As I read your last response, I noticed some areas where while we're still in disagreement, at least I know you've fairly considered my points (and I would hope you feel the same way about my review of your considerations). This is one of those points. I think I can respect your position, and would hope you respect mine. It's just a slight nuance I hold where that's a quality I deem as relevant (and I understand you don't).
To whom does Jack Bauer pray anyway -- do you even know?
Perhaps I didn't communicate what I meant like I should have. I wasn't meaning that Jack Bauer prayed as the character on "24." What I meant by a "24"-type crisis was were the dirty-bomb threats & accompanying decisions that had to be made by the character of the president on this show. They were of such a catastrophic nature, that the true God's intervention would have been the first "Advisor" that would have come to mind for me.
"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?
A worthwhile point, but I know an LDS prez will have some LDS folks in his cabinet/advisory posts...and the buck will still stop with him.
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... 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."
Perhaps the best way I could illustrate this would be to mention the racial and minority "preferences" (since you rightly use the word "prefer[ence]" for a female candidate above) as a parallel. When a college or university exercises racial/minority quotas only because of the race or minority status the student represents, by virtue of the fact that this campus says, "We prefer minorities to plug this student gap" means that the campus is simultaneously EXCLUDING a white (or in many cases Asian) students." Indeed, it is discrimination. Campus admission policies have been so checked; they still find "end run" aways around that check.
This does not mean the voter has always voted against men in the past or never would vote for a man.
That doesn't matter. To return to the illustration above, just because a university has a "track record" of admitting whites doesn't mean that in particular, specific cases, they have not been guilty of so-called "reverse discrimination."
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!
Point taken. (You show good discernment skills here). Admittedly we don't know ALL the reasons why Mitt is running. My larger point, though, is that it's the job of the MSM to dig in with hardball questions on ALL the candidates (not just Mitt, but inclusive of him). And we really haven't seen any "hardball" questions on Mitt's belief that he'll become a "god." This broader doctrine is worth exploration by the MSM because certainly if any other candidate mentioned his future "godhood" status, it wouldn't get a free pass like Mitt has thus far. (I'm frankly afraid that the MSM is just waiting to get past the primary to press this one).
You don't see Mormons saying, "I won't ever vote for a Catholic because they worship the Pope."
I would say from my observation this is a true statement. But just because some Evangelicals are more zealous about this position doesn't mean that many LDS who live in highly concentrated LDS population areas don't inwardly subscribe to this in a similar manner. It may not be conscious; it may be framed in a more positive than a negative way like what you've seen on some of these threads...it may be couched more like "How could I possibly vote for this 'Gentile' when I have a 'Zion' rep right on the ballot?" (I also think there's subtle attempts to encourage LDS using their voting bloc status). While the attitude may be, as you pointed out, less "negative"--the fact is that the results are the same.
I mean, if I was a university admissions officer who had to tell you (say you were a white female) why we didn't accept your application despite your overly qualified components, it wouldn't really matter (a) now nice & gentle & smiley I was in telling you why we accepted the other campus candidate, now would it? (b) The bottom line would be the end-result: You were denied a college administrator's "vote of acceptance" only because of a preference quota. (In fact, how would you feel if you knew the exact student who got in ahead of you was a weaker student candidate yet was a Jehovah's Witness--and you found out that the campus administrator was likewise JW? That JW administrator could try to convince you til he was blue in the face that "religious preference" had nothing at all to do with the decision--that he's never expressed a negative thought about Christians at all (and he could be right); the bottom line is still the key).
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. 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.[soccermom]
Well, at least you've stated this better than anyone else when I've thrown out this question; most folks don't bother to address this in the detail you have here (and you've done a good job explaining your position here).
I think the matter we're dealing with is: "Is 'Mormon' just a byword to many evangelicals? Or are there a lot of Evangelicals who actually intelligently know and can unpack what that word means?"
"Bigotry"= "one who holds 'blindly' to an opinion."
Now for say, a FREEPER to "live up" to being painted with that charge, I think they would have to:
(1) First of all, they would not expose their doubts about an LDS as POTUS. The very fact they are openly raising the issue in this forum shows they are willing to entertain sharp feedback and input via ridicule and "correction" they endure. I don't know about you, but my observation of true "bigots" is that they tend to stick to "dark backwoods and alleyways" because they don't want to entertain anything contrary to their viewpoint. I mean isn't that what stubborn blindness is--someone unwilling to consider another point of view?
(2) I think folks who slam doors on LDS missionaries are acting in a more "bigot" type way because they hold the narrow view of being inhospitable reactionaries to folks just because of the badge & white shirt they wear and what that represents to them. My point here is if folks have genuinely found out what LDS believe; intelligently understand many of the basics; and have held many conversations with LDS themselves...again, I don't think that is the general mark of a "bigot." Folks like this have not trod the "blind" pathway at all but have sought to expose themselves (well, not in a literal way :) ) to LDS & what they believe.
Have you ever considered that the "blind opinions" that some folks hold may be on the other foot? Again, broadening this conversation to go beyond Mormonism and more focusing on the religious adherent status of any candidate, I would say thus: Folks who absolutely conclude that "Religion NEVER is relevant or matters in any single way in regard to any given candidate" might just be holding on to a blind (bigoted) opinion in which they won't consider an opposing position.
Suppose you & I searched out a "belief system" that you and I reviewed and openly agreed was an out-and-out deceptive cult; and we found out one of its adherents was running for city council. [Keep in mind now even LDS will label other folks like JWs as "cultists"--so there's some agreement on the term, just disagreement on how wide the application]
I would say that folks who at least did not consider the following points in regard to such a candidate could be considered "bigoted" (holding on to a blind opinion that religion is always irrelevant for public-office considerations):
Point 1: Religion isn't a qualification for public office; but it's certainly is one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc.
Point 2: If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--is an indicator that he might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist!
Point 3: Other-worldly commitments (faith) is a character issue. There's no way around this realization. To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time and time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" and "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).
Point 4: (This especially applies to POTUS and may or may not apply to all races): Bill Clinton was a presidential role-model disaster for our young generation re: the scandal. Any president we as a voting bloc elevate to the highest role model position in our land is giving the highest vote of respectability to the public aspects of what that person stands for. If that person, for example, is an open communist, and we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere. It would fuel their door-to-door boldness and other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!"
Point 5: (Not sure if this applies beyond POTUS). The Bible shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the the true Lord and who do not worship false gods/idols. The OT is replete with such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture. It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" just like the soup kitchen down the street. History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader holds, the more trouble that leader brings to that people during his reign. Kings and presidents need all the grace, mercy, and guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving and directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god and has no true relationship with the living God has less access to the resources God provides; and a nation suffers for that.
Point 6: Let's say the candidate is a open doctrinaire communist. He comes to me (let's say I'm a successful businessman who has benefitted from capitalism) and says: "You are an apostate from Marx. Every capitalistic creed is an abomination before the sovereign state. Your capitalistic leaders are corrupt. There are only two economic systems: the system of the devil (if he exists), capitalism; and the perfect ideal system, communism. I can expect your vote, then?"
Now ya wanna explain how the above is any different than a doctrinaire Mormon who subscribes to the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, verse 19? (LDS cannot just take or leave its "Scripture," ya know...for this verse comes from the very foundation of the church basis--the First Vision of Joseph Smith). Any true believing LDS candidate who approaches us historic Christians are saying: "You are an apostate; I am a restorationist built upon the complete ashes of your faith. Your creeds--all of them--are an abomination before God. Your leaders are corrupt. As it says in the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi, there are only two churches...Ours, the Church of the Lamb; and yours, the Church of the devil. Now, that I've properly inspired you, Mr. Joe Voter, I can expect your vote on Tuesday, then?"
Point 7 (related to Point 6 and applicable only to POTUS): If I, being a cultist candidate, mislabel 75% of my voting base (75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense; and frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party) as being "apostates," I not only show open disdain for them, but betray my ability to inspire confidence that I know how to accurately define a major world religion. If I cannot accurately define a major world religion, what confidence do I inspire re: my ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, and negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?