Hey!!
Posted on 06/12/2011 10:10:18 AM PDT by Colofornian
Tell you what Wolfstar: Let's see if you're man enough to be consistent here: Romney got 90-95% of the Mormon vote in '08 from Western states' Lds. That means that a LOT of Mormons voted for Romney either soley or primarily on the basis of a shared religion. Was that "bigotry" in your eyes?
“And when it comes to POTUS, that’s where it matters. Because he could be the “prophet’s” puppet.”
Well, I haven’t read all the post for this thread, but I have paid attention to the Romney debacle for the past 15 years of so, and I’ve read pretty much everything Walter Martin and the Tanners and others have written about Mormonism. I’ve lived in a Mormon community, converted a Mormon missionary in my living room, made friends with Mormons, and found Mormons I can’t stand, none of which matters when it comes to my opinion of Romney. I have no doubts about him being a progressive, Republican intellectual, in his own mind, and that means he will make a horrible president. I seriously doubt that we need to fear the LDS church using Romney as a puppet to dominate America with Mormonism.
Let me clarify my point about dominionism. I am no more wary of Mormon dominionism than I am Calvinist dominionism, Historicist dominionism, or Catholic dominionism. I hate them all equally as much as I hate leftist dominionism and ivy league dominionism, and that includes neocon dominionism. Don’ t let me forget my utterly vile contempt of Islamic dominionism. I don’t need the Mormon church to despise Romney. I would despise him if he were to convert to a Methodist, and I would keep despising him until I could see sincerity and a change of character because of his devotion to Christ.
I have no problem with the points you are trying to make. Bringing religion into your decision about a candidate for president is perfectly reasonable, and it is perfectly reasonable for you to share your convictions with the rest of us. Thank you. You bet I’ll consider someone’s religion before supporting them or voting for them. As I got so snidely told in the previous response to me, religion should have an influence on what someone’s character is. That isn’t always true, and personally I don’t think it has much to do with Romney. ...Now I’ll get someone telling me I’m a Romney apologist.
Why am I not surprised that once again you're on the wrong side of the issue? As Godzilla and others correctly point out a little later, our Constitutional "expert" provides a flawed interpretation.
So, magritte and wolfstar, are you saying that there are no religious beliefs, no matter how bizarre, which would disqualify a candidate in your opinion? All of us have a point at which we would conclude that those religious beliefs are too weird and where we couldn't, in good conscience, vote for a candidate who holds to those positions. Whether Mormonism is beyond that point is a personal decision but I'd be reluctant to criticize someone who draws a line just because they draw it at a different point than I do. The question isn't IF we draw a line but WHERE.
(1) You said: I seriously doubt that we need to fear the LDS church using Romney as a puppet to dominate America with Mormonism.
Scripture is clear we don't need to fear man or his man-made organizations -- like the Mormon church.
You use the word "fear"...I use a Biblical word: "concern."
Even God has shown his concern for people groups:
10 But the LORD said, “You have been concerned about this plant, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 11 And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?” (Jonah 4:10)
(2) You said: I am no more wary of Mormon dominionism than I am Calvinist dominionism, Historicist dominionism, or Catholic dominionism.
From a practical recent historical angle, I can understand this. I addressed that, however, in post #9: Past Recent Prophets' Actions not Indicative of Future Performances
I'm saying just because the world has gotten used to a typical "businessman" "prophet" like a Monson, a Hinckley, a Harold B. Lee, etc. -- doesn't mean that a more theocratic style like a Joseph Smith or a Brigham Young couldn't come along as some new Mormon "prophet" that could coincide with an Lds POTUS.
My point to you in my last post might be that if somebody sized up even Joseph Smith in the early 1830s -- as having no concern about his domineering ways -- well that was easily altered in his later years.
All I'm saying is: Don't let your guard down 100%...'Cause as Damon Linker points out in his 2007 response to Bushman:
"Mormons, you imply, would never follow a morally questionable or politically perilous pronouncement by the prophet in Salt Lake City. I do not doubt that you and many other Mormons believe this. But can you tell me...why--on what basis--you believe it?"
(And Linker went on to say that "Mormonism has none of these moderating safeguards" such as built in to the RC Pope, the closed canon of Scripture, binding historical councils of the church, a steeped tradition, etc.)
Hi Jim. Thank you for your reply, which focused not on Romney's religion, but on several issues where many conservatives, myself included, part company with Romney.
The title of this thread is "Mitt Romney's Mormonism: A TNR online debate." My initial reply on this thread focused solely on that -- a discussion of Mitt Romney's Mormon faith. I was NOT supporting Romney, but the Constitution.
Above all else, politically I'm a Constitutional conservative. Freedom of religion and no religious tests for candidates for public office are cornerstones of our Republic. As such, I take them as seriously as I do the rest of the Constitution.
As you pointed out in your response to me, there are multiple policy issues on which people can evaluate Romney. Although all individuals are free to use whatever criteria they wish, including religion, as the basis for their votes, I'm opposed to making that the sole focus for any candidate, Dem, Rep or otherwise. Again, the title of this thread is "Mitt Romney's Mormonism." In my long participation on FR, I don't recall ever seeing a similarly focused thread about any other candidate's religion.
I do NOT support Romney for president. At this early stage, I have doubts about all the candidates and support no one yet. If they get in the race, I believe Sarah Palin and Rick Perry are going to duke it out for the nomination, and I will vote for whichever one gets it. If they don't get in the race, I'm going to take a serious look at Tim Pawlenty. To me, Romney is what was once called a "Rockefeller Republican," and I have always been against that wing of the party.
So am I. Hence, the phrasing I used in post #38 I've used DOZENS of times going back to 2007: ...certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc.
In my long participation on FR, I don't recall ever seeing a similarly focused thread about any other candidate's religion. [Wolfstar]
Dennis Kucinich was a candidate in '08. But he was a Democrat. He's also a New Ager. Were Kucinich a RINO Republican like Romney & he was running again, you better believe you'd see a lot of New Age threads on FR.
Otherwise, show me a popular cult similar to Mormonism -- made up of conservatives -- who frequent FR & have a few POTUS candidates...hence, you can't name one...hence, the explanation as to why you don't see similarly focused threads.
First of all, I could not easily reply earlier as I was posting from my cell phone while at work. I work shifts and was on today from 6:00am to 2:00pm Pacific time.
Secondly, the title of this thread is, "Mitt Romney's Mormonism: A TNR online debate." My contribution to this debate was and is to say that religious bigotry against political candidates has no place in our Constitutional Republic. There are many reasons for conservatives to oppose Mitt Romney on policy grounds. We need not oppose him on religious grounds. I oppose Romney on several policy grounds, state-run health care being at the top of my list. But I do not give a fig about his religion.
You ask, "why play the bigot card?" Please read this carefully, because I'm choosing my words carefully. If Romney's religion is the SOLE reason someone opposes him, then that is religious bigotry.
You say Mormons are practicing anti-Christian bigotry every day. I was raised a Roman Catholic, and still consider myself a Catholic, thus Christian, even though I do not now practice any organized religion. Yet I have been offended here several times over the years by FReepers who self-identify as Christians, yet who call Catholicism a cult and deny its history as the first Christian church.
So you see, Mormons have no corner on religious bigotry. Look what Muslims do to non-believers, for whom they invented the word "infidel." Me, personally, I'm disgusted with ALL organized religions. Look at the priest sexual abuse scandals. Look at the recent admission by the Dalai Lama that he is a Marxist (barf!). Look at the so-called liberal Christian churches. I remember one of their leaders being heavily involved in forcing Elian Gonzalez to go back to communist Cuba.
I believe in God, the bible and Christ's beautiful teachings, but I don't believe in any organized religion. The person who started this thread wanted a debate. This is my contribution to the debate.
Thank you. At least you understand the core point I was making. As for Kucinich, hahahaha. Can't help laughing. He was never a serious candidate, but one of those fringe types who runs every cycle only to raise their own personal profile.
Can't prove a negative, though, so how a Republican fringe whacko candidate like Kucinich would be treated on FR on religious grounds will never be known. We see a lot of comments here about Obama and his affinity for Islam, so who knows.
The overwhelming majority of Republican candidates for president are Christians from one of the Protestant denominations, so it's rare for religion to even be discussed as an issue, as Romney's Mormon faith has been. I can't help wondering if there was a serious Republican candidate for president who happened to be a Roman Catholic, how would FReeperdom treat that person.
Exactly, Magritte. Bringing religion into any political debate is a recipe for potential disaster, in my opinion. There are plenty of policy-oriented issues that we can evaluate Romney (or any candidate) on without resorting to pointing fingers at his religion.
Well, please answer me this:
Why are the posters who are so quick to toss out the "B" word (bigotry) because some voters take religion as either a sole or primary basis for at least eliminating some candidates -- why don't we see them hurl the same "B" word @ Mormon voters?
We know from CNN exit polls and other data that 90-95% of Lds Utah voters -- and AZ as well -- voted for Romney. A Feb. 2008 Salt Lake Trib article said that exit polls of Utah voters say they bucked national trends (re: voting on issues) and voted for Romney based upon "personal qualities." (Personal qualities was Mormonese for "Romney's a fellow Mormon.")
You know & I know that the 60% of Utah citizens who are Mormon voters may often -- like they did with Romney in '08 -- vote for a Mormon primarily or solely because he's Mormon.
When are you -- as well as members who have come out of the closet as part of the FREEPER bigotry patrol -- going to hunt down these Mormon voters for using religion as their key yardstick for voting? When are you or the Bigotry Patrol going to start excoriating them?
You see, to me, if Mormon voters want to do that...hey, it's a Free Republic.
Likewise, if Jewish voters in CT consistently voted for Joseph Lieberman over other candidates -- and they used his faith as a primary or only reason -- shouldn't the Bigotry patrol be attacking that? Or what about Catholic voters who have voted for Catholic candidates taking their Catholicism into primary (or only) consideration?
Why the inconsistency? Why the rampant hypocrisy?
I know in your last post(s) you seemed to moderate your original stance & recognized that religion was indeed an "OK" criteria. But what about voters who use that as an "only" or strong primary consideration for their "yes" vote? (Not their "no" bypass?)
Are all these voters operating anti-Constitutionally as your earlier posts implied? Really?
Well, I'd like to see you and Magritte step out of your potential display of open hypocrisy then (read post #51 for background).
If we can show, Magritte, that CT Jewish voters took Joseph Lieberman's Jewishness into primary or sole consideration when they voted for him, we'd like to hear that chorus from Wolfstar's "recipe for potential disaster" refrain that you seem to agree with.
We already know religious-based voting was the case among Western States' Mormon voters voting for Romney in '08. But still awaiting a rebuke of Mormon voters from the hypocrites and potential hypocrites.
I've heard these lines from Mormon FREEPERS going back to '07...yet I've haven't seen from a ONE-of-them open critiques of religious voters who vote primarily or only because a candidate shares their faith values.
Why not?
Is it because they -- and perhaps you as well -- know you'd be taking on the majority of America?
Is it because the very people you try to come across as nobly protecting -- religious minorities -- are the ones then you'd have to turn around and excoriate to be consistent?
Oh, and don't stop at religious minorities.
This situation is parallel to let's say, a number of FREEPERS who consistently might toss out the "S" word (sexist) at other FREEPERS. Why? Because those voters might take the sex of a candidate into strong(er) consideration.
Well, if those FREEPERS existed, then we'd expect them next to tackle all the GOP women who voted for the Palin-McCain ticket primarily or only because Palin was female and was breaking the GOP ticket ceiling. Right?
When are we going to see some consistency in your -- and similarly minded FREEPERS' -- accusations?
nope...
Hey!!
I do so wish this point could be gotten across to the MANY folks on FR that say they are MUCH more worried about ISLAM than MORMONism!
This is PROBABLY because MORMONism is not a 'christian' denomination, therefore outside the realm of normalcy!
Nothing redefined. It means some voters will ONLY (or Primarily) tolerate candidates of their own cloth. Doesn't that also then equate to being intolerant of non-(Name your religion) candidates running against the 'inside-the-cloth' candidates?
Yes?
No?
It's the bigot patrol which has extended their "thou shalt not" list into the political arena: They've endlessly told us, "Thou shalt not eliminate a candidate only or primarily because of thine religion."
Well, the exact flip side of that political correctness is: "Thou shalt not select a candidate only or primarily because of thine religion."
Two sides of the same coin.
You must be at the head of your mind-reading class.
I did not read this as "Letter of the law" statement as others have analyzed, but a general statement that the Founding Fathers probably disapproved of religious bigotry, which I agree with. Of course voters can use any reason they want to decide on a candidate; fat, tall, stupid, Mormon, bible thumper, talks funny, whatever.
What was the purpose of the Constitution? To define the powers and roles of the federal government. It was not directed to the individual. A person can't be ruled unconstitutional for voting for using a religious test.
Same with Muslims, Jews, Hindus, et al. Mormons believe weird stuff, Christians believe weird stuff. Just keep it out of policy.
A lot easier said than done when someone has deeply-held views. A person's religious views can give you a lot of information about how a person thinks.
If you can: Cut spending. Cut taxes. Reform Medicare & Social Security. Get us out of 3 wars. Restore the 2nd Amendment. I don't care what creed you are. I don't need a Chief Religious Leader.
I'd be careful with that kind of thinking. Italy got stuck with Mussolini because he could make the trains run on time. I don't have to tell you what was going on in Germany at the same time because someone seemed to be able to solve political problems despite his odd creed which he had already spelled out to anyone who had read Mein Kampf. (BTW I'm not implying that Mitt Romney is of that ilk.)
Jews think Christians are deluded and the entire Christian faith is false. Does that mean you wouldn't vote for a Jew?
While I believe that Jews are mistaken, I would vote for a conservative Jew. (Personally, I couldn't name one.) I'm opposed to Mitt Romney because of his policies, not his Mormonism. I used to live in Idaho. I have voted for Mormons in the past.
You conveniently skipped my inquiry. You said: “It means some voters will ONLY (or Primarily) tolerate candidates of their own cloth.” Some? Okay, here’s the best way you can back that up. In 2008, Romney, the Mormon favorite, was beaten in the primary. Using your “definition”, Mormons stayed home in droves and did NOT vote for McCain, who is a self-declared Baptist, because “some Mormons will ONLY (or Primarily) tolerate candidates of their own Mormon cloth.” Evidence?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.