sock puppet wrote:More likely, but perhaps even more pernicious, is that the elected official makes decisions, fearing eternal judgment consequences for those official decisions. It is one thing to know the source of beliefs that have shaped one's moral development and thinking. It is worthy of examination, as a possible predictor of how, if elected, that adherent might decide certain issues that will come across his or her desk. That's what I see the relevance of Romney's faith, as I have seen no indication that he would kow-tow either to the FP/12 if they sought to direct his presidential decision making or that he would, when making a decision, ask himself, "What would (Mormon) Jesus do?" ... That Romney has not towed the Mormon line when it comes to social issues, and social issues ought to be the preeminent of religious concern, I do not see evidence that he would consciously factor the LDS position into his policy making decisions on social issues. His meandering history on social issues might be a concern written off as due to maturation or a willingness to think things through and change his mind. However, if one overlays the political races and places he has been in when and as those changes have occurred, and the direction he tacked, there is more than a mere passing coincidence that one can chalk up to political expedience being Romney's motivation on social issues. On social issues, Romney's past reveals more of a political opportunist than a man guided by principle or his faith.
I do see Romney as first and foremost as a political opportunist. I guess realistically Romney could been seen as NOMish type who is in the church because he was born in it. Has he ever been directly asked about how he would handle a call from Salt Lake City? I do think that is one question he needs to answer clearly and honestly.
If I recall correctly, in March 2008 (when seeking the Republican nomination that McCain won), Romney tried a JFK speech, in which Romney proclaimed he would not take directives in office from the Mormon vatican.
sock puppet wrote:If I recall correctly, in March 2008 (when seeking the Republican nomination that McCain won), Romney tried a JFK speech, in which Romney proclaimed he would not take directives in office from the Mormon vatican.
I had forgotten about his Faith in America speech last time around.
"As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution - and of course, I would not do so as president. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' - the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
Personally I think Mormonism is especially problematic. If the church were to ask Romney to vote a certain way, how does he turn them down if he sincerely believes that they are God's representatives?
The same could be said of members of any church.
What would be interesting to see is what are all the reasons (have they hit all of them in the first 20 mins?) they consider why some have an aversion to voting for Mormons and how the film treats those reasons. Do they treat them farily? Fairly but inaccurately, or is it a hit peice against the Church? The first part is certainly interesting, but there is an hour more to go.
Isn't this a simple matter? Two quite different principles are involved:
1. Legally, any person who fulfills the qualifications of age and nationality can stand for election as President, irrespective of religion. That's as it should be.
2. Legally, voters are entitled to make their choice as to how to cast their votes in any way they please. If they feel they have grounds for thinking that a candidate's religion might render him less likely to be a good President, they are free to vote accordingly and to attempt to persuade others to join them. Other people can argue against them. That's as it should be.
What's the problem?
No problem at all and I completely agree. A Mormon Democrat is an Apostate with a capital A. A Muslim candidate is typically going to be a threat to most Western values, conservative and liberal. I do not feel an ounce of guilt judging candidates this way and I'm sure some of you judge Mormon candidates in a similar vein. I think you're absolutely wrong, stupid, and lacking any modicum and intelligence and wisdom in that case, but it is your right.
Personally I think Mormonism is especially problematic. If the church were to ask Romney to vote a certain way, how does he turn them down if he sincerely believes that they are God's representatives?
The same could be said of members of any church.
So give me a scenario of exactly how that would play out in say, the United Church of Christ.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
I'd like to thank bcspace for reminding us that if someone is opposed to a Mitt Romney presidency, it is not because that someone substantively disagrees with Romney or dislikes him personally. No, the only explanation for anyone not liking Mitt Romney is because he is a Mormon.
I'm glad bcspace pointed this out because it reminds me how anyone who disagrees with and/or opposes Barack Obama is a racist.
I think it's good to clarify the issues like this. bcspace has consistently voiced his opposition to President Obama. From this opposition, we can conclude that bcspace hates black people.
Chap wrote: 2. Legally, voters are entitled to make their choice as to how to cast their votes in any way they please. If they feel they have grounds for thinking that a candidate's religion might render him less likely to be a good President, they are free to vote accordingly and to attempt to persuade others to join them. Other people can argue against them. That's as it should be.
What's the problem?
I suspect bcspace would use the same reasoning to not vote for an atheist. While I don't care if they are religious or not, it's better then some who will not vote for someone because they are black or a women.
