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.
These words were tacked on to my last post...they were yours and I was originally going to address them but didn't (& failed to delete them)
Sorry about the late reply; I’ve been involved in a family function the last few days.
~”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)”~
I reject the premise that an endorsement from the Log Cabin Republicans is an undesirable thing. The party is a big tent; LCR are primarily fiscal conservatives, and they liked that about Romney. I think many on FR unjustly shun LCR, particularly Christians. Somehow it’s OK for some of us to forget that gays are God’s children, too. Yet these are not the gays we should be worried about - my understanding is that they generally do not promote the radical gay agenda. Why shouldn’t LCR be fully accepted into the Republican movement? Because we’re scared of people who are different from us?
That being said, while MA’s LCR organization may have endorsed Romney, the national organization is none too happy with him right now:
http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/reading-room-back-up/more-distortions-from-mitt-as.html
~”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.”~
Now, it’s a bit unfair to place that restriction on the debate - gay marriage IS the “gay rights” issue. Still, I can meet your criteria, except, of course, the 2002 bit, since he has changed his politics since his governor’s run - a thing which I’ve already conceded to you bothers me. From Unmarked Package’s page
(http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#gayrights):
***
Governor Romney strongly defended the right of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts to deny placing adoptive children in the homes of gay couples; saying it was unjust to require a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to satisfy a special-interest group. Romney filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Legislature, a bill to exempt Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from the state anti-discrimination law.
~~~
Governor Romney responded to a question about the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and gays in the military during an NRO interview with Kathryn Jean Lopez in December, 2006:
Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today?
Gov. Romney: “No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.”
“As for military policy and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush’s decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same.”
***
~”Name me anything pertaining to abortion or micro-abortions or embryonic stem cells that he took a “generally conservative” position on in 2002.”
OK. The 2002 thing is out again, for the reasons mentioned above. But we do have the benefit of his more recent rhetoric as well as his gubernatorial record. Once again, thanks to Unmarked Package for the legwork. He has a lot more than the following listed (http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#abortion):
***
Governor Romney was presented with legislation concerning life issues on several occasions from the 85% majority Democrat Legislature in Massachusetts. In every instance he took the pro-life position by vetoing bills or lobbying for the pro-life approach, including the following actions:
He vetoed the bill providing state funding for human embryonic stem cell research
(Theo Emery, “Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Vetoes Stem Cell Bill,” The Associated Press, 5/27/05)
He vetoed a bill that provided for the “morning after pill” without a prescription because it is an abortifacient and would have been available to minors without parental notification and consent
(Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, “Why I Vetoed The Contraception Bill,” The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)
He vetoed legislation which would have redefined Massachusetts longstanding definition of the beginning of human life from fertilization to implantation
(Governor Mitt Romney, Letter To The Massachusetts State Senate And House Of Representatives, 5/12/05)
He supported parental notification laws and opposed efforts to weaken parental involvement
(John McElhenny, “O’Brien And Romney Spar In Last Debate Before Election,” The Associated Press, 10/29/02)
He fought to promote abstinence education in public school classrooms with a program offered by faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Gov. Romney’s administration was the first in Massachusetts to use federal abstinence education funds for classroom programs.
(Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, Romney Announces Award of Abstinence Education Contract, April 20, 2006)
***
Now, if you’re so against Romney, you really should know these things about him. Why’d you ask me? Have you not looked at his record? We both know he has shifted right since 2002; but we’re discussing the presidential candidate today, not the gubernatorial candidate of five years ago. He pandered to MA voters on these things. I grant that. But he’s where he should be today.
The counter-question, then, becomes, what in Romney’s record as governor or rhetoric today demonstrate that he is in any way supportive of the life issues or gay “rights” issues you’ve mentioned? What leads you to think that his conversion is not genuine, that he is really closet pro-abortion or will in actuality support gay marriage if elected?
~”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?”~
That’s true. But, then, we do hear some people saying things along the line of, Well, there are hundreds of senators and representatives. A Mormon in that position won’t be able to do much damage. A Mormon in the White House would be far too dangerous.
Well, this is laughable on the face of it. I suspect the real fear that many of these people have is derived from their perception that an LDS president would serve to legitimize a religious system with which they disagree. I don’t accept the premise, but I think that fear is prevalent amongst those who oppose Romney on religious grounds.
~”I’ve seen no “campaign” or even loose pot-shots calling for Mitt or any of these others to withdraw from any race.”~
That’s true. It would backfire badly were a candidate or special interest group to do so, so we haven’t seen it. Which is why I refuse to accept the idea that Clinton would make that mistake.
But we DO see it amongst a vocal faction of mainstream Christians, so we’ve got a bit of a circular firing squad going on here.
~”Are you saying if this candidate claimed that such a belief was religiously motivated, somehow he gets your “religious exemption free pass?””~
No. But you tell me one religious doctrine in Mormonism that would affect Romney’s public policy. Since we see Mormons running the gamut from left to right, it seems a very reasonable conclusion that religious doctrine in Mormonism has very little intersection with public politics (though I, for one, fail to understand how Reid reconciles his religious convictions with his liberal policies; still, he evidently does it).
On this subject, you might find the following article interesting:
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3594
It’s a remarkably even-handed attempt at taking on the demanding task of explaining to mainstream Christians what makes Mormons tick, and therefore what Romney’s religion might do to inform his presidency.
~”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.”~
You severely misunderstand LDS doctrine. Our goal is to get ourselves right with God. This is done through faith in Christ and repentance. The rest is details. It has nothing to do with public policy, except that it tends to reinforce our conscience. Same effect on us as any other Christian denomination on its adherents. This is not threatening; some choose to see it as such, but that is the voice of prejudice rather than reason.
Now, some of the doctrinal points you mention are not accurate; in any case, every faith has kooky points to it, things that it’s difficult for the outsider to understand. For example, I think the idea of the “rapture” is patently ridiculous; but do I oppose an Evangelical because he’s certain that I’m going to be “left behind” because of my evil ways (that is, my Mormonism)?
Now, since we are discussing the religious aspects, let’s broaden it to the other major contenders.
Giuliani? Catholic-in-name-only.
Thompson? He attends church when he’s visiting his mother.
Both may well believe in God; but do they worship God? Do they humble themselves before Him? Do they earnestly try to apply Christ’s saving grace in their lives? Their actions would not seem to indicate so.
One thing I truly admire about Bush is his humility before God. He prays for guidance. He goes to his knees in humility and pleads for help to make the right decisions.
I don’t particularly care what religion you are (God hears and answers all His children), but what I DO want is a man who will seek that guidance. I want a man in there who is a man of faith.
Agree with Mormonism or not, which of the three do -you- think is most likely to meet this particular criteria?