Republican candidate cravenness and Romney/Cult thing

[_Infymus]

Religion shouldn't be a part of the Presidential run, but it always is. Presidents know that they have to keep up appearances, even if they aren't religious. That is why pretty much all Presidents attend Church - one in particular in the Washington DC area.

Mitt Romney went through the temple pre-1990. The 5 points of fellowship were removed 3rd quarter of 1990 - so Mitt went through when they were still doing the throat and bowel slitting ceremony. He also went through prior to 2005 changes so he was naked in a poncho - and his body was touched by a worker. During that whole ceremony, Romney promised to give everything to the church.

I am concerned about Romney's strong ties to the Mormon church. Very concerned.

Both Utah Senators Hatch and Bennett - both Republicans - both Mormons - have very serious ties to the Church. With a little bit of searching you can easily find pork inserted into obscure bills by both of these men that changed laws to benefit the Mormon church. One of those was recently making it so the church wasn't responsible for missionaries in the US that were there illegally. That was inserted by Bennett I believe.

As my dad would say, "If Romney makes President, I'm moving to Canada."

[_quaker]

Please move to Alberta or Vancouver. The people with extremist opinions and bias tend to congregate in those locations.

Alberta has the political right extremists while Vancouver has the lefties if that makes a difference.

[_Buffalo]

It must be a difficult time for orthodox Mormons right now. I mean, the Republican party is the de facto celestial political party for most members, and yet it's the Republicans who are calling them cultists. What a pickle!

[_asbestosman]

I was recently thinking about the cultural expectation I was raised with never to disrespect my mother by virtue of the fact that she is my mother (but I could disrespect my father). My mother-in-law was raised with and has other cultural expectations about always respecting your elders--which she can use to her advantage by pointing out our shortcomings but being offended if we even hint at her hypocrisy.

I believe respect is earned through actions. Even then, I do not believe that merit in one area should make one immune to criticism in another area, or even in the same area. If a person puts his life on the line to save mine I will be deeply grateful. However, I don't see why I can't criticize him if he later engages in rude or repulsive behavior or if I disagree with his political ideas. The fundamental problem I see with criticism is that people cannot separate criticism of some aspect of themselves from those aspects which are praised.

Another thing I've been thinking about, but not reached any real conclusions on is that of social consequences. If I have a strange hairdo as is my legal right to do, I think at some level I should have to deal with the social consequences of doing so. The question is where to draw the line for the consequences. Should stores be forced to let me in even though I may drive other customers away? If I get my clothes and furniture from a thrift store (despite earning plenty of money), is it wrong to criticize me lest it be hate speech, or is that only reserved for "suspect classes?" When does criticism become harassment--only when people start doing tragic things as a result of it? Is it okay to say that Mormons will go to hell? If so, is it also okay to tell a homosexual he will go to hell? Remember, religion is also a suspect class. If there is a difference, is it that homosexuals have not been aggressors, that they have had more persecution, or something else?

I don't want homosexuals to do tragic things. I am saddened that Alan Turing's life ended early as a result of social forces at the time. However, I do think it should be allowed to criticize them just as one can criticize Mormons or other religions. I also think it fine if society disapproves of such criticism--I just want them to hold both to the same standard.

[_EAllusion]

Criticizing someone for being gay is wrong because there is nothing wrong with being gay and such criticism occurs in the context of a history of persecution. While I don't recommend criticizing anyone for shopping at thrift stores, I don't see how that is comparable.

[_Equality]

I think the biggest issue with the booing of the soldier at the Republican debate was that Republicans, and particularly conservatives, constantly wrap themselves in the flag and get themselves worked up into a jingoistic fervor where the military is concerned. Any criticism of the military, to these folks, is anti-american and unpatriotic. Yet, all that love for the military just goes right out the window as soon as a soldier self-idenitifies as gay. It showed their true colors: they don't really care about supporting the military; they care about advancing their radical social conservative agenda. It was a moment that exposed these creeps' true colors. As for Huntsman denouncing it weeks after the fact, well, isn't that special. He had a real opportunity to have a Sister Soulja moment during that debate, and he blew it. As did all the Republican candidates, who showed how cowardly they all are.

[_Hoops]

I think

I wonder.

the biggest issue with the booing of the soldier at the Republican debate was that Republicans, and particularly conservatives, constantly wrap themselves in the flag and get themselves worked up into a jingoistic fervor where the military is concerned.

Can you possibly use any more liberal buzz words? What does this mean? If anything?

Any criticism of the military, to these folks, is anti-american and unpatriotic.

Um, no. Criticism of the military should be confined to what the military does wrong, not about doing what it is designed to do.

Yet, all that love for the military just goes right out the window as soon as a soldier self-idenitifies as gay.

Well, there's your problem right there. "A soldier self identifies as gay." The criticism, I'd imagine, stems from the fact that a gay person signed up for the military knowing their sexual orientation. Not always, I'm sure, but often it would seem, given the soldier's age. The military, until recently, had a ban on gays (rightly or wrongly) yet the gay soldiers knowingly violated that rule, presumably to promote some agenda.

It showed their true colors: they don't really care about supporting the military; they care about advancing their radical social conservative agenda.

More liberal buzz words.

It was a moment that exposed these creeps' true colors.

Really? And just who did do the booing? And do you know exactly what they were booing? Or is it just easy to retreat to your bias?

[_asbestosman]

and such criticism occurs in the context of a history of persecution.

Then that is the key difference. It bothers me somewhat that once the pendulum swings too far landing in the area of persecution, it has to be corrected by setting far to the other side in receiving special protection. I believe in the need to protect people. Sometimes I just think it goes too far. In my ideal world, ideally homosexuals would receive no more social protection than those shopping at thrift stores (or heterosexuals), but in my ideal world, homosexuals wouldn't have a history of persecution either. I just wonder why (or when) we can put the pendulum back in a more natural state where there is no special protection and no present threat of persecution either.

While Mormons haven't been nearly as persecuted as homosexuals we have had some. We do not receive special protection from protesters who tell us we're going to hell. Personally, I'm fine with that, but then there is no real danger I see of physical violence. Furthermore I don't see it driving Mormons into tragic actions--something which does happen for homosexuals. But why not--what's the difference? The vitriol from protesters at conference is pretty high at times. Mormonism is even becoming an issue for political candidates. Do people just like Mormons more, or is there some other reason the attacks against our religion don't drive us to tragedy (and therefore merit special protection)?

[_asbestosman]

The military, until recently, had a ban on gays (rightly or wrongly) yet the gay soldiers knowingly violated that rule, presumably to promote some agenda.

Kinda like Rosa Parks knowingly violating a rule, presumably to promote some agenda?

The horror!

[_Hoops]

Kinda like Rosa Parks knowingly violating a rule, presumably to promote some agenda?

The horror!

No, not anything like Rosa Parks. May be just as unfair, but the two are not the same. You should be able to see that.