Mitt Romney's Mormonism: A TNR online debate

I appreciate your moderate and respectful reply to my objections. It is often hard for non-Mormons to understand how Mormons believe all we do. You at least see how Mormon beliefs and our way of life could be satisfying to educated, reasonable people, among whom you presumably would include Mitt Romney.

What troubles you is the implication of belief in prophetic revelation: Would Mormons perform any dire deed for their prophet no matter how contrary to conscience? And what about the belief that the United States and the Church might combine to dominate the world some day? Would Mitt Romney serve as the tool of Church leaders in facilitating a plan for world domination? His belief in revelation seems to require that he should.

These seem like perfectly legitimate questions, but they have a point only if you assume potentially dark motives on the part of Church leaders. You object that you do not use the word "fanatic" in your article, but the questions evoke the very image of fanaticism I was talking about: evil-minded religious leaders employing their spiritual authority over blindly loyal followers to magnify their own power. That is exactly the picture painted by the nineteenth-century polemicists who labeled Mormons fanatics. And they reached their conclusion in the same way as you do--by "teasing out" implications. The protestations of innocence by Mormons themselves mean nothing. Nor do their actions calm the fears. All that matters is that the reasoning from premise to conclusion--revelation to vicious action--is impregnable. Doubtless without meaning to, you are following the reasoning of the anti-fanatics to its fearful conclusion.

In evaluating the political implications of Mormon beliefs, you should use real facts about real events, not theoretical possibilities. Have Mormon leaders actually used their influence to manipulate politicians in the interest of world domination? What reason is there to think they have this on their minds? The reason Mormons are likely to find your analysis a phantasm is that we rarely, if ever, speculate about the world when the millennium comes. This is simply not on the agenda of active Mormon concerns, and it is certainly not a "core" belief. If anything, Mormons draw on the tradition that holds that many religions will flourish after the coming of Christ--a kind of American-style tolerance of all faiths. Mormons conscientiously carry the gospel to the world, but I have never heard a Mormon forecast political domination, much less collaboration with the United States government. Are you aware of Church leaders discussing such plans? No.

From your reply, I would judge that you are most concerned about loyalty to prophetic authority. Would Mitt Romney as president give way to immoral and illegal directives from Salt Lake? You make the subtle and interesting point that Mormons have no natural law tradition to constrain a Mormon president--either a president of the Church or the country. Since revelation trumps everything, where are the limits?

Your concern might be alleviated by considering how revelation actually works--in Mormonism and in biblical history. The scriptures themselves place heavy restraints on prophets. It makes a big difference that the moral law is enunciated endlessly in Mormon scriptures. The Ten Commandments were rehearsed in an early revelation, reinstalling them as fundamentals of the Church. Later, the Saints were told "no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned." Could all this be overthrown by a new revelation? You think that revelation wipes the slate clean, negating everything that went before. But that is not the way prophetic revelation works, now or ever.

The proper analogy is to the courts and the Constitution. The law is what the courts say it is, we assert hyperbolically. Theoretically nine justices can overturn any previous interpretation of the Constitution on a whim. But, in fact, they don't--and we know they can't. Their authority depends on reasoning outward from the Constitution and all previous decisions.

The same is true for prophets. They work outward from the words of previous prophets, reinterpreting past prophecy for the present. That was certainly true for Joseph Smith, whose most extreme revelation--plural marriage--was based on plural marriage in the Bible. Prophets do not write on a blank slate. They carry forward everything that went before, adapting it to present circumstances. Like Supreme Court justices, they would put their own authority in jeopardy if they disregarded the past. The moral law, embedded in this revelatory tradition, exercises far greater influence on Mormon thought than the abstractions of natural law could possibly effect.

I am asking you not to focus so narrowly on what you take to be the logical implications of revelation. That is what critics of fanaticism have been doing for centuries. Look at the historical record of the past century as Mormons have entered national politics. Is there evidence of manipulation? Consider the Church's own renunciation of control over the consciences of Mormon politicians--a stand Catholics have not taken. Are you saying this is a false front? Keeping in mind the injunction in Mormon scripture to submit to lawful government, is there any real basis for concern?

I was delighted when I learned that you would be responding to my article on Mitt Romney. I admire your work on Joseph Smith and the beginnings of Mormonism, so I hoped for a critical engagement with the substance of my essay.

I must admit, however, to being disappointed with your response. Instead of answering the questions I pose, you dismiss them as a product of my overheated and paranoid liberal imagination. Unwilling to concede the validity of anything I argued in my piece, you claim that what I wrote "makes no sense" to Mormons--all the while failing to point to a single factual inaccuracy in my article. Rather than engaging with the theological concerns I raise, you say that they all flow from my belief that Mormons are religious "fanatics." Indeed, you consider this last point so decisive that you use variations on the word "fanatic" 14 times in your 1,000-word response--despite the fact that I never used it or any similarly harsh or dismissive adjective to describe Mormon beliefs in my article.

For the record, I don't consider Mormons to be fanatics. I consider them to be very seriously religious, and I think that their faith deserves respect--certainly far more respect than it has typically been accorded in the press and by evangelical Protestants. I am deeply impressed by the audaciousness of Joseph Smith's revelations. In addition to bringing forth a new 500-page book of scripture and setting out to correct ("retranslate") the canonical Old and New Testaments, Smith denied the creation of the universe ex nihilo, proposed that God has a body, and suggested that human beings can evolve into Gods themselves. More remarkable still, he persuaded large numbers of people to accept these heterodox beliefs and to risk (and, in many cases, to lose) their lives defending their right to affirm them. However odd Mormon beliefs may sound to orthodox Christians and doctrinaire secularists, these critics need to recognize that the LDS Church proclaims a vision of the world and God that speaks to something noble in the souls of millions of Mormons and the thousands of people who convert to the Church every year. (This is, in part, what Harold Bloom meant in The American Religion when he accurately described Joseph Smith as one of history's great religious geniuses.)

It is precisely my respect for Mormonism--my desire to take it and its religious claims seriously--that leads to my disappointment at your response to my article. You say that arguments like mine "baffle" Mormons. But why? I made three interrelated assertions in my essay--that Mormons believe Jesus Christ will return sooner rather than later; that, when he returns, he is likely to rule the world from the territory of the United States; and that the president of the Church is considered to be a prophet of God. Then I teased out various possible political implications of these theological commitments. In your response, you do not take issue with my three assertions, presumably because they are accurate statements of core LDS beliefs. Where my article becomes baffling is thus apparently in its discussion of implications. 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 (and other non-Mormons) why--on what basis--you believe it? A devout Roman Catholic, for example, would have plenty of theological resources to grapple with an analogous question about following a papal edict. She might begin by pointing out that the Pope is not considered a prophet and is only rarely presumed to speak infallibly. She might then appeal to natural law, which an authentic papal pronouncement could never contradict. Then there is the closed canon of scripture. And a series of binding councils stretching back to the early days of the church. And a nearly 2,000-year tradition of relatively settled dogma and doctrine on faith and morals.

As I explained in my article, Mormonism has none of these moderating safeguards. It considers its leader to be the "mouthpiece of God on Earth." Mormon cosmology is arguably incompatible with natural law theory. It rejects the authority of every church council accepted by historic Christianity. And its scriptural and doctrinal traditions are fluid and radically open to revision in light of new prophetic revelations.

On the other side of the ledger, I also suggested that the hierarchical structure of the LDS Church has tended to have a moderating influence on its leadership and that it might very well continue to do so in the coming years. To this you have added individual conscience, which you believe would keep Mormons from following a questionable prophetic commandment unthinkingly. This is a promising start, but it is only a start. Conscience, after all, is a notoriously unreliable guide to right action--one that is most effective when it supplements firmer sources of morality and belief.

Does Mormonism contain such sources? If so, what are they? I taught at Brigham Young University for two years and count several Mormons among my closest friends, and yet the answer to these questions remains a mystery to me. And LDS culture today is shot through with so many unsettling contradictions that I find it hard to see how this mystery could be dispelled anytime soon. The Church is profoundly conservative, but its theological and historical foundations are incredibly radical (involving not only multiple acts of prophesy and revelation but also the establishment of a polygamous theocracy in the intermountain west). I know many intellectually curious and skeptical Mormons, but their curiosity and skepticism nearly always remains cordoned off from their religious beliefs. At the level of the ward (or parish), LDS church life is highly egalitarian, but individual Mormons tend to be extraordinarily deferential to ecclesiastical and political authority. I could go on.

As Mitt Romney prepares to become the most serious Mormon candidate for president in American history, members of the LDS Church (and especially its leading scholars and intellectuals) owe it to themselves and to their country to think deeply and publicly about these issues. The alternative--striking a purely defensive stance and hoping the questions and concerns will go away--is simply not a serious response.

Your anxiety about a Mormon politician knuckling under to a Mormon Church president replays the debate in 1904 over the seating of Apostle Reed Smoot in the United States Senate. Senators kept questioning church president Joseph F. Smith about his control of Mormon politics. Over and over, he assured the committee that he had no intention of dictating Smoot's votes in the Senate, but the questioning went on.

Now, a century later, we can judge the actual dangers of the Mormon Church to national politics from the historical record. Have any of the church presidents tried to manage Smoot, Ezra Taft Benson, Harry Reid, or Gordon Smith? The record is innocuous to say the least. There is no evidence that the church has used its influence in Washington to set up a millennial kingdom where Mormons will govern the world or even to exercise much sway on lesser matters. It's a long way from actual history to the conclusion that "under a President Romney, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would truly be in charge of the country--with its leadership having final say on matters of right and wrong."

Mitt Romney's insistence that he will follow his own conscience rather than church dictates is not only a personal view; it is church policy. The church website makes this explicit: Elected officials who are Latter-Day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated church position. While the church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent. You are going against all the evidence of history and stated church policy in contriving the purely theoretical possibility of Mormon domination. Is that not the stuff from which all paranoid projections on world history have been manufactured?

Liberals must be particularly cautious in speculating about the political intentions of religious groups because of their fascination with fanaticism. Fanaticism is one of the most firmly entrenched stereotypes in the liberal mind. The fanatic is the polar opposite of all that the liberal stands for and thus constitutes a particularly delicious enemy.

Joseph Smith ran up against the fear of fanaticism almost from the beginning. It was the chief underlying cause of the recurrent expulsions the Mormons suffered. When non-Mormons could find no specific infractions to warrant prosecution in the courts, they resorted to vigilante action to drive the Mormons out. The Mormon presence was unbearable because they were so obviously fanatics. Quite typically, the fear of fanaticism led democrats into undemocratic extremes. Mormons were deprived of their property and the right to live and vote in a supposedly open society. In 1846, after a decade and a half of recurring attacks in Missouri and Illinois, a body of armed citizens forced out the pitiful remains of the Mormon population in Nauvoo by training six cannons on the town.

The stereotype of fanaticism is essentially a logical construction. The seemingly airtight logic is that anyone who claims to speak for God must believe he possesses absolute truth with an implied commission to impose that truth on everyone else. Mohammed, to whom Joseph Smith was frequently compared, used violence. Joseph Smith, lacking the means, tyrannized his own followers and refused to acknowledge the truth of any other doctrines but his own. You assume that Mormon leaders, by the same token, will want to commandeer the United States government to advance their cause.

Nothing Mormons can do will ever alleviate these fears. It did not help that the right of individual conscience in religious matters was made an article of faith, or that the Nauvoo city council passed a toleration act for every conceivable religious group including Catholics, Jews, and "Muhammadans." Whatever they said, their neighbors could not believe that the Mormons' ultimate goal was not to compel everyone to believe as they did.

Your essay chooses not to look at the historical record, because specific facts are irrelevant in explicating fanaticism. It is the logic of revelation that counts. The Mormons have to be interested in world domination because their doctrine requires it of them. Furthermore, they are all dupes of the chief fanatic and will willingly do anything he requires. You cite as proof of this extravagant claim "more than one" undergraduate who said he would kill if commanded. No mention was made of students who said they would have refused. That method is in keeping with the management of the fanatic stereotype. There is no effort to give a balanced picture. Certain key facts or incidents are made archetypal. In unguarded moments or exceptional instances the true nature of the fanatic mind reveals itself.

The unquestioned belief in the potency of fanaticism makes facts unnecessary. Readers know in advance what to expect just as they foresee the ending of a romantic movie far in advance. The art of writing in this mode is to mobilize all of the foreknown elements and arrange them to reach an expected conclusion.

Damon, I thought you moved along judiciously through most of the essay, but you blew your cover in the paragraph of questions to Mitt Romney. There, you try to nail him on his beliefs about the church president being a prophet. It follows necessarily, you think, that, if Romney believes in current prophecy, the church will run the country under his presidency. That leap from assumption to conclusion in one bound is only possible if you are steeped in the logic of fanaticism. For Mormons themselves, it makes no sense.

You are caught in the dilemma that ensnares everyone preoccupied with fanaticism. You describe Mormonism in a way that makes perfect sense to non-Mormons and no sense to Mormons themselves. This means, to me, that you are describing the inside of your own mind as much as the reality of Mormonism. Mormons will hear a lot of this so long as Romney is in the race, and it will baffle them every time.

Bigotry against any political candidate based on his religion has no place in our Constitutional Republic.
(said Wolfstar, who apparently wouldn't -- if he consistently applied this -- consider the jihad Muslim-ness of a candidate...)

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.

I’ll bump your post in agreement and give a nod to the accurate keywords posted for this thread...

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.

Your post response was reasonable. Let me raise a few clarifications:

(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.)

If you wish to support big government Romney, be my guest. But you’ll have to do it somewhere else!

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.

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

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.

Everything I posted was in response to your nasty accusations of bigotry...and I see you have no reply to the examples of mormon bigotry in my comment.

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.

So am I.

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.

Hey CC:

Wolfstar said:Bigotry against any political candidate based on his religion has no place in our Constitutional Republic. The former colonies were founded largely by people escaping religious repression and persecution in Europe. Their descendants, our nation’s founders, ensured that our Constitution guarantees both freedom from state sponsored religion AND that there shall be NO religious test for candidates to federal elective office.
Much of the opposition to Romney among self-described Christian conservatives is due to bigotry about Romney’s religion. Oh, it’s hidden behind excuses disguised as policy differences, but the naked, irrational hatred for him reveals the truth. And the MSM, loving divisions on the right as it does, plays up Romney’s religion just to get under the right wing’s collective skin.

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.

As far as "weird" religions go, it depends on the candidate. I think YEC evangelicals are nutcakes, but if they have good conservative credentials and it's not in their platform to force all students to believe the earth is 6000 years old, so what? Same with Muslims, Jews, Hindus, et al. Mormons believe weird stuff, Christians believe weird stuff. Just keep it out of policy.

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.

Jews think Christians are deluded and the entire Christian faith is false. Does that mean you wouldn't vote for a Jew?

Thank you. At least you understand the core point I was making.

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?

Bringing religion into any political debate is a recipe for potential disaster, in my opinion. [Wolfstar]

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?

If I understand your post, you are saying that religious bigotry, which is typically defined as:

"Religious bigotry is prejudice or discrimination against one or all members of a particular religious group based on negative perceptions of their religious beliefs and practices or on negative group stereotypes."

now is re-defined by you to also include "people who have positive perceptions of their OWN religious beliefs and practices or positive group stereotypes." Obviously, that includes everyone, making all people bigots. I disagree with your redefinition. If you are saying that Mormons will NOT vote for non-Mormons, I would disagree with them. That would mean, of course, that no Mormons voted for George Bush and should be easily proven by you.

P.S. I would be very surprised if Lieberman got more than 60% of the Jewish vote in CT in recent years. Do you have an analysis otherwise?

now is re-defined by you to also include "people who have positive perceptions of their OWN religious beliefs and practices or positive group stereotypes."

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.

Much of the opposition to Romney among self-described Christian conservatives is due to bigotry about Romney’s religion. Oh, it’s hidden behind excuses disguised as policy differences, but the naked, irrational hatred for him reveals the truth.

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.

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.