Nice reductionism. Does Thompson's (past?) faith put "institutes" near every college campus? Do they teach you can become a god? Is the salvation they offer based upon 16 things YOU have to do to garner exaltation? Have they made the good news of the gospel into a series of laws you have to follow? Does the town where most of the folks who believe what he believed is among the nation's leaders in suicide (like Utah)?
Interesting you mention that. The conversation normally goes something like this: “Mormons are bad.” “No we aren’t!” You’re acting like we’re living in a world like this:“No we aren’t!” “Mormons are bad.”
Look, I'm not sovereign enough to pre-arrange the topics of the posts around here. They're usually driven by what's in the media (since they all start with an article), so in one sense the topics are media-driven. All I can tell you is that you can review the threads for yourself and you'll see all of the major candidates taking their lumps at one time or another. It seems to have been (from the looks of what folks have posted) open season.
Whereas on any given week I see the media and posters here addressing Mormonism, I don't see the media and posters here addressing Fred's (past?) faith. Certainly in more recent months you can make a partial case for that being that if Mitt gave up his stake meetings and didn't make anything of his Mormon roots, certainly the frequency of Mormonism being addressed in these threads would die down.
So I tell you what: You start a thread about Fred's spiritual beliefs with some real meaty content (not guesswork) and ping me and I'll be glad to participate in the discussion.
Generally speaking, if detractors didn’t bring up Romney’s faith, it’d hardly come up at all in political threads where he’s the subject. In fact, I found much of August and September to be just that way, and it was quite nice.
Are you that clueless? You're telling me that the liberal MSM, who always takes every opportunity to bash anyone from the "religious right," is giving Mitt a free pass in mentioning his faith? (You must have been vacationing in the Pacific of Kolob)
Look, I rarely post articles. If I wanted to, I could go to the LDS Church-owned Deseret News 3-6 times a week and, skipping those you would call "purely religious" articles, I could post gobs of articles that mix Mormon faith with some other admixture. Some would be a faith & politics mix; during the Olympic games in SLC, there were numerous "Mormons & the Olympics" articles. I mean, even though the Boy Scouts sport a "I believe in God" dimension, they're basically a secular organization. I'm sure I could find plenty of Boy Scouts & Mormons articles. (You get the drift).
Now if the Mormon church has the right to comment (thru Deseret) on the admixture of faith and the public square, why do you consider that a monopoly privileged only to Mormons?
You recall correctly, though I am becoming less so. I’m finding him to be the least politically unacceptable of the viable candidates. Another week or so, I think, and I won’t be able to claim the “iffy-ness.”
Tanty, what I appreciate about you is that you are an authentic person. You are a rare transparent Mormon. You're a straight shooter. Well, because of that, I know you've said exactly the same thing a few months ago. (Seemingly always on the edge of Mitt, about to become a Mittbot, but not quite committing)
I have, like you, commented on the double-standard. How is Thompson given this aura of Conservative Savior when he’s migrated right just as far as Romney has, and has plenty of blemishes in his record to rankle conservatives? Yet Romney gets pilloried for the same evolution while Thompson gets a pass, at least here on FR.
Well, look closer into Fred's record. He is conservative, and no, he hasn't migrated as far as Romney has. Use common sense. What do you need to present yourself to be elected in Tennessee? Now ask the same question: What do you need to market yourself as to get yourself elected in Massachusetts? As for blemishes, yes (but they all do--even if it's only electability)
None of the major-tiered candidates have received a total free "pass" (even if it's not always been evenly balanced; but again, since most discussion is generated by what's in the media, whoever said the media was balanced?)
~”All I can tell you is that you can review the threads for yourself and you’ll see all of the major candidates taking their lumps at one time or another.”~
That’s true. We do have certain standards in this country, though. One of those is freedom of religion. Conservative philosophy demands that this freedom be extended such that there is no religious test for office, short of that religion advocating harm to others. Unfortunately, we’re seeing some try to deny Romney his right to the same tolerance everybody else gets. It’s not acceptable from the standpoint of the ideals upon which this nation was founded.
~”You start a thread about Fred’s spiritual beliefs with some real meaty content (not guesswork) and ping me and I’ll be glad to participate in the discussion.”~
Why? I don’t particularly care about Thompson’s spiritual beliefs. I judge the man on his political qualifications. There’s plenty of reason to oppose Romney on this basis. My point is to illustrate the double-standard some are applying.
~”Are you that clueless?”~
From time to time. But not on this issue.
~”You’re telling me that the liberal MSM, who always takes every opportunity to bash anyone from the “religious right,” is giving Mitt a free pass in mentioning his faith?”~
Oh, Romney will be attacked as a religious nut, that’s for sure. So was Bush. So would Thompson. But discrediting him on the basis of the specifics of his faith will violate the electorate’s sense of fair play. It’ll be like Miracle-Gro for his grassroots support. Like you calling my sister stupid - I can do it all I want, but I’m likely to flatten you if you do it. The various denominations of the religious right are the same way.
~”Now if the Mormon church has the right to comment (thru Deseret) on the admixture of faith and the public square, why do you consider that a monopoly privileged only to Mormons?”~
Your point is good; but politics is a different beast. A person in the United States of America should not be disqualified from leadership positions on the basis of the details of his faith. That’s a black-and-white sort of thing. If that religion leads him to respect God and be a better person (which there is no serious debate on with Mormonism), then it is not a disqualification from office. I don’t care if it’s Mormonism, Methodism, Judaism, Islam, or B’hai B’rith. That’s the America we live in, or ought to be.
~”What do you need to market yourself as to get yourself elected in Massachusetts?”~
Evidently, a state fiscal crisis you can handle and a commitment to leave abortion be. Believe it or not, Romney was generally conservative on about every other issue in his gubernatorial platform, even if he couldn’t actually -do- much in the deep blue of MA. AWB is about the only other thing worthy of valid criticism from his governing record.