Hitchens on Romney and Mormanism...

[headscratcher4]

http://www.slate.com/id/2178568/

Interesting...he asks some good questions that others don't dare to ask out of fear of being politically incorrect.

[Lurker]

Good article. Good questions. Our press will never ask them.

[Darth Rotor]

This piece by Hitchens smacks of the same idiocy that arose in about 1960, where Presidential candidate Kennedy's being Catholic was raised as somehow relevant to his presidential aspirations.

Being a Mormon didn't prevent Romney from being a modestly competent governor of Mass. This narrow focus on one facet of his life conveniently ignores an entire life spent successfully navigating the path between how he applies his faith to his life, private and otherwise, and how he gets on with whatever job he has to do at the time.

What the hell is wrong with you people, really? Why do you presume that any and every follower of a religious creed is in some way a fundy, or meticulous adherent to doctrine?

Y'all ever hear of projection? Might want to look it up.

These alleged "skeptics" piss and moan that an atheist can't get elected president -- quite possibly true -- and then applaud an attack on the basis of belief and wonder at why their vision seems blurry?

Romney's Mormonism: if you want to know how it influences his role as possible president, ask:

How did it influence his role as governor?

How did being Catholic influence JFK?

When you have an answer to that, how about we have a conversation?

DR

[ImaginalDisc]

This piece by Hitchens smacks of the same idiocy that arose in about 1960, where Presidential candidate Kennedy's being Catholic was raised as somehow relevant to his presidential aspirations.

Being a Mormon didn't prevent Romney from being a modestly competent governor of Mass. This narrow focus on one facet of his life conveniently ignores an entire life spent successfully navigating the path between how he applies his faith to his life, private and otherwise, and how he gets on with whatever job he has to do at the time.

What the hell is wrong with you people, really?

You piss and moan that an atheist can't get elected president, and then applaud an attack on the basis of belief and wonder at why your vision seems blurry?

Romney's Mormonism: if you want to know how it influences his role as possible president, ask:

How did it influence his role as governor?

How did being Catholic influence JFK?

DR


Try reading the article.

Ronmey appears to be eagily anticipating the following: "The [Mormon] Church says that Christ appears and splits the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. … And then, over a thousand years of the millennium, that the world is reigned in two places, Jerusalem and Missouri. … The law will come from Missouri, and the other will be from Jerusalem" The Mormon Chruch was pretty anti-black until 1978 and he was an adult member of the cult at that time. How does he feel about black people now? Whereas JFK straightforwardly answered the question of whether or not he believed Catholic dogma superceded human laws, Mitt, Mitt, full of **** has not addressed whether he believes his cult's "divine" laws supercede the Constitution he would need to swear to uphold as President of the United States.

I'm done giving you the Cliff Notes. Read.

[Cleon]

I think DR has made some valid points on the matter.

Further, I would say that Hitchens has next to zero credibility on the matter of religion and politics. He has a problem with Romney's faith, but had no problem hopping into the proverbial bed with George Bush, a born-again Christian and creationist.

Don't get me wrong--the LDS church is a classic example of small, creepy cults turning into mainstream religions. (From a historical/anthropological POV, it's rather fascinating to watch, actually.) But I don't see this as being particularly different than any other religious tradition. Hell, even at their worst, the Mormons didn't have anything close to the horrors of the Inquisition.

[Darth Rotor]

Mitt, Mitt, full of **** has not addressed whether he believes his cult's "divine" laws supercede the Constitution he would need to swear to uphold as President of the United States.

He is not required to do that.

Why do you demand it?

I read the article, ID, and the points raised are irrelevant to his performance as President, or Governor. Once again, little one, go back to his run for, and term as governor, in Massachusettes. All that is going on here is the politics of personal attack.

Did his being a Mormon in any way, shape, or form prevent him from carrying out his duties as Governor of Massachusettes?

You got evidence, or do you have your usual load of BS?

You don't like him for being GOP, or Mormon? Fine, that's cool. That's got nothing to do with his competence, or potential competence.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

These alleged "skeptics" piss and moan that an atheist can't get elected president -- quite possibly true -- and then applaud an attack on the basis of belief and wonder at why their vision seems blurry?


First of all, beliefs is what you elect canidates based on. Do they believe in the same roles for goverement, enterpretation of the law and so on as you do. So you should always question beliefs of any canidate.

Second there is no central body of athiest thought, atheist means nothing about other beliefs. Mormons have a great many beliefs outside of their beliefs in the existance of an alien god.

[ImaginalDisc]

He is not required to do that.

Why do you demand it?

I read the article, ID, and the points raised are irrelevant to his performance as President, or Governor. Once again, little one, go back to his run for, and term as governor, in Massachusettes. All that is going on here is the politics of personal attack.

Did his being a Mormon in any way, shape, or form prevent him from carrying out his duties as Governor of Massachusettes?

You got evidence, or do you have your usual load of BS?

You don't like him for being GOP, or Mormon? Fine, that's cool. That's got nothing to do with his competence, or potential competence.

DR

Whether or not his demented religion has presented a problem in the past isn't the issue. The issue is that his membership in the Chruch of Better than You is a major political hurdle he refuses to address, why?

[Darth Rotor]

First of all, beliefs is what you elect canidates based on. Do they believe in the same roles for goverement, enterpretation of the law and so on as you do. So you should always question beliefs of any canidate.

Second there is no central body of athiest thought, atheist means nothing about other beliefs. Mormons have a great many beliefs outside of their beliefs in the existance of an alien god.
Your second point is true enough. Well said.

As to your first, yes, I tend to agree, however, Hitchens is focusing on doctrine of an organization, which strikes me as something different from what you said.

Again: look at his record, as governor.

Where is the evidence that he in some way acted under the old, (and revised) bias in Mormon doctrine that was the subject of the 1978 "revelation." (Yes, I've cracked many a joke on that score, about how Ralston Purina finally had to put black dogs on its packages of chow. Back then, a Mormon owned company.)

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Your second point is true enough. Well said.

As to your first, yes, I tend to agree, however, Hitchens is focusing on doctrine of an organization, which strikes me as something different from what you said.

But the Mormon church is an organization and he is a member in it, so its policies and doctrine matter. I would want to know if catholics think that providing condoms in Africa is counterproductive to the fight against AIDS as well as that is doctrine for their church.

Atheism has no doctrine outside of the nonexistence of god, so a politicians adherence to it is not relevant


Where is the evidence that he in some way acted under the old, (and revised) bias in Mormon doctrine that was the subject of the 1978 "revelation." (Yes, I've cracked many a joke on that score, about how Ralston Purina finally had to put black dogs on its packages of chow. Back then, a Mormon owned company.)

DR

Why is discussing membership in a racist organization taboo? He was a member of the church before then, so asking about his views on that would seem to be relevant.

[ravdin]

DR and Cleon- Did you read the article? Or are you biased because you dislike Hitchens?

Hitchens has not stated that Romney is unfit to be president because he's a Mormon. He does say that it's unbecoming for the media to avoid asking pointed and uncomfortable questions about what Romney actually believes.

The Mormon church was officially racist up to 1978. Romney was an adult then and active in the church. How did he reconcile this? I think it's a fair question.

Romney seems to be the only candidate in the field who ducks questions about his faith. Is it fair to distrust him because of this? Yes.

[headscratcher4]

I would want to know why a former supporter of the Klan, for example, changed their mind. Old Senator Byrd has spoken about his early invovlement with the Klan and his evolution away from it. It suggests something of how his mind works, maybe something about his principles, his willingness to change, pander, whatever.

Did Romney, for example, as an adult prior to 1978, believe Church doctrine? Did he only believe that the revelation of God could change that doctrine (as claimed by the church's prophet in 1978), or was he specifically able to seperate the faith in his doctrine from the reality in America?

I note, his father George Romeny, was a progressive governor in Michigan and a practicing Mormon. Clearly, he was able to strike that balance and figure it out...but wouldn't it be useful to know how Mitt strikes it?

Or, do we assume, that like the positions he holds now, as opposed to those he pursued as a progressive governor of MA, that all is fungible when it comes to obtaining political office?

[Lurker]

The Mormon church was officially racist up to 1978. Romney was an adult then and active in the church. How did he reconcile this? I think it's a fair question.

This was my concern with Romney and the article pointed this out. I think 1978 is late enough that Mormons should have been questioning their practices well before this.

[Cleon]

DR and Cleon- Did you read the article? Or are you biased because you dislike Hitchens?

Yes, I did. Did you read the points DR and I made, or are biased because you dislike Mormons? :rolleyes:


The Mormon church was officially racist up to 1978. Romney was an adult then and active in the church. How did he reconcile this? I think it's a fair question.


As opposed to the Southern Baptist Convention, right?

[Darth Rotor]

DR and Cleon- Did you read the article? Or are you biased because you dislike Hitchens?
To repeat myself, I read the article. Yes. No, I don't dislike Hitchens, in general, but I find this obsession with religion indicative of a bigotted mindset: the bigotry of so called skeptics. I hadn't grasped that form of bigotry until I began to interact in the JREF formums, particularly R & P, over a year ago.

As to Hitchens himself, some days he comes across more coherently than others. Mixed bag.

Hitchens has not stated that Romney is unfit to be president because he's a Mormon. He does say that it's unbecoming for the media to avoid asking pointed and uncomfortable questions about what Romney actually believes.
I see, you take at face value what I choose to look at from a different point of view, and considering Hitchen's previous agenda as a Skeptic.
The Mormon church was officially racist up to 1978. Romney was an adult then and active in the church. How did he reconcile this? I think it's a fair question.
Does it occur to you to ask yourself this question:

Why is Hitchens assuming a doctrinaire approach to Mormonism by Romney? What evidence does he have of Romney applying said doctrine to public life?

Why the unspoken implication that based on that (grossly flawed IMO) doctrine, that "all True Mormons" and by extension "All Mormons" must necessarily subscribe to that position?

Do you see what is going on here?
Romney seems to be the only candidate in the field who ducks questions about his faith. Is it fair to distrust him because of this? Yes.
To you, yes. But of course, a Skeptic might be pre biased on that score to begin with. Evidence abounds all over the JREF forum discussions, both on the politics and R & P forums.

To me, not sure how I feel about Romney's position on that yet. The campaign is still young.

Mormons, being a relatively small sect, are not infrequently targeted for ridicule (fair or not) and methinks get rather tired of it after a while. Of course, once you run for Pres, people will ask inconvenient questions, so to be fair to you, and Hitchens, it's not as though he should not have expected this sort of thing.

DR

[ravdin]

Yes, I did. Did you read the points DR and I made, or are biased because you dislike Mormons? :rolleyes:

I have met many Mormons that I like just fine. It's true that I dislike Mormonism. I'm also biased as hell. But I try to be fair.

As opposed to the Southern Baptist Convention, right?

Yes. Do you have evidence that the SBC officially refused to allow black people into their hierarchy? If you do, then I would want to ask the same question of any presidential candidate who has worked to convert people into that sect while they had this policy.

[Darth Rotor]

This was my concern with Romney and the article pointed this out. I think 1978 is late enough that Mormons should have been questioning their practices well before this.
And slavery should not have been accepted in the Constitutional convention.

But it was. Time moves forward. Some folks clue up more quickly than others.

At least in 1978 they finally woke up, and got a clue.

Beats the alternative.

PT: back to assumptions, again.

Why do you choose to assume a lack of dissent within an organization?

Ever hear of Vatican II?

DR

[ravdin]

Does it occur to you to ask yourself this question:

Why is Hitchens assuming a doctrinaire approach to Mormonism by Romney? What evidence does he have of Romney applying said doctrine to public life?

Why the unspoken implication that based on that (grossly flawed IMO) doctrine, that "all True Mormons" and by extension "All Mormons" must necessarily subscribe to that position?

I don't want to assume anything on Romney's position. So why would it be wrong to ask him this inconvenient question? Let him explain himself in his own words.

You seem to think that Romney deserves the benefit of the doubt, if he is reticent to discuss the tenets of his religion. Ordinarily, I'd agree. But when he may have the power to start a nuclear war, or indefinitely detain a US citizen, I think the rules change a little. I'd like to know what Romney really believes.

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes, I did. Did you read the points DR and I made, or are biased because you dislike Mormons? :rolleyes:



As opposed to the Southern Baptist Convention, right?

I can't believe I'm defending the SBC, but they're actually substantially more progressive that the Mormons. They have higher regard for women, and respect for Church/State sepration, for example. Source. (http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/positionstatements.asp)

The SBC in 1978 didn't have a platform fobidding blacks from joining or getting involved in their hierarchies, whereas the Mormons did. It's a false comparison.

Excuse me, I need to wash now.

:boxedin:

[Darth Rotor]

I don't want to assume anything on Romney's position. So why would it be wrong to ask him this inconvenient question? Let him explain himself in his own words.

You seem to think that Romney deserves the benefit of the doubt, if he is reticent to discuss the tenets of his religion. Ordinarily, I'd agree. But when he may have the power to start a nuclear war, or indefinitely detain a US citizen, I think the rules change a little. I'd like to know what Romney really believes.
I see where you are coming from.

@ ID: I shall raise a glass in your honor, for the courage you showed in defending the Southern Baptists.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

PT: back to assumptions, again.

Why do you choose to assume a lack of dissent within an organization?

Ever hear of Vatican II?

DR

I don't, but for politicians I want to know where they stand. So if there are points of Mormon doctrine that can effect public policy that he holds or does not hold I would want to know.

Sure it is unlikely that a catholic American politician would agree with the Vatican that the pour size in condoms is such that they are not even effective at preventing pregnancy, but I would be good to know for sure.

So I do not assume lack of dissent, but you seem to assume dissent and are not interested in finding out the candidates position and if it differs from their churches.

[headscratcher4]

I'm probably being stupid in this...fortunately other posters will point it out for me....but why is knowing where Romney stood on this issue any different than asking a politician about membership in an exclusive country club? I mean, if Romney beloinged to a country club that excluded blacks, I'd want to know it and it would be an issue. Here, he belongs to a church that excluded blacks from the "priesthood".... isn't, ultimately, religion and a country club sort of the same thing...i'm only being half-way snide.

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm probably being stupid in this...fortunately other posters will point it out for me....but why is knowing where Romney stood on this issue any different than asking a politician about membership in an exclusive country club? I mean, if Romney beloinged to a country club that excluded blacks, I'd want to know it and it would be an issue. Here, he belongs to a church that excluded blacks from the "priesthood".... isn't, ultimately, religion and a country club sort of the same thing...i'm only being half-way snide.

It is different!

Because, um. . .JFK. . .family privacy. . .hell, I have no idea.

[Pixel42]

Mormons, being a relatively small sect, are not infrequently targeted for ridicule
I don't think Mormons are targetted for ridicule because they are a small sect. I think they are targetted for ridicule because their beliefs are ridiculous.

I think it's important to know whether or not someone who is putting himself forward for the world's most powerful political position is prepared to abandon reason and logic in favour of provably false religious doctrine.

[corplinx]

I think DR has made some valid points on the matter.

Further, I would say that Hitchens has next to zero credibility on the matter of religion and politics. He has a problem with Romney's faith, but had no problem hopping into the proverbial bed with George Bush, a born-again Christian and creationist.

Don't get me wrong--the LDS church is a classic example of small, creepy cults turning into mainstream religions. (From a historical/anthropological POV, it's rather fascinating to watch, actually.) But I don't see this as being particularly different than any other religious tradition. Hell, even at their worst, the Mormons didn't have anything close to the horrors of the Inquisition.


There go the No-True-Atheist police again bashing Hitchens for pushing the Iraqi regime change.

[Cleon]

There go the No-True-Atheist police again bashing Hitchens for pushing the Iraqi regime change.

Er, what?

What does that even mean? :confused:

[Dr Adequate]

To repeat myself, I read the article. Yes. No, I don't dislike Hitchens, in general, but I find this obsession with religion indicative of a bigotted mindset: the bigotry of so called skeptics. I hadn't grasped that form of bigotry until I began to interact in the JREF formums, particularly R & P, over a year ago. Now you're just asking for a good lioning.

[ravdin]

I don't think Mormons are targetted for ridicule because they are a small sect. I think they are targetted for ridicule because their beliefs are ridiculous.

I think it's important to know whether or not someone who is putting himself forward for the world's most powerful political position is prepared to abandon reason and logic in favour of provably false religious doctrine.

I agree with this. While I don't find the central tenets of mainstream Christianity to be credible (Jesus was born of a virgin and was resurrected after being crucified), I also don't find the claims to be risible. I don't believe these claims, but I can't prove they are false.

Mormons do make several claims that are not only false, but provably so. If the Garden of Eden is in Missouri, then we should not expect to find evidence that the first humans originated in Africa. If Native Americans are the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, then we should not have clear DNA evidence that their ancestors crossed the Bering Strait 12,000 years ago. These claims were not risible in 1820, but they are today. The LDS leadership has been unwilling to admit the errors.

I don't know whether or not Romney believes these things. But again, I'd like to know what he believes and I think it's a fair question.

[latent aaaack]

You're right, a bunch of brave atheists should get up the courage and finally ask the the momentously important question everyone is wondering about, for the sake of the future of the country:

'Will you, Romney, discard the constitution when it disagrees with LDS doctrine and re-instigate racial segregation or call blacks nappy hos or anything of the sort?'

'No.'

'Well alright then.'

Thanks politically naive atheists. This is almost as good as when you withdrew support for by far the most moderate, less religiously extreme leading Republican candidate, McCain because you spotted him trying to get elected by lying and pandering to the religious right - what a bastard!

[Lurker]

Er, what?

What does that even mean? :confused:

Not to speak for Corplinx, but I will anyway, I think he meant that your linking of Hitchens to Bush and condemning it because Hitch is an atheist while Bush is a Christian is rather silly. Certainly Hitchens can support Bush for other reasons.

[Kerberos]

I agree with this. While I don't find the central tenets of mainstream Christianity to be credible (Jesus was born of a virgin and was resurrected after being crucified), I also don't find the claims to be risible. I don't believe these claims, but I can't prove they are false.

Mormons do make several claims that are not only false, but provably so. If the Garden of Eden is in Missouri, then we should not expect to find evidence that the first humans originated in Africa. If Native Americans are the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, then we should not have clear DNA evidence that their ancestors crossed the Bering Strait 12,000 years ago. These claims were not risible in 1820, but they are today. The LDS leadership has been unwilling to admit the errors.

I don't know whether or not Romney believes these things. But again, I'd like to know what he believes and I think it's a fair question.
The Old Testament is part of Chistianity too, and besides there is evidence against the virgin birth. Aside from the manifest impossibility of the event there is the fact that neither the gospels of Mark nor the letters of Paul mention teh virgin birth. An ommision that is rather remarkable if we were to assume the story was known to them rather than a latter invention. The Gospel of John don't mention it either.

[Cleon]

Not to speak for Corplinx, but I will anyway, I think he meant that your linking of Hitchens to Bush and condemning it because Hitch is an atheist while Bush is a Christian is rather silly. Certainly Hitchens can support Bush for other reasons.

My comment had nothing to do with Hitchens being an atheist, though. It's more of a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" situation; if he's going to condemn Romney for his silly religious beliefs, why did he not condemn Bush for his silly religious beliefs?

To me, the precepts of the Mormon religion aren't any less silly than "mainstream" fundamentalist Christianity, of which Bush is a part. There is equal evidence for the Garden of Eden being in Missouri as there is for young-earth creationism. (That is to say: zilch.)

I also don't much see the point in pestering Romney about whether he agreed with the LDS church's stance on race 30 years ago. (In the South, it wasn't all that long ago that you couldn't get elected without being a member of the KKK.) Romney and most of the other Republican candidates have declared their support for real, actual, current bigotry (specifically against homosexuals). There is enough political repugnance to denounce without flirting with religious bigotry.

[dudalb]

I think attacking Romney Because he is a Mormon is bad politics, and could easily backfire.Better not to go there for the Democrats.

[ravdin]

I think attacking Romney Because he is a Mormon is bad politics, and could easily backfire.Better not to go there for the Democrats.

It's a good thing I'm not a Democrat, then! :D

[corplinx]

My comment had nothing to do with Hitchens being an atheist, though. It's more of a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" situation; if he's going to condemn Romney for his silly religious beliefs, why did he not condemn Bush for his silly religious beliefs?


To be more specific, you condemned him for being "in bed" with Bush. Most of the critics who level this charge are mad about Hitchens support of removing Saddam. Certainly I don't hear about Hitchens being in bed with Hillary for not condemning her talking with spirits.

Pardon me for being skeptical of your intent and continuing to do so since your explanation in light of the text of the actual article really doesn't convince me.

[headscratcher4]

I think attacking Romney Because he is a Mormon is bad politics, and could easily backfire.Better not to go there for the Democrats.


Don't think that the Dems. have to go there at all...the GOP Xian fundumentalists will get around to it all on their own.

[ravdin]

To me, the precepts of the Mormon religion aren't any less silly than "mainstream" fundamentalist Christianity, of which Bush is a part. There is equal evidence for the Garden of Eden being in Missouri as there is for young-earth creationism. (That is to say: zilch.)

I think this is a good comparison, but not for the reason you mentioned. Not only is there zero evidence that these claims are true, but very compelling evidence exists that these claims are not true.

You may remember this moment from a GOP debate a few months ago. The media seems to accept that it was fair game to ask the candidates for a straightforward answer on whether or not they believe in evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E

So if we can ask questions like this, why give Romney a pass to duck similar questions?

[Cleon]

To be more specific, you condemned him for being "in bed" with Bush. Most of the critics who level this charge are mad about Hitchens support of removing Saddam. Certainly I don't hear about Hitchens being in bed with Hillary for not condemning her talking with spirits.

Pardon me for being skeptical of your intent and continuing to do so since your explanation in light of the text of the actual article really doesn't convince me.

Well, don't I feel chastised. :rolleyes:

[dudalb]

You're right, a bunch of brave atheists should get up the courage and finally ask the the momentously important question everyone is wondering about, for the sake of the future of the country:

'Will you, Romney, discard the constitution when it disagrees with LDS doctrine and re-instigate racial segregation or call blacks nappy hos or anything of the sort?'

'No.'

'Well alright then.'

Thanks politically naive atheists. This is almost as good as when you withdrew support for by far the most moderate, less religiously extreme leading Republican candidate, McCain because you spotted him trying to get elected by lying and pandering to the religious right - what a bastard!

I think a lot of Internet Athiests (I am an total skeptic on religon myself) forget how relatively small a proportion of the publicthey are,and that out and out attacks on candidates religon is a very risky tactic that is more then likely to backfire.

[Cleon]

I think this is a good comparison, but not for the reason you mentioned. Not only is there zero evidence that these claims are true, but very compelling evidence exists that these claims are not true.

Don't disagree.


You may remember this moment from a GOP debate a few months ago. The media seems to accept that it was fair game to ask the candidates for a straightforward answer on whether or not they believe in evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E

So if we can ask questions like this, why give Romney a pass to duck similar questions?

Romney was one of the candidates in question, you'll note--and he did not raise his hand as one of those who didn't believe in evolution. Yet Romney's beliefs are deserving of Hitchens' ire, but not those of Tancredo or Huckabee?

In this case, though, the question of teaching "creation science" (or "intelligent design," or whatever crapulent term they try to rebrand it as) has nationwide implications. It's been a subject of controversy and political scrutiny, with major implications regarding how science is taught in schools, to say nothing of the separation of church and state.

The question of whether the Garden of Eden is in Missouri has no such implications, and is not even on the national radar. (I would even go so far as to say that since Romney didn't raise his hand as a "disbeliever" in evolution, the question is rather moot.) Questioning Romney about such a thing seems to accomplish little more than singling him out for belonging to a "non-standard" religion, and that makes me extremely uncomfortable.

[ravdin]

Romney was one of the candidates in question, you'll note--and he did not raise his hand as one of those who didn't believe in evolution. Yet Romney's beliefs are deserving of Hitchens' ire, but not those of Tancredo or Huckabee?

Good for Romney for not raising his hand. I still don't see how he's especially victimized by Hitchens' criticism.

In this case, though, the question of teaching "creation science" (or "intelligent design," or whatever crapulent term they try to rebrand it as) has nationwide implications. It's been a subject of controversy and political scrutiny, with major implications regarding how science is taught in schools, to say nothing of the separation of church and state.

It's possible that the term "intelligent design" is the result of excessive consumption of alcohol (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/crapulent). I admit I hadn't considered that angle before.

The question of whether the Garden of Eden is in Missouri has no such implications, and is not even on the national radar. (I would even go so far as to say that since Romney didn't raise his hand as a "disbeliever" in evolution, the question is rather moot.) Questioning Romney about such a thing seems to accomplish little more than singling him out for belonging to a "non-standard" religion, and that makes me extremely uncomfortable.

I will concede that it's more relevant than the question of where the Garden of Eden was. I'm happy to drop that point, but I still think the ugly racism that has always been a part of the Mormon church is worth closer scrutiny.

[rikzilla]

Yes, I did. Did you read the points DR and I made, or are biased because you dislike Mormons? :rolleyes:



As opposed to the Southern Baptist Convention, right?

Well in all fairness to the SBC at least they didn't say that black people were cursed by God with black skin and flat noses because they are decendants of Cain and helpers of Satan...

-z

BTW: In the 70's my Mom got sucking into this cult and they tried hard to get me as well, but even at the tender age of 14 I wasn't buying their BS.

[rikzilla]

BTW, While the LDS church may have ONCE been overtly racist...they are STILL overtly mysogynistic to this day....

just sayin'
-z

[T'ai Chi]

http://www.slate.com/id/2178568/

Interesting...he asks some good questions that others don't dare to ask out of fear of being politically incorrect.

I'll summarize the non-complaining portions of Hitchen's article:

[CFLarsen]

I'll summarize the non-complaining portions of Hitchen's article:

Interesting that you think it is a problem with critical articles about religious politicians.

It falls neatly in sync with your argument that criticism of Creationism should be off-limits. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3195762#post3195762).

[Darth Rotor]

BTW, While the LDS church may have ONCE been overtly racist...they are STILL overtly mysogynistic to this day....

just sayin'
-z
OK, I'll bite.

Why don't all the adult, female Mormons quit?

DR

[Lurker]

My comment had nothing to do with Hitchens being an atheist, though. It's more of a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" situation; if he's going to condemn Romney for his silly religious beliefs, why did he not condemn Bush for his silly religious beliefs?

How do you know he doesn't condemn Bush for his religious beliefs? Surely you acknowledge that he can support Bush's war policy as something completely separate from his religion, right?

I can support a Muslim for political office if his policies about some other areas coincide with what I support despite my being Christian. I can still say (although I don't) that his religion is wrong (but I don't).

[Nathyn]

This piece by Hitchens smacks of the same idiocy that arose in about 1960, where Presidential candidate Kennedy's being Catholic was raised as somehow relevant to his presidential aspirations.

Being a Mormon didn't prevent Romney from being a modestly competent governor of Mass. This narrow focus on one facet of his life conveniently ignores an entire life spent successfully navigating the path between how he applies his faith to his life, private and otherwise, and how he gets on with whatever job he has to do at the time.

What the hell is wrong with you people, really? Why do you presume that any and every follower of a religious creed is in some way a fundy, or meticulous adherent to doctrine?

Y'all ever hear of projection? Might want to look it up.

These alleged "skeptics" piss and moan that an atheist can't get elected president -- quite possibly true -- and then applaud an attack on the basis of belief and wonder at why their vision seems blurry?

Romney's Mormonism: if you want to know how it influences his role as possible president, ask:

How did it influence his role as governor?

How did being Catholic influence JFK?

When you have an answer to that, how about we have a conversation?

DR
Are you actually suggesting that either Mormonism and Catholicism, or Romney and JFK, are analogical?

If you're going to use wild analogies like that, why not just compare Romney to Jesus being crucified?

[Cleon]

How do you know he doesn't condemn Bush for his religious beliefs? Surely you acknowledge that he can support Bush's war policy as something completely separate from his religion, right?

I can support a Muslim for political office if his policies about some other areas coincide with what I support despite my being Christian. I can still say (although I don't) that his religion is wrong (but I don't).

I don't know of a single Hitchens article that reams Bush for his religious beliefs the way this article takes aim at Romney for his. The only time I've heard Hitchens even bother to mention Bush's fundamentalism, he dismissed it as unimportant.

If you know of such an article, kindly present it, and I will gladly admit error.

[Darth Rotor]

Are you actually suggesting that either Mormonism and Catholicism, or Romney and JFK, are analogical?

If you're going to use wild analogies like that, why not just compare Romney to Jesus being crucified?
You just made the wild analogy, I didn't, so please excuse my laughing at you, not with you.

Simple: JFK, Catholic, asked if his religion is an obstacle to him being a president, due to tenets of that religion (Papal authority) The Catholic in 1960 was a distinctly minority religion in majority Protestant America. Romney's Mormonism is distinctly minority, heck, even moreso.

Romney, Mormon, being asked if his religion is an obstacle, due to its tenets (or has Hitchens complains, ought to be so asked) as Hitchens outlines, to him being president.

It really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp, the similarity of approach. That you wish to wander off into hyperbole is your problem, not mine.

DR

[Cleon]

BTW, While the LDS church may have ONCE been overtly racist...they are STILL overtly mysogynistic to this day....


As are most religions, especially of the fundamentalist variety. Fundamentalist Christianity gave us the "barefoot and pregnant" cliche, Hinduism has loads of chauvinist attitudes and practices, and let's not even talk about Islam.

I remember a couple years back you were singing the praises of Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew. Orthodox Judaism's treatment of women is not substantially different than LDS'. (To his credit, Lieberman is at least not Haredi or Hassidic; their practices when it comes to women are closer to those of orthodox Islam.)

[Nathyn]

I don't know of a single Hitchens article that focuses on Bush's religious beliefs the way this article takes aim at Romney's. The only time I've heard Hitchens even bother to mention Bush's fundamentalism, he dismissed it as unimportant.

If you know of such an article, kindly present it, and I will gladly admit error.
Hitchens has called him out before:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041108/hitchens

Should the electors decide for the President, as I would slightly prefer, the excruciating personality of George Bush strikes me in the light of a second- or third-order consideration. If the worst that is said of him is true--that he is an idiotic and psychically damaged Sabbath-fanatic, with nothing between his large Texan ears--then these things were presumably just as true when he ran against Al Gore, and against nation-building and foreign intervention.
He hasn't focused on it as much, because he supports Bush's foreign policy -- it's a key issue for Hitchens.

Also, just as I told Darth Rotor, you really can't compare Christianity with Mormonism. As absurd as Protestant Christianity is, Mormonism is like Protestant Christianity on crack.

Protestants as a whole never had racism as an official doctrine, they have never claimed that God is some kind of polygamist extraterrestrial pervert, and they don't have an official brand of underwear.

Any ridiculous doctrine in Protestantism, like believing the human sacrifice of Jesus absolves us of morality responsibility, is taken to an even more batty extreme.

[Darth Rotor]

Hitchens has called him out before:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041108/hitchens


He hasn't focused on it as much, because he supports Bush's foreign policy -- it's a key issue for Hitchens.

Also, just as I told Darth Rotor, you really can't compare Christianity with Mormonism. As absurd as Protestant Christianity is, Mormonism is like Protestant Christianity on crack.

Protestants as a whole never had racism as an official doctrine, they have never claimed that God is some kind of polygamist extraterrestrial pervert, and they don't have an official brand of underwear.

Any ridiculous doctrine in Protestantism, like believing the human sacrifice of Jesus absolves us of morality responsibility, is taken to an even more batty extreme.
I see, are you now trying to compare "Protestantism" as a whole with Catholicism? You are dead in the water. Too varied. I'd like to know who the racists were in the American south, circa 1789 to 1763?

Not Protestants?

Maybe you want to rethink that post, and your attempt at misdirection.

Or not. Let me let you in on a little secret: the point is not about comparative religion, which is your attempt at a derail, it is about specifically attacking a candidate due to his chosen religion. You see, in America, we get to choose which religion we have, or do not have.

Appreciate the Hitchens link in resp to Cleon's comment.

DR

[Cleon]

Hitchens has called him out before:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041108/hitchens


That's not "calling him out," that's waving it off, as I said.


He hasn't focused on it as much, because he supports Bush's foreign policy
And you just made my point. Romney's foreign policy is not substantially different than Bush's. So Hitchen is willing to excuse Bush's current, existing, admitted fundamentalism, but for some reason feels the need to press Romney on decades-old beliefs of the Church he belongs to.

Apparently "hard questions" about a politician's religion are only important when the politician is a member of a religious minority.


Also, just as I told Darth Rotor, you really can't compare Christianity with Mormonism.You said it, you haven't substantiated it.


Protestants as a whole never had racism as an official doctrine,
Bull-pucky. Martin Luther was a raving anti-Semite. Support for slavery gave rise to the Southern Baptist Convention. Etc, etc.


they have never claimed that God is some kind of polygamist extraterrestrial pervert, and they don't have an official brand of underwear.
No, instead they believe in ritual cannibalism, teach that women play second fiddle to men, and have numerous other kinds of silliness.

[Darth Rotor]

No, instead they believe in ritual cannibalism, teach that women play second fiddle to men, and have numerous other kinds of silliness.
OK, I'll bite, for a second time:

Why don't all the adult, female Mormons quit?

Corndoggit, where is RandFan when you really need him? He might have a good take on that.

DR

[rikzilla]

OK, I'll bite.

Why don't all the adult, female Mormons quit?

DR

C'mon man...if they quit how ever would they get to go to the planet Kolob and make loads of spirit babies to populate the planet that they would be goddesses of??

...some sacrifices must be made along the way I guess?

-z

[Nathyn]

So, let me get this straight, Cleon: If someone were to hold a gun to your head and require you to either join the Mormons or a Baptist group, you wouldn't think the choice would be obvious, because you see them as both essentially equal in terms of religious extremism?

If so, then a follow-up question: Do you think Protestant Christianity is pretty much just as extreme as Wahhabi Islam?

[Cleon]

OK, I'll bite, for a second time:

Why don't all the adult, female Mormons quit?

Why don't all the adult, female Hassidic women quit?

Why don't all the adult, female Muslim women quit?

Why don't....

The answer: I don't know, and neither do you. :)

[Darth Rotor]

The answer: I don't know, and neither do you. :)
Yep.

Perhaps part of the answer is that the characterization of how horrid Mormonism is to women (in practice) relies on overstatement.

DR

[Nathyn]

Yep.

This leads me to ponder at the characterization of how horrid Mormonism is to women isn't a bit of overstatement.

DR
Pull up the blinds on your monitor, Darth. I think you missed his analogy.

[Darth Rotor]

Pull up the blinds on your monitor, Darth. I think you missed his analogy.
Hey, Johnny one note, I don't much care what you think, until you raise the bar on your input. The game you are playing belongs elsewhere.

DR

[Puppycow]

This piece by Hitchens smacks of the same idiocy that arose in about 1960, where Presidential candidate Kennedy's being Catholic was raised as somehow relevant to his presidential aspirations.

Being a Mormon didn't prevent Romney from being a modestly competent governor of Mass. This narrow focus on one facet of his life conveniently ignores an entire life spent successfully navigating the path between how he applies his faith to his life, private and otherwise, and how he gets on with whatever job he has to do at the time.

What the hell is wrong with you people, really? Why do you presume that any and every follower of a religious creed is in some way a fundy, or meticulous adherent to doctrine?

Y'all ever hear of projection? Might want to look it up.

These alleged "skeptics" piss and moan that an atheist can't get elected president -- quite possibly true -- and then applaud an attack on the basis of belief and wonder at why their vision seems blurry?

Romney's Mormonism: if you want to know how it influences his role as possible president, ask:

How did it influence his role as governor?

How did being Catholic influence JFK?

When you have an answer to that, how about we have a conversation?

DR

I wonder if you would say the same thing about a Scientologist?

[Cleon]

So, let me get this straight, Cleon: If someone were to hold a gun to your head and require you to either join the Mormons or a Baptist group, you wouldn't think the choice would be obvious, because you see them as both essentially equal in terms of religious extremism?

It's not a question of them both being "essentially equal in terms of religious extremism." It's a question of the fact that both religious movements have extremist elements and non-extremist elements. Not every Southern Baptist is a member of the KKK any more than every Mormon is a member of the FLDS.

[Nathyn]

Hey, Johnny one note, I don't much care what you think, until you raise the bar on your input.

DR
I'm just saying: If you're not going to dispute his analogy, then maybe Muslims really DO beat their wives very gently and only as a last resort!!

It certainly must be true if the characterization of how horrid X is to women (in practice) relies on overstatement!!

[rikzilla]

As are most religions, especially of the fundamentalist variety. Fundamentalist Christianity gave us the "barefoot and pregnant" cliche, Hinduism has loads of chauvinist attitudes and practices, and let's not even talk about Islam.

True but Mormonism is a recently invented ridiculous cult. Its like Scientology crossed with Puritanism...but in an interesting way that makes most xtians wish there was an inquisition to cry "HERESY" to. Personlay Cleon, I find Mormonism and the fundy xtian reaction to it pretty damned amusing. Honestly though I think Hitch has a point. I mean, don't you find it just a tiny bit troubling that the POTUS should have a crazy old man who talks to God as HIS leader?? It'd simply be nice if Romney were to affirm that US law takes precedence over God's law as handed down by afore mentioned crazy old man.

I remember a couple years back you were singing the praises of Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew. Orthodox Judaism's treatment of women is not substantially different than LDS'. (To his credit, Lieberman is at least not Haredi or Hassidic; their practices when it comes to women are closer to those of orthodox Islam.)

True,...I just like old Joe...a few more like him and I could go back to being a happy democrat.

-z

[Nathyn]

It's not a question of them both being "essentially equal in terms of religious extremism." It's a question of the fact that both religious movements have extremist elements and non-extremist elements. Not every Southern Baptist is a member of the KKK any more than every Mormon is a member of the FLDS.
So, you concede the LDS is more extreme than any organization Bush has ever been affiliated with?

Romney is a member of the church of LDS, even being an active Mormon missionary in his youth.

If there wasn't any evidence of him ever being a devout follower of Mormonism as taught by LDS, you might have a point that attacking his Mormonism is just a distraction.

[Cleon]

True but Mormonism is a recently invented ridiculous cult.

So time is the deciding factor, here? In 100 years, it'll be ok, but for now, it's still a "recently invented ridiculous cult?"

Personlay Cleon, I find Mormonism and the fundy xtian reaction to it pretty damned amusing.Oh, that we agree on. :D

I mean, don't you find it just a tiny bit troubling that the POTUS should have a crazy old man who talks to God as HIS leader??Uh, Rik? The current POTUS thinks that he talks to God--but more than that, he thinks that God talks back!

True,...I just like old Joe...a few more like him and I could go back to being a happy democrat.

So Orthodox Judaism's misogyny is acceptable, but LDS' isn't? You don't see a slight conflict, there?

[Cleon]

So, you concede the LDS is more extreme...

Read what I actually posted, and try again.

Thanks for playing.

[Nathyn]

Read what I actually posted, and try again.

Thanks for playing.
You're dodging the question because of its pertinency.

If the Mormon church is more radical than Bush's religious affiliation, Hitchens is justified in singling Romney out.

You suggested Hitchens hypocritically singled out Romney's Mormonism over Bush's Protestantism and tried to back that up by trying to downplay the differences between the two, by suggesting Protestantism has similar elements of extremism, "As are most religions, especially of the fundamentalist variety."

But then you have the audacity to contradict yourself, "It's not a question of them both being essentially equal in terms of religious extremism."

That's precisely what this is about. Romney's a prominent member of an extremist cult, Bush is a member of a somewhat benign religion, which even if it has extreme elements is not as extreme as the LDS.

Either defend your point or concede it. You can't have it both ways, defending your point but concealing what your point is, so as to avoid the humiliation of defeat.

Is the LDS more extreme than Protestantism or not?

[Cleon]

You're dodging the question because of its pertinency.

No, I'm objecting to your putting words in my mouth.

Again, read what I actually wrote, and try again.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm just saying: If you're not going to dispute his analogy, then maybe Muslims really DO beat their wives very gently and only as a last resort!!

It certainly must be true if the characterization of how horrid X is to women (in practice) relies on overstatement!!
Please have fun with your continued mental masturbation, since you seem to be talking to the voices in your head.

I wonder if you would say the same thing about a Scientologist?
Say the same thing about a Scientologist? What do you mean? Do you mean would I wonder if Hitchens were attacking him for his religion? If a Scientologist had already served as Senator, or Governor, and was up for President, and had a public record to look at, do you think his religion (to whatever extent he practices it) trumps everything else about him?

Would you care to elaborate? Your post was a bit vague.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

True,...I just like old Joe...a few more like him and I could go back to being a happy democrat.

-z
No you can't, he's not a Democrat anymore, according to him. :rolleyes: How do you like James Webb?

DR

[rikzilla]

So time is the deciding factor, here? In 100 years, it'll be ok, but for now, it's still a "recently invented ridiculous cult?"

It's a taste thing...the patina of time tends to slightly mute the absurdity. I like my religions old and silly rather than just silly. Like I said, it's a taste thing. Just think 500,000 years from now Scientology might even make it out of cult status!? Or not....



Uh, Rik? The current POTUS thinks that he talks to God--but more than that, he thinks that [I]God talks back!


Thanks for harshing my mellow. I for one don't think that people who profess to talk with god actually believe they have talked with god. I think they're just trying to be good fundies and fit in. Now Romney is a different story...he may actually think his prophet is real! :eek:

So Orthodox Judaism's misogyny is acceptable, but LDS' isn't? You don't see a slight conflict, there?

Ah, you mistake me for someone who has studied Orthodox Judaism...believe me when I say I think all misogyny sucks...Mormonism is just something I've had personal experience with is all.

-z

[rikzilla]

No you can't, he's not a Democrat anymore, according to him. :rolleyes: How do you like James Webb?

DR

Meh...
I voted for Macacca

-z

[Darth Rotor]

Meh...
I voted for Macacca

-z

Then I get to dance a victory dance all over you, I sent some money to Webb's campaign.

Neener, neener. *dances with glee*

(Could not vote for him, not a Va resident.)

OK, I'll stop being a prick about it.

DR

[andyandy]

(1) Does serve much purpose to describe Mormonism as a "cult"? Isn't cult just being used in the religiously defined way of "upstart religion which us established religions don't like"? Ie. To describe mormonism as a cult seems to play right into this engrained right religion/wrong religion narrative. Whilst it would seem to make sense to reserve "cult" for something like the criminal syndicate Co$, to extend it to some religions but not others seemingly based upon length of historical claim seems counter-productive.

(2) It seems somewhat ironic to protest that religion is not featuring enough in the election debate - i would have thought that an ideal situation is one in which religion does not feature in an election debate and candidates can be judged on what they would actually do, and how good as politicans they would be. Religion remaining an integral part of the election process certainly impacts detrimentally on the chances of atheists, or secularists in being judged as one would wish - ie. without reference to their beliefs (or lack of), and on how effective they would be as politicians.

(3) Whilst one could certainly expect someone to clarify whether they were racist or not today, to look to the 1970s and extrapolate racism from that seems a little more difficult to achieve - indeed one only has to look back a few more years to find systemic racism in society itself. Any adult alive in the 1960s and earlier was part of an inherently racist society - and the number who explicitly fought against the system were far outweighed by those who were complicit in the staus quo. By all means he could explain what he thought in the 1970s, and one would expect [as a politican] that he will explain away that he did not believe such racist arguments, but to do more? To try to use racism as a stick to beat him, because mormonism has a history of racism? One could just as well use historical racism as a stick to beat someone because they are a christian, or because they are American....so i don't see where that particular avenue would lead in any productive sense.

just some general musings from a Brit....;)

[Darth Rotor]

(1) Does serve much purpose to describe Mormonism as a "cult"? Isn't cult just being used in the religiously defined way of "upstart religion which us established religions don't like"? Ie. To describe mormonism as a cult seems to play right into this engrained right religion/wrong religion narrative. Whilst it would seem to make sense to reserve "cult" for something like the criminal syndicate Co$, to extend it to some religions but not others seemingly based upon length of historical claim seems counter-productive.

(2) It seems somewhat ironic to protest that religion is not featuring enough in the election debate - i would have thought that an ideal situation is one in which religion does not feature in an election debate and candidates can be judged on what they would actually do, and how good as politicans they would be. Religion remaining an integral part of the election process certainly impacts detrimentally on the chances of atheists, or secularists in being judged as one would wish - ie. without reference to their beliefs (or lack of), and on how effective they would be as politicians.

(3) Whilst one could certainly expect someone to clarify whether they were racist or not today, to look to the 1970s and extrapolate racism from that seems a little more difficult to achieve - indeed one only has to look back a few more years to find systemic racism in society itself. Any adult alive in the 1960s and earlier was part of an inherently racist society - and the number who explicitly fought against the system were far outweighed by those who were complicit in the staus quo. By all means he could explain what he thought in the 1970s, and one would expect [as a politican] that he will explain away that he did not believe such racist arguments, but to do more? To try to use racism as a stick to beat him, because mormonism has a history of racism? One could just as well use historical racism as a stick to beat someone because they are a christian, or because they are American....so i don't see where that particular avenue would lead in any productive sense.

just some general musings from a Brit....;)
Andy, what's all this about a thoughtful post on a political topic?

Where is your vitriol, man? Have you no (in)decency?

Nice post. :)

DR

[andyandy]

Nice post. :)

DR

thanks... :)

i must say, it's a nice surprise that the first reply doesn't contain the words "mormon apologist" :D

[Puppycow]

Say the same thing about a Scientologist? What do you mean? Do you mean would I wonder if Hitchens were attacking him for his religion? If a Scientologist had already served as Senator, or Governor, and was up for President, and had a public record to look at, do you think his religion (to whatever extent he practices it) trumps everything else about him?

Would you care to elaborate? Your post was a bit vague.

DR

I'm wondering if there is any conceivable religion that would automatically disqualify a candidate in your mind. Say, an apocalyptic, puppy-sacrificing cult.

Backing up a bit: My own preference would be for a non-religious candidate. However, I realize that my preference in this regard is a minority opinion. Hence I will have to vote for someone who at least pretends to be religious, But if one religion makes me feel more icky than another, that could be a factor for me, although others might outweigh it. I think if a candidate was a Scientologist, that to me would be a big strike against him/her. Maybe if he/she was great otherwise and preferably only a member of that religion by accident of birth, I might still vote for him/her. So, I guess I would vote for a Mormon (preferably by birth rather than by conversion) if he/she was the best overall candidate, but I can conceive of certain cults that would almost certainly disqualify the candidate in my mind.

[Kopji]

The item I found interesting in the Salon article was their slobbering over the crappy Mark Hemmingway article. This kind thinking sounds plausible to them:

...Additional interest is lent to this evasive tactic by the very well-argued case, made by Mark Hemingway in National Review Online, that it was actually the Romney campaign that had initiated the anti-Mormon push-poll calls in the first place! What's that? A threefer? Let me count the ways: You encourage the raising of an awkward question in such a way as to make it seem illegitimate. You then strike a hurt attitude and say that you are being persecuted for your faith. This, in turn, discourages other reporters from raising the question. Yes, that's the three-card monte.

That's just idiotic and reminds me of the stuff I read over in the CT forum.

My view would be that Romney probably feels that the subject of Mormonism is a no-win for him to discuss. No matter what his personal feelings are, for him to leave the church or publicly fight it would be seen as a sign of mental instability or irrationality by many people. To risk friends, family - essentially his whole life - is not a clever course for a good politician to set sail on.

He's probably not thought much about Adam-ondi-amon, the name of the garden-of-eden place in MO. So google it you silly reporters.

But is that any more weird than what most of Christianity professes? The religious truth is not going to be discovered by logic and reason, it all comes down to faith and all the candidates have plenty of that.

So the 'don't ask don't tell' about Mormonism will be the strategy until it appears too dishonest. The longer he holds out though, the better off he is.

[ponderingturtle]

OK, I'll bite, for a second time:

Why don't all the adult, female Mormons quit?


Why don't women quit any religion that officialy classes them as inferior?

That holds just as well for "Why don't all the adult, female Muslims quit?"

[ponderingturtle]

Yep.

Perhaps part of the answer is that the characterization of how horrid Mormonism is to women (in practice) relies on overstatement.

DR

I wonder how this would apply to say hindusism in areas that practiced Suttee?

[Darth Rotor]

I'm wondering if there is any conceivable religion that would automatically disqualify a candidate in your mind. Say, an apocalyptic, puppy-sacrificing cult.
I think you rather missed my point. Focusing on religion as the criterion in an American election, where we have an eclectic mix of variations on religion, and lack thereof, is an exceptionally narrow way to view a candidate.

How many puppy sacrificers do you expect to be elected to governor, of any state?

Do you envision Michael Vick, for example, as Virginia's governor any time soon?

Backing up a bit: My own preference would be for a non-religious candidate.
To each his own.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Meh...
I voted for Macacca

-z

You voted for a monkey, or is it that you voted for a black and use the french racial slur for them?

Remember the proper american term is ******.

[Darth Rotor]

Why don't women quit any religion that officialy classes them as inferior?

That holds just as well for "Why don't all the adult, female Muslims quit?"

Two reasons, off the top of my head.

One, the cultural context in very different. America is blessed (or cursed, pick you view on that) with a wide variety of choices of religion. That isn't as common in lands where Islam is the predominant religion. Also, the habit of choosing and moving among sects is much more common in America than you will find in the Muslim world.

Two, in some places, doing so risks running afoul of the law, not a problem in the US when changing sects, due to the problem of being found apostate. The recent case of the gent in Afghanistan leaving Islam for a Christian sect, and the subsequent Sharia court finding of apostasy and a death penalty, is a good example of how a significant deterrent to leaving the faith is embedded in some of the Muslim cultures (though that varies from place to place. )

In America, I find it more likely that a Muslim woman would feel free to leave Islam than in some other places, like Saudi.

You seem to be mixing apples and pears, which is nothing new.

The question was, again, regarding Mormons and this celebrated mysoginy:

Why don't adult, Mormon women leave the church in large numbers?

I suspect that like RandFan, our friend here, some Mormon leave the church for a variety of personal reasons. My question is more directed at why so many stay in.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

You voted for a monkey, or is it that you voted for a black and use the french racial slur for them?

Remember the proper american term is ******.
PT

You might want to bone up on the 2006 Senatorial race in Virginia before attempting to screw about with that rather funny response by rikzilla.

It's a how George Allen found a way to make an fool of himself, and lose some popular support, by himself using that term, Macaca, and being taken to task for it. Webb didn't win by much.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Two reasons, off the top of my head.

One, the cultural context in very different. America is blessed (or cursed, pick you view on that) with a wide variety of choices of religion. That isn't as common in lands where Islam is the predominant religion. Also, the habit of choosing and moving among sects is much more common in America than you will find in the Muslim world.

Two, in some places, doing so risks running afoul of the law, not a problem in the US when changing sects, due to the problem of being found apostate. The recent case of the gent in Afghanistan leaving Islam for a Christian sect, and the subsequent Sharia court finding of apostasy and a death penalty, is a good example of how a significant deterrent to leaving the faith is embedded in some of the Muslim cultures (though that varies from place to place. )

Fair enough, but that still does not seem to address that there are many very misogynistic religions that you do not see the women flocking out of in the US. Hassidic Jews for example.

In America, I find it more likely that a Muslim woman would feel free to leave Islam than in some other places, like Saudi.

You seem to be mixing apples and pears, which is nothing new.

The question was, again, regarding Mormons and this celebrated misogyny:

Why don't adult, Mormon women leave the church in large numbers?

Why don't they for many misogynistic religions in the US

That they don't leave in droves it not evidence that the religion is not misogynistic.

[Beerina]

This piece by Hitchens smacks of the same idiocy that arose in about 1960, where Presidential candidate Kennedy's being Catholic was raised as somehow relevant to his presidential aspirations.

"If the Pope tells you you have to do something, as a Catholic don't you have to do it?" smacks more of bogeyman stories protestants tell each other than it does of reality. "As a Catholic", I had never heard of such a thing.

[ponderingturtle]

PT

You might want to bone up on the 2006 Senatorial race in Virginia before attempting to screw about with that rather funny response by rikzilla.

It's a how George Allen found a way to make an fool of himself, and lose some popular support, by himself using that term, Macaca, and being taken to task for it. Webb didn't win by much.

DR

He should have not let those foreign racial epithets into this country. This is a English nation with our own racial epithets, and by god if our politicians are going to use racial epithets they NEED to be American Racial Epithets.

[Ausmerican]

You know it strikes me that a person who doesn't want to discuss their religious beliefs in relation to their candidacy could be an atheist trying to get their lack of belief under the radar. Not that I am suggesting this is true for Mitt the Mandroid in any way. However it does seem to be a reason why it may be a good idea not to probe too deeply into the beleifs of candidates. If it were at all feasible and not at odds with the first amendment etc, I would be totally in favor of it being absolutely banned from mentioniong a candidates beliefs by either themselves or the media. Imagine having to choose a leader on issues alone.

[Elind]

What the hell is wrong with you people, really? Why do you presume that any and every follower of a religious creed is in some way a fundy, or meticulous adherent to doctrine?

Y'all ever hear of projection? Might want to look it up.

These alleged "skeptics" piss and moan that an atheist can't get elected president -- quite possibly true -- and then applaud an attack on the basis of belief and wonder at why their vision seems blurry?

Romney's Mormonism: if you want to know how it influences his role as possible president, ask:

How did it influence his role as governor?

How did being Catholic influence JFK?

When you have an answer to that, how about we have a conversation?

DR

Hitchens says, amongst other things, that it would be of genuine interest to know about the following from a presidential candidate:

Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to know how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one.

And he then points out that it is unlikely that any presidential candidate would avoid being asked about their past membership of the KKK, which the Mormons had much in common with in terms of their racial superiority.

You suggest that because they call it a religion, they should not be asked such questions. I think your position is ridiculous and making comparisons with JFK is lame for any number of reasons, as is comparing the excruciatingly detailed documentation of the Mormon cult history to the well fogged over fantasies of the Catholic church.

This is a potential president we are talking about for chrisakes, not the manager of Wallmart.

[Travis]

As a former Mormon who's parents are still Mormon I can personally attest that I never met a racist Mormon. I'm sure there are some out there, but I never met them. In fact I remember how it was often stated with pride about how well Missionaries were doing in Africa.

I'm an atheist now but if I were pressed to join up with a religion, and I got to choose, I would go back to the LDS.

[Darth Rotor]

You suggest that because they call it a religion, they should not be asked such questions.
Nope. But you just did. Project much?

Thanks for playing.
This is a potential president we are talking about for chrisakes, not the manager of Wallmart.
Nice job of not addressing how his being Mormon made him a good, or bad, governor of Ted Kennedy's home state.

DR

[Elind]

I suspect that like RandFan, our friend here, some Mormon leave the church for a variety of personal reasons. My question is more directed at why so many stay in.

DR

I think if you look at human societies in general, you will seldom find any significant numbers of people leaving for these kinds of, alleged, reasons. Cultural identity and family are not something most can leave behind for any reason.

Might as well ask why so many women, of any religion, in the USA yet, stay in abusive relationships, which is not to say all Mormon relationships are abusive, but the pressures are probably similar.

[Elind]

Nope. But you just did. Project much?

Thanks for playing.

Nice job of not addressing how his being Mormon made him a good, or bad, governor of Ted Kennedy's home state.

DR

Save the sarcasm, I obviously was commenting on the right to know how deep his woo runs. There are plenty of equally competent "managers" around that even you wouldn't want to have as president, and many of them are in jail.

It would have been more interesting if Mitt had managed to become governor in a less politically correct environment than Kennedy country. Georgia say.

[Darth Rotor]

Save the sarcasm, I obviously was commenting on the right to know how deep his woo runs.
And that is part of your problem, and the bigotry I noted in my first post in this thread.

This point is probably OBE soon, as I hear Romney is feeling a need to make some sort of official statement, again, similar to Kennedy, about where his loyalties lie.

There are plenty of equally competent "managers" around that even you wouldn't want to have as president, and many of them are in jail.
I don't give a flying fart about managers, mister, I am interested in leaders, and people who have leadership skills. That quality seems a very rare commodity in American political candidates of late, don't you think? Not sure if Mitt has it or not.
It would have been more interesting if Mitt had managed to become governor in a less politically correct environment than Kennedy country. Georgia say.
Not at all. Mitt was a GOP governor in one of the Democratic Party's bits of home turf.

How did he pull that off?

How good is he at working across party lines?

How good a governor was he?

Anyone from Mass have objective input?

Remember, the people in Mass didn't seem to care all that much that Mitt was a Mormon.

Why do you? Why does Hitchens? I think he forgets that if Mitt wins the nom, it pisses off the fundies.

I think that would be hilarious.

DR

[Elind]

Remember, the people in Mass didn't seem to care all that much that Mitt was a Mormon.

Why do you? Why does Hitchens? I think he forgets that if Mitt wins the nom, it pisses off the fundies.

I think that would be hilarious.

DR

Sarcasm and bigotry again (you like that word too much I think). I'm supposed to say if it's OK with Massachusetts it's OK with me and the rest of the world?

You presumably don't mind Bush preaching at you all the time? I do. I prefer a president to claims to have come up with ideas and convictions all by himself or herself (see how PC I can be?).

I don't know that anyone who claims to actually believe that Mormon fantasy is capable of doing so; but as I said before it would not take much to assure the world that his accident of birth has no bearing on how he thinks. So far he seems to think, like you, that such matters are beyond question.

[tomwaits]

I have a good friend who is a mormon, and his family is pretty strict about it. However, he's about the farthest thing from a mormon I've ever seen. He drinks, smokes, does drugs, sleeps around, and is a pretty all-around vulgar guy who just wants to sit around and surf all day.

Despite all this, he still considers himself a mormon and believes the religion to be somewhat valid. Why? Well, if he had denounced mormonism, in his head he might as well be denouncing his entire family that he loves as a bunch of idiots. Some of us (like me) are blessed with more liberal families who aren't strict about religion. He does not have that luxury. His family would see it as treason, nothing more. Hence his reluctance to give up on the religion.

I imagine that Romney is a "liberal" mormon, but is hesitant to say anything about it. To call himself a dedicated mormon invites widespread ridicule, but to denounce it would destroy his relationship with his family. It's a winless situation, and he's trying to play it the best he can.

[Elind]

Tomwaits: I can appreciate that situation, but on the one hand it is accepted among most believers in god that people can change their religious affiliation without being damned by everyone (Mormons have more baggage than most, IMHO), and on the other hand when one decides one want to be president one has to enlarge one's family and be prepared to make certain sacrifices.

Mormon history and beliefs are not softened by the mists of time. Simply put, to most non Mormons, atheists or not, it is a ridiculous con. I wouldn't trust a president, however supposedly smart, who wouldn't reject the principle of receiving revelations from "prophets" whenever convenient.

[Darth Rotor]

So far he seems to think, like you, that such matters are beyond question.
No sir, not at all, and no, you may not put words into my mouth.

"Beyond question" is not the issue.

Not particularly relevant to job performance is my position, given that you have not, nor has Hitchens, established with any clarity just how orthodox in practice, or how casual, Romney is in his exercise of his faith. Hitchens raises the same bogeyman that any number of critics of Muslims raise, though he does it in the form of accusation by asking a question, that due to this or that element of doctrine, one can assume all adherents must live it out. Funnily enough, the simple practice of infidelity among many people who are members of a variety of faiths that frown on infidelity might demonstrate to you how the delta, between pure orthodoxy and actual human practice, tends to be large. The exception is the Fundy like Falwell. Perhaps your worry is that the extreme ends are the dangerous ones (I think plenty of support can be had for that position) and that you worry is that Romney is secretly an extremist Mormon.

Why would you, or Mr Hitchens, feel that way without evidence of this in his previous public life? Even governors live under the microscope.

There are variances in practice within any sect, with some folks going orthodox and hard line, with others being far more relaxed. My own experiences with Mormons informs my understanding of this, and I found the vast bulk to operate in the relaxed mode, not the orthodox mode.

But you are free to leap to conclusions. Perhaps that is for you, and Hitchens, a way to get a few aerobic points each day. Since you have yet to show me how his being Mormon made a damned bit of difference as a governor, a political office in the executive branch of a state government, I am left with a standard antipathy for Mormons, even bigotry (perhaps that's too strong a characterization for you) as your guiding principle in holding his being Mormon as important.

As to Pres Bush's clumsy public speaking, I have never liked it.
Simply put, to most non Mormons, atheists or not, it is a ridiculous con. I wouldn't trust a president, however supposedly smart, who wouldn't reject the principle of receiving revelations from "prophets" whenever convenient
Does that stop Mormons from functioning effectively, that theirs is an odd creed, perhaps even a con perpetrated by Joseph Smith?

How does that weigh against Romney's practical success in business and politics?

DR

[Tailgater]

Seems kind of silly to me. He should be elected (or not) on his record and platform. Do we really need press conferences for candidates to explain they will not use religion, race, sex, age, etc as a guide for President? They will all deny it. Duh.

[Elind]

No sir, not at all, and no, you may not put words into my mouth.

Sorry then, but I do see a certain similarity between what you say and I allege nevertheless.

"Beyond question" is not the issue. Yes it is. How far the questioning were to go is debatable. You seem to want to move on nbefore it has been addressed. That seem analogous to beyond to me.

Not particularly relevant to job performance is my position, given that you have not, nor has Hitchens, established with any clarity just how orthodox in practice, or how casual, Romney is in his exercise of his faith. Hitchens raises the same bogeyman that any number of critics of Muslims raise, though he does it in the form of accusation by asking a question, that due to this or that element of doctrine, one can assume all adherents must live it out.What's wrong with that? Why would you tell anyone that you are, say, a Jew, a Catholic, a Hindu, a Scientologist if you did not wish to be identified as such? Why would you not say that you born and raised as one, but do not practice or believe the parts held in ridicule by the majority of outsiders who look at them?

Mormons, at a minimum, believe in a fundamental principle of "revelation" through dreams or fantasy or just plain voices. I want to know if a presidential candidate is prone to making decisions on that basis.



Funnily enough, the simple practice of infidelity among many people who are members of a variety of faiths that frown on infidelity might demonstrate to you how the delta, between pure orthodoxy and actual human practice, tends to be large. The exception is the Fundy like Falwell. Perhaps your worry is that the extreme ends are the dangerous ones (I think plenty of support can be had for that position) and that you worry is that Romney is secretly an extremist Mormon.What do you mean by "extremist" Mormon? The welfare dependent polygamists or the ones who hear voices or believe the 12 prophets when they say they hear a collective voice? How about a voice that says now YOU are a prophet too? How about a belief that J.Smith actually found gold tablets from god or, even worse, that he had never really thought to question it?

There are beliefs that have become so traditional over millennium that they become a part of social fabric and ridiculous or not to some, they are understood in terms of their place in society. Mormonism is so wacky that it still qualifies as a cult, regardless if it has at least as many members as there are those who believe they have been abducted by aliens. I believe it shows a deficiency in critical thinking that goes well beyond the more common aspect of believing in a supreme creator.

Why would you, or Mr Hitchens, feel that way without evidence of this in his previous public life? Even governors live under the microscope. :shrug: I make a big distinction between President of the USA and governor of a state that I have personally had no reason to follow closely from Florida.

There are variances in practice within any sect, with some folks going orthodox and hard line, with others being far more relaxed. My own experiences with Mormons informs my understanding of this, and I found the vast bulk to operate in the relaxed mode, not the orthodox mode. I agree. But when it comes to Mormonism I am not sure what you mean by orthodox, except perhaps attitudes to alcohol. What I mentioned above is not an issue of orthodoxy or not, it is a question of rationality or genuine susceptibility to woo.

But you are free to leap to conclusions. Perhaps that is for you, and Hitchens, a way to get a few aerobic points each day. Since you have yet to show me how his being Mormon made a damned bit of difference as a governor, a political office in the executive branch of a state government, I am left with a standard antipathy for Mormons, even bigotry (perhaps that's too strong a characterization for you) as your guiding principle in holding his being Mormon as important. I already answered this.

As to Pres Bush's clumsy public speaking, I have never liked it.
So we have something in common then. Have you also perhaps noticed that given any topic, you already know exactly what he is going to say, before he says it?


Does that stop Mormons from functioning effectively, that theirs is an odd creed, perhaps even a con perpetrated by Joseph Smith? Now you moved the goalposts. I'm not talking about Mormons, I'm talking about the President of the Free World, so to speak. At a bare minimum I'd like the rest of the world's leadership to look at him with fundamental respect instead of a nagging worry that this guy could be really unpredictable if he actually believes that Joseph Smith con man stuff.

How does that weigh against Romney's practical success in business and politics?

DRMassachusetts is not the world stage, nor is an individual's business success.

[Darth Rotor]

What's wrong with that? Why would you tell anyone that you are, say, a Jew, a Catholic, a Hindu, a Scientologist if you did not wish to be identified as such?

Why would you not say that you born and raised as one, but do not practice or believe the parts held in ridicule by the majority of outsiders who look at them?
Why would anyone deny how they were born and raised?
Mormons, at a minimum, believe in a fundamental principle of "revelation" through dreams or fantasy or just plain voices. I want to know if a presidential candidate is prone to making decisions on that basis.
Oh really? You speak from experience? I find that none of the Mormons I served with used revelation to get on with their lives, nor my few Mormon neighbors.

You presume that the doctrine is more important than the clique. I doubt that is the rule.
What do you mean by "extremist" Mormon? The welfare dependent polygamists or the ones who hear voices or believe the 12 prophets when they say they hear a collective voice? How about a voice that says now YOU are a prophet too? How about a belief that J.Smith actually found gold tablets from god or, even worse, that he had never really thought to question it?
As in extreme in orthodoxy. I was unclear.
There are beliefs that have become so traditional over millennium
Hard to do that when the religion/sect is about one to two centuries old, don't you think? Smith died in Missouri in the 19th century.
Mormonism is so wacky that it still qualifies as a cult, regardless if it has at least as many members as there are those who believe they have been abducted by aliens.
Many Fundy Christians agree with you. Happy to be in that company, are you? ;)
I believe it shows a deficiency in critical thinking that goes well beyond the more common aspect of believing in a supreme creator.
For those at the hard end of orthodoxy, I tend to see it your way. There is no indication that Romney is one such.
:shrug: I make a big distinction between President of the USA and governor of a state that I have personally had no reason to follow closely from Florida.
It's early yet. The election is a year off.
I agree. But when it comes to Mormonism I am not sure what you mean by orthodox, except perhaps attitudes to alcohol. What I mentioned above is not an issue of orthodoxy or not, it is a question of rationality or genuine susceptibility to woo.
No, you overstate the case, except in the case of the hard line orthodox.
So we have something in common then. Have you also perhaps noticed that given any topic, you already know exactly what he is going to say, before he says it?
No, since I don't. What kind of crap is this?
Now you moved the goalposts. I'm not talking about Mormons, I'm talking about the President of the Free World, so to speak.
That is what is at issue, but Hitchens, and your mild defense of his method, chose to make it about Mormons, which is what I found off putting in the first place.
At a bare minimum I'd like the rest of the world's leadership to look at him with fundamental respect instead of a nagging worry that this guy could be really unpredictable if he actually believes that Joseph Smith con man stuff.
I don't give a flying fart about the opinions of the rest of the world's leadership. Their role is the self interest of their nations, primarily, and other interests secondarily. Who our president is won't change that.

Can Mitt (or Hillary or Rudy or Ron or Barack) work effectively with them?

Yes? Good.

No? Probably not so good.
Massachusetts is not the world stage, nor is an individual's business success.
No kidding, the Peter principle finds many a president coming up short. Carter comes to mind, as President, not as human being.

DR

[Elind]

Why would anyone deny how they were born and raised?

Oh really? You speak from experience? I find that none of the Mormons I served with used revelation to get on with their lives, nor my few Mormon neighbors.

First, I didn't say such a denial was expected, since it's obviously impossible. Secondly, I have doubts that you have discussed the fundamentals of Mormonism with your neighbors, but if you did they would have to say they believed in such matters as the reality of the revelations proclaimed by their leadership from time to time, or they could not call themselves Mormon.

You presume that the doctrine is more important than the clique. I doubt that is the rule.


No, I have actually already stated that I believe it's the clique that rules. Some call it family. If someone said that is what keeps them in the "clique" I can understand, but if it's the fable, I lose respect.

As in extreme in orthodoxy. I was unclear.

You still don't define what that means.

Hard to do that when the religion/sect is about one to two centuries old, don't you think? Smith died in Missouri in the 19th century.


In all likelihood, the origins of this sect will be just as well documented 500 years from now, and still unable to hide from that reality, unlike those who claim to follow someone called Jesus who one can only say "probably" existed.

Many Fundy Christians agree with you. Happy to be in that company, are you? ;)

OK, a joke. All religions call the others a fraud or at best a sad mistake. That means I, and presumably you, are in company with all of them.

For those at the hard end of orthodoxy, I tend to see it your way. There is no indication that Romney is one such.

Again, you use orthodoxy very loosely, in a way that sounds to me like simply "sincere". If he is sincere in his beliefs (as invented by Joseph Smith), then I would worry. If he just grew up that way, he should say so.

That is what is at issue, but Hitchens, and your mild defense of his method, chose to make it about Mormons, which is what I found off putting in the first place.

In that sense, my opinion is certainly about all Mormons. Their fable could just as easily have been written by Ron. L. Hubbard, and it alsmost seems that Hubbard might have taken some ideas from the Mormons (just as Smith did from Islam and Christianity) when he illustrated how easy it can be to fool many people all of the time.

I don't give a flying fart about the opinions of the rest of the world's leadership. Their role is the self interest of their nations, primarily, and other interests secondarily. Who our president is won't change that.


Ok, so you're a neocon isolationist:boggled:. However I suggest that if we want to influence the world with other than weapons, we could do better than claim that we are chosen by a god.


No kidding, the Peter principle finds many a president coming up short. Carter comes to mind, as President, not as human being.

DR

I find religious humans who think all other religions are wrong to be potentially dangerous, at least in a crisis. I also find them missing something critical in thought processes, also dangerous, at least in a crisis. For what it's worth, I sat :jaw-dropp watching that really really nice guy Huckabee tell O'Reilly that only his way would lead to heaven. Screw Huckabee.

[Darth Rotor]

First, I didn't say such a denial was expected, since it's obviously impossible. Secondly, I have doubts that you have discussed the fundamentals of Mormonism with your neighbors, but if you did they would have to say they believed in such matters as the reality of the revelations proclaimed by their leadership from time to time, or they could not call themselves Mormon.
I began looking into Mormonism about 20 years ago, and about 10 years ago I spent some time reading up on a newsgroup that took the piss out of Mormons, specifically the inner politics of the Mormon church. I find it a curious variation on the generally Protestant mode of American Christianity.
No, I have actually already stated that I believe it's the clique that rules. Some call it family. If someone said that is what keeps them in the "clique" I can understand, but if it's the fable, I lose respect.
*Nods*
You still don't define what that means.
Why do I need to?
In all likelihood, the origins of this sect will be just as well documented 500 years from now, and still unable to hide from that reality, unlike those who claim to follow someone called Jesus who one can only say "probably" existed.
Could be. In a hundred years, Mormonism might also be the official religion of white people in the US. Who knows?
OK, a joke. All religions call the others a fraud or at best a sad mistake. That means I, and presumably you, are in company with all of them.
I don't call other religions a fraud, but I do consider the matter of them all being right at once a bit of a problem.
Again, you use orthodoxy very loosely, in a way that sounds to me like simply "sincere". Nope. Try the term "doctrinaire" and you'll be closer.
In that sense, my opinion is certainly about all Mormons. Their fable could just as easily have been written by Ron. L. Hubbard, and it alsmost seems that Hubbard might have taken some ideas from the Mormons (just as Smith did from Islam and Christianity) when he illustrated how easy it can be to fool many people all of the time.
Smith is either a false prophet, or he isn't, just as Mohamed is, or isn't, a false prophet.
Ok, so you're a neocon isolationist:boggled:.
Nope, you aren't even close. Not remotely. Calling me a neocon, in the old days, might have gotten you the offer of a duel. I'll let it pass. What I am not is anyone who has a fantasy that somehow "other" foreign leaders are more worthy of respect, since they are politicians, than any American pol. They are all pols. The leaders are very, very rare in this world. I also don't give a crap, for example, if a Robert Mugabe has a high opinion of our president, whoever that may be, or if the prime minister of Italy does. I am far more pragmatist than anything when it comes to geopolitics.
However I suggest that if we want to influence the world with other than weapons, we could do better than claim that we are chosen by a god.
Who is this "we," kemo sabe? Tar brush much?
I find religious humans who think all other religions are wrong to be potentially dangerous, at least in a crisis.
Oh yes, there be dragons. No relief in sight, as of this writing.
I also find them missing something critical in thought processes, also dangerous, at least in a crisis. For what it's worth, I sat :jaw-dropp watching that really really nice guy Huckabee tell O'Reilly that only his way would lead to heaven. Screw Huckabee.
Screw Huckabee. Hmm. Not with yours, but I tend to share your sentiment in finding him a poor pick for Pres. ;)

DR

[Elind]

Nope, you aren't even close. Not remotely. Calling me a neocon, in the old days, might have gotten you the offer of a duel. I'll let it pass.

Feel free to correct if take liberties, but it almost seems we don't disagree that much, except perhaps on the degree that something rubs us wrong.

Did you notice the :boggled: when I said neocon? Joke, sort of.

The point is that with the exception of the USA, most of the world that counts isn't interested in, and has trouble taking seriously, the religious beliefs of the leader(s) of the world's most powerful nation, particularly since the great majority of humanity thinks differently anyway.

If you believe in negotiation and making friends through common ideals and principles, then such issues do matter, just as they matter to me personally.

[Darth Rotor]

Feel free to correct if take liberties, but it almost seems we don't disagree that much, except perhaps on the degree that something rubs us wrong.
Yes.
Did you notice the :boggled: when I said neocon? Joke, sort of.
Didn't register, my miss.

The point is that with the exception of the USA, most of the world that counts isn't interested in, and has trouble taking seriously, the religious beliefs of the leader(s) of the world's most powerful nation, particularly since the great majority of humanity thinks differently anyway.
Aye.
If you believe in negotiation and making friends through common ideals and principles, then such issues do matter, just as they matter to me personally.
Here is where we may or may not agree.

Can I work with this guy? Can we make a deal?

That is the question any national leader asks vis a vis another national leader.

LBJ's problem with Ho, for example: didn't seem to want to make a deal in the way LBJ was familiar with.

DR

[Gord_in_Toronto]

A slight derail.

I got a phone call on Toronto today from Mr Romney, or at least his organization, or at least a recorded message from his organization, requesting my vote.

I did not get a chance to ask about his religion. :sniff:

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm going to go with Article IV of the Constitution on this one.

Candidates have a lot of time to put forth their positions and some have their records to run on. Since Romney was a moderate MA Gov. and he's clearly running to the right this time and if he's nominated and continue to do so during the general campeign I will not be voting for him.

I would want the same consideration from the voting public if I, an atheist, were to run.

[corplinx]

How dare Romney (basically a technocrat and pragmatist) pretend to be religious and conservative to get elected?

What's next, Obama meeting Al Sharpton? Oh wait.

If you base your vote on whoever doesn't get tainted by the election process, you will have noone to vote for.

PS: Not voting for Romney, however, the country could do a lot worse than Mitt Romney

[tomwaits]

Yeah, imagine if JFK had tried to court the segregationist southern democrats?

oh, wait. he did.

[corplinx]

Could you imagine the democrats going to a dailykos convention? Oh wait
Could you imagine McCain speaking at Liberty U? Oh wait
Could you imagine Hillary faking a southern accent to pander to black voters? Oh wait
Could you imagine Giuliani getting the nod from Robertson? Oh wait
Could you imagine Obama proclaiming "I am the product of Selma"? Oh wait
Could you imagine Ron Paul going on the Alex Jones show? Oh wait


The primary system is about whoring yourself to as many parties as possible as shamelessly as possible while keeping a straight face.

[Elind]

Here is where we may or may not agree.

Can I work with this guy? Can we make a deal?

That is the question any national leader asks vis a vis another national leader.

LBJ's problem with Ho, for example: didn't seem to want to make a deal in the way LBJ was familiar with.

DR

The answer is probably yes, but that too applies to just about anyone other than of the Chavez variety.

The question is more accurate if one asks, what kind of deal will he make for the USA, and on what principles?

From what I've heard spoken that is not a major concern in my mind, but I still maintain that given the wackiness of Mormonism, he owes a certain explanation as to why he is not in the same category as followers of Sylvia Brown or Ron L. Hubbard, for example.

How he does that is his problem, not mine, but I suspect it would be a win situation for him overall if he had the guts to do so.

[tomwaits]

The primary system is about whoring yourself to as many parties as possible as shamelessly as possible while keeping a straight face.


i know, i was pretty much agreeing with you by using heavy sarcasm.

[Pardalis]

His last speech speaks of "Freedom requires religion"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/romney.speech/index.html

Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone

I guess freedom of religion is nice, the freedom to choose whichever one you like, but what about freedom from religion?

To me, that's the ultimate freedom.

[varwoche]

Could you imagine Obama proclaiming "I am the product of Selma"? Oh wait I hesitate to derail the thread but "product of Selma" makes perfect sense to me. I interpret this to mean that without the civil rights movement Obama would not be in the position he is today, which is surely true and does not impress me as pandering.

I agree with your general sentiment though.

[Darth Rotor]

His last speech speaks of "Freedom requires religion"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/romney.speech/index.html



I guess freedom of religion is nice, the freedom to choose whichever one you like, but what about freedom from religion?

To me, that's the ultimate freedom.

"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom.

Uh, no, I don't think so, Mitt. Ya lost me on that one. It is questionable logic, and of poor quality as rhetoric. As a sound byte for people who don't think, OK, it might work as a bumper sticker devoid of any meaning.

Who the hell vetted that speech?

If this is his own work, I worry about his mental acuity.

DR

[Pardalis]

It's like he completely forgot or ignored atheism/agnosticism as an option.

Strange...

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't access C-SPAN from work and I can't from home on dial-up but hopefully they will post video of an interesting segment today discussing Romney and his Mormonism with a professor (Mormon) of political science from Notre Dame. The entire segment was very interesting with the various comments from callers, but it brought up an issue that I hadn't considered before this morning regarding Romney's speech and comparisons with JFK - WWII.

If enough of you express interest in this particular tangent, I might start a thread on it in the History sub-forum, but here's my historically adjuested for inflation $.20.

In 1960, Kennedy was running as a WWII vet, who was courting the votes of literally millions Protestant WWII vets who had shared foxholes with other Catholics during the war. Romney doesn't have either of those two advantages going for him when it comes to using personal experience and "face time" with persons of other denominations/heretical sects in terms of demographics for the party primaries or the general election.

My question to fellow history buffs - did the WWII factor make JFK's bid or were other demographics like the schism between Protestantism and Catholicism being less than that between "mainstream" Christianity and Mormonism and the larger percentage of Catholics per capita in 1960 vs. Mormons in 2007 more important?

[corplinx]

I hesitate to derail the thread but "product of Selma" makes perfect sense to me. I interpret this to mean that without the civil rights movement Obama would not be in the position he is today, which is surely true and does not impress me as pandering.


Then I think you just like the guy too much to call it straight. He's a nice guy and has that effect on people.

Cause you know, the mean streets of Hawaii were a hotbed of Jim Crow.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Wednesday night I watched footage of Kennedy's Q&A session during his Houston visit which I had never seen (and I still haven't seen his speech). I wish I could find a transcript of the Q&A because based on what I've been hearing on C-SPAN's Washington Journal and hearing on some talk radio shows it both seems like we're still in 1960 and we're light years away from where we were then.

As to the proximity, a lot of people who call in the Washington Journal and the talk shows want to challenge Romney on theology. They might or might not seem particularly interested in his personal beliefs or how his personal beliefs have or have not effected his policy/voting decisions as governor/senator, but there seems to be an obsessive doctrinare streak in a number of callers/questioners that want to challenge the doctrines or ecclesiatical stances of the Mormon/Catholic church. The lay callers regarding Romney's Mormanism in 2007 might as well have been the Protestant preachers and ministers in Kennedy's 1960 Q&A audience.

Quick tangent - I don't watch Olbermann very often, but I do like his "worst" segment and there was mountains of irony when he noted last night that while Mormon Glenn Beck said religion is no biggy and nothing for people to worry about on Good Morning America that morning, he was obsessed with Keith Ellison even going so far as asking him to explain why he wasn't a "terrorist" during an interview.

On the more things change, and no, they don't stay the same front, when I was watching the Q&A with Kennedy, I heard the phrase "separation of Chruch and State" uttered more in a positive light than I have in the last 20 years it seems. Both he and the Protestant clergy questioning him seemed to think it was a very important concept.

Odd how Romney decried "secularism" and declared freedom and faith to be inseperable...

[Elind]

Odd how Romney decried "secularism" and declared freedom and faith to be inseperable...

Odd how he said so little of substance, pandering to all those who like that.

Personally, I thought it was just plain sad, meaning it made me feel sad if this is the best that we can produce to lead us.

Maybe I won't bother to vote anymore.:(