~”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.
So that's why the Log Cabin of Massachusetts endorsed Mitt, because of all his "generally conservative" views in his gubernatorial platform. (I always wondered about that)
Listen, name me just two (something other than "gay" "marriage"--and even THAT was passed on his watch) issues on anything related to homosexuality that he took a "generally conservative" position on in 2002. (Here he promised to the Log Cabin to bring issues effecting gay and lesbian youth to the national table for attention).
Name me anything pertaining to abortion or micro-abortions or embryonic stem cells that he took a "generally conservative" position on in 2002.
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...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.
OK, I've elaborated on this more than your average poster. But let me take a fresh intro approach before returning to my standard response: I don't see posters saying that Harry Reid & Orin Hatch shouldn't run for the Senate or Sherrod Brown shouldn't run Congress or Mitt Romney shouldn't run for POTUS, do you?
I've seen no "campaign" or even loose pot-shots calling for Mitt or any of these others to withdraw from any race. So your "religious test" contention is a straw man. Mitt and these others have the qualifications to run for office; I've seen no one say he shouldn't be on the ballot (for his LDS ties or for any reason).
Now most of the thread discussions don't focus on qualifications (frankly, if they didn't have the qualifications, they wouldn't be in the race). The thread discussions zero in on candidate qualities, whether it be electability; character; voting record; statements; stances, etc. Most of us weigh a candidate on the basis of several of these--we just wind up assigning different weights to these qualities.
Unfortunately, we’re seeing some try to deny Romney his right to the same tolerance everybody else gets.
OK, here's where you have a mistaken assumption--that all religious qualities(beliefs & worldviews) of a candidate automatically should garner perfect neutrality.
First of all, besides the fact that we don't live in a perfect robotic world (IOW, it ain't gonna happen), not all "private" religious beliefs are to be treated with complete neutrality. For example, what if a candidate said, "I will honor, enforce and support all civil rights' laws; but I'm personally 'pro-choice' on racism. I won't condemn people's right to think racist thoughts."?
What about the "personal" & "private" beliefs of this candidate? What? Are you saying if this candidate claimed that such a belief was religiously motivated, somehow he gets your "religious exemption free pass?"
I judge the man on his political qualifications. There’s plenty of reason to oppose Romney on this basis.
I agree.
(I just don't stop there because a person's other-worldly commitments inevitably enter into a person's character and a person's performance/behavior...There's no way to get around that. For example, a person who thinks they are earning their way to godhood will inevitably exhibit behavior that is what I call "boomerang" behavior...yeah, they're doing "good works" but even at a sub-conscious--if not conscious level--they are doing it because it ultimately benefits themselves. Now while that can be true even in other non-LDS religious contexts, it becomes exacerbated with Mormonism. I would prefer to have someone in the White House who is others-centered vs. one who always operates on some "universal divine boomerang system." I would prefer to have someone in the White House who is others-centered vs. a power monger who one day believes he will run his own planet. Now on these grounds alone can you really find fault with me for saying these are worthy considerations alongside the many other political ones?)
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.
What you are saying is only going to effect a very small % (what we might call the "underdog" swell...you attack a "traditional values" candidate; voters who see themselves as "traditional values" voters therefore identify & bond with said candidate...and will "defend" him with their vote...that seems to be what you're saying). I'm not discounting that. It will happen; but to only a small %, and that small % (in this case) will be more than offset by voters who for the first time understand what Mormons believe and what Mitt represents.
What kinds of things?
"Oh, would-be President Romney, you believe that? You think I'm an apostate? You think I belong to the 'Church of the Devil' as described in the Book of Mormon? You think all my creeds are an 'abomination' to God? You think a woman has to be married to attain the highest degree of salvation? Your father's generation and those before him thought blacks were black because of a skin-color curse tied to some 'pre-existence' we all had? What? You say my God was created no different than you or me? You say he belongs to a grander council of gods out there?
What? No God created anything from scratch? The original "matter" (whatever that was) just evolved from who knows what? (If that "goo" evolved and God only "organized" it, is he going to take a pro-evolution-in-public-schools bully pulpit stance somewhere down the road?) 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.