a president who would be willing to receive grace well before they've done ALL they could do!!!

I think you meant to say there aren't as many "major"elections involving LDS candidates (Governor races, Congressional races, etc.). Fair enough.

Like Evangelicals who prefer to/or not to/ vote for LDS candidates, some LDS voters have no such qualms as you reference; others who live in highly concentrated LDS population areas DO HAVE the luxury available to them in many races to NOT vote for non-Mormon religious conservatives. Again, you're making an un-paralleled argument. In the former case, they're choosing NOT TO vote for a SPECIFIC religion. In the latter case, they're choosing to vote FOR a member of a specific religion, regardless of who the challenger may be. They don't say, I'm not voting for him because he is a Jew, Baptist, Catholic etc. It wouldn't matter to them what the faith of the other person was -- there is no bigotry against a specific religion.

Your logic in this area makes complete sense when applied to general elections. It makes no sense at all beyond that...I mean, it's almost like you haven't heard of a thing called "primaries" where an LDS candidate might run vs. a non-LDS candidate in states like Idaho, Utah, Eastern Nevada, southwest Wyoming, and parts of Arizona--all states where there are significantly higher portions of LDS folks. But, again, even in primaries it isn't the same thing. You don't see Mormons saying, "I won't ever vote for a Catholic because they worship the Pope." or whatever. You may very well see them say, "I'm voting for the Mormon, because I'm Mormon." But that isn't the same as excluding a SPECIFIC candidate because of his SPECIFIC religion. I had a conversation with a relatively reasonable Catholic on another thread who said he would not vote, specifically, for a Mormon. He said the didn't have that problem with Jews or Protestants etc -- just Mormons. If he had said, "I'm voting for Guiliani because he is -ahem- Catholic", that isn't bigotry. It may be a dumb reason, but not bigotry. When he says I won't vote for Romney because he's Mormon, that is bigotry. I don't know how to make the distinction any clearer.

By the very act of choosing to vote FOR someone (say because they are a woman), you are simultaneously voting against the rest of the competitors. The male candidate, in this instance, gets the "non-vote" simply because he is a man! Uhhhh..yeahhhhhh....I don't see how that proves your point. The voter isn't saying, "I won't vote for a man". The voter is saying, "I prefer the woman." This does not mean the voter has always voted against men in the past or never would vote for a man. Most of the comments I've seen regarding Mormons don't say that. They say, "I won't vote for a Mormon." --- period! Not, "I prefer to vote for the Evangelical." The Mormon is specifically excluded --- not by default, but by design.

For example, in a Jack Bauer-type crisis situation, I'd wanna a president who actually prays to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and not a president who prays to the "council of gods" mentioned in LDS "scripture." I don't care to WHOM he prays. I only care that he knows how to handle a crisis situation. To whom does Jack Bauer pray anyway -- do you even know?

"what kind of assurance does that give us that he'll be able to accurately distinguish sub-groups within Islam?" Uhhhh because he'll have a foreign policy adviser like every other POTUS?

Well, that makes sense if you've got a "fave" candidate who stands out on a number of issues. But what if you're voting in a lesser-of-two-"evils" race? If the only distinction you can draw between 2 candidates is their faiths, that pretty much illustrates how irrelevant their faiths are. You've got 2 candidates that are the same, despite the fact that they come from different religions. That said, I have no problem with someone using religion as a tie-breaker. But, again, those are not the comments I've been seeing. I've seen Mormonism used as the first thing to rule him out --- not the tie-breaker.

So what would automatically draw MSM & public reactions with one candidate seemingly gets a wide yawn when it comes to another. LOL! That is because NO ONE HAS SAID that. " (just because it's encoded in the foundational religious belief system)." Oh, so your assumptions about why Mitt Romney is running based on your characterization of what is "encoded in the foundational religious belief system" are the equivalent of him saying that! You don't know if his decision to run for office has one thing to do with views on the afterlife. Catholics believe a living woman was taken, body and soul, into Heaven. Do you see people asking Guilini to explain/defend that?

What? You think we live in a vacuum? A president makes a decision to go to war; what? that doesn't impact our sons & daughters serving in the military? Of COURSE that impacts our lives. How does being MORMON make a difference in that decision? Sheesh! Amazingly enough, if hasn't prevented him from being on the right side of the WOT!