Romney, anti-Mormon sentiment and political games.

[_chonguey]

The candidacy of Mitt Romney and what is playing out in the zeitgeist right now should be of great importance to Latter-Day Saints, both LDS and ex-Mormon, jack-Mormon or otherwise, and to all those who understand the history of the Latter-Day Saint movment as a whole, both believing and non-believing, both "member" and "non-member."

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.c ... 8&fsrc=RSS

Mitt Romney will not get the nomination for the Republican party. It just won't happen. Mike Huckabee is riding a wave of anti-Mormon sentiment to surge in the polls.

Media outlets are all a flurry with talking heads airing Mormon histories dirty laundry and exploiting prejudice and religious dogmatism to thwart Mitt Romney's efforts.

These attacks are not coming from Liberal elites in ivory towers. These attacks are not coming from Democratic politicians. They are coming from "The Right", the faction that Mitt Romney has unfortunately chosen to ally himself to, after years of a decent populist stance. And they hate him for it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/0 ... 75985.html

Most of what he says is true in a historical and certain theological perspective. His "outrage" isn't over Mitt Romney as an individual, out of policy, or out of argument. It isn't about Mitt Romney's record of personal propriety in the public sphere. He doesn't disagree with Romney's recent unfortunate flip-flops to conservative "positions" that I don't agree with. It isn't his record in office, his achievements as a business man, or any thing like that. He is angry because of certain historical things that taint Mormonisms supposedly inspired history. It is exploit the biases and prejudices of those who carry theological biases against those of different beliefs.

Don't get me wrong. I am not endorsing Romney as a candidate. As you can clearly see I support Obama, and don't anticipate changing my mind. What I am saying is: Hey you Mormons out there, both believer and skeptic. Look at what these so-called Christians do to your history to make you look bad just to win elections. They aren't your friends and they never have been. The "Right Wing" machine hates Mormonism as an ideology and despises it's right to exist in the fabric of American religious pluralism.

This isn't an argument about if "The Brethern" are really inspired by God, or if the Church is True. Mitt's candidacy doesn't mean anything to that and his failure to be elected will not settle that question once and for all. It isn't about elections and it never has been.

But the Right Wing looks to exploit anti-Mormon sentiment to their advantage and I'm pretty sure it will work. Mormonism is not particularly well-understood by those who are not steeped in it's theology and history. And though I disagree with it, I respect it's right to exist.

These right-wing attacks are from those who would not agree with that. That Mormonism is an unbridled, uncircumspect, invention of "The Devil." That 21st century Mormons are multiple wife marrying sex maniacs or some such nonsense. Or a 21st fist century Latter-Day saint is at heart a bigot, and a racist, and a homophobe. There are evil men in this world who would fit that description. Warren Jeff's comes to mind, a self-styled prophet who systematically exploited women, and by all accounts is a shameless racist.

People who continue to leverage their so-called "religious" authority for sexual gain or monetary gain. People who exploit and govern unrighteously are "bad" people and I think we can all agree on that.

This isn't an argument over about "that". This is an argument about a strain of thought, that seeks to work against what is essentially the 11th Article of Faith, a declaration that I would say I do not hesitate to agree with.

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Most Latter-Day Saints understand such words to mean that we, as citizens of America and the world, have an absolute right to define our own thoughts on what God may or may not be, and reject any call to institute an orthodoxy that hurts the rights of others to do like wise. Most Mormons would never imagine using force or outright coercion to get people to join "The Church."

You invite, and cajole, but you can not force a man.

But Christians on the right do not agree with that idea, apparently, and the attacks against Romney's religion of birth and of service to his fellow believer isn't "good" enough, apparently, to warrant respecting that and actually talking about Romney's ideas and policies as a potential executive officer.

This, I think was the essence of Romney's pleas and one that will probably fall on deaf ears to those whose opinions Romney so desperately wants people to at least agree on. I agree with him on that small point, despite other reservations I have.

But I don't believe it will make a difference. Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians can always get whiped up in a fervor of religious fundamentalism in exploiting and conderming all things Mormon, guilt by association.

Mormons, great and small should realize that there is a uge sector of the Republican party that hates what you think and what you believe, and they bring that religious prejudice in to the ballot box.

This isn't the case with The Left and democratic politicians. When was the last time when you saw talking head's from the Democratic party bagging on Harry Reid for being LDS. Never, that's when.

Republicans are not your friends, people. I hope that the Latter-Day Saint constituency in Utah wakes up and smells that. The right "hates" you for your beliefs, enough to sabatoge an otherwise decent Republican hopeful.

The Right hates Hillary Clinton for entirely different ideological reasons, but conservatives love to hate Hillary in much the same way those some fundie right-wingers hate Mitt's religious background. And they were so gunning to be able to bring such hatred to bear in a general election.

Mormonism can be a "true" religion, or a "false" one and it matters not one bit according to the Constitution, for as long as we people of the United States come together and decide to leave in peace and harmony with one another, that it matters not one whit who is wrong and who is right in the theological debate, but rather who has the best ideas.

I wonder, if when Romney is not nominated, the LDS community will wake up and realize who truly is the "enemy" in the political arena. And it isn't Democrats.

While the Right is eating itself alive on this divisive issue, one that matters to to nut job right wingers, the left has coalesced around their vision for the 21st Century. one free of fundamentalist bigotry, or stooping to such underhanded attacks such as pandering anti-Mormonism.

His name is Barack Obama.[url][/url]

[_richardMdBorn]

The candidacy of Mitt Romney and what is playing out in the zeitgeist right now should be of great importance to Latter-Day Saints, both LDS and ex-Mormon, jack-Mormon or otherwise, and to all those who understand the history of the Latter-Day Saint movment as a whole, both believing and non-believing, both "member" and "non-member."

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.c ... 8&fsrc=RSS

Mitt Romney will not get the nomination for the Republican party. It just won't happen. Mike Huckabee is riding a wave of anti-Mormon sentiment to surge in the polls.

Media outlets are all a flurry with talking heads airing Mormon histories dirty laundry and exploiting prejudice and religious dogmatism to thwart Mitt Romney's efforts.

These attacks are not coming from Liberal elites in ivory towers. These attacks are not coming from Democratic politicians. They are coming from "The Right", the faction that Mitt Romney has unfortunately chosen to ally himself to, after years of a decent populist stance. And they hate him for it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/0 ... 75985.html

Most of what he says is true in a historical and certain theological perspective. His "outrage" isn't over Mitt Romney as an individual, out of policy, or out of argument. It isn't about Mitt Romney's record of personal propriety in the public sphere. He doesn't disagree with Romney's recent unfortunate flip-flops to conservative "positions" that I don't agree with. It isn't his record in office, his achievements as a business man, or any thing like that. He is angry because of certain historical things that taint Mormonisms supposedly inspired history. It is exploit the biases and prejudices of those who carry theological biases against those of different beliefs.

Don't get me wrong. I am not endorsing Romney as a candidate. As you can clearly see I support Obama, and don't anticipate changing my mind. What I am saying is: Hey you Mormons out there, both believer and skeptic. Look at what these so-called Christians do to your history to make you look bad just to win elections. They aren't your friends and they never have been. The "Right Wing" machine hates Mormonism as an ideology and despises it's right to exist in the fabric of American religious pluralism.

This isn't an argument about if "The Brethern" are really inspired by God, or if the Church is True. Mitt's candidacy doesn't mean anything to that and his failure to be elected will not settle that question once and for all. It isn't about elections and it never has been.

But the Right Wing looks to exploit anti-Mormon sentiment to their advantage and I'm pretty sure it will work. Mormonism is not particularly well-understood by those who are not steeped in it's theology and history. And though I disagree with it, I respect it's right to exist.

These right-wing attacks are from those who would not agree with that. That Mormonism is an unbridled, uncircumspect, invention of "The Devil." That 21st century Mormons are multiple wife marrying sex maniacs or some such nonsense. Or a 21st fist century Latter-Day saint is at heart a bigot, and a racist, and a homophobe. There are evil men in this world who would fit that description. Warren Jeff's comes to mind, a self-styled prophet who systematically exploited women, and by all accounts is a shameless racist.

People who continue to leverage their so-called "religious" authority for sexual gain or monetary gain. People who exploit and govern unrighteously are "bad" people and I think we can all agree on that.

This isn't an argument over about "that". This is an argument about a strain of thought, that seeks to work against what is essentially the 11th Article of Faith, a declaration that I would say I do not hesitate to agree with.

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Most Latter-Day Saints understand such words to mean that we, as citizens of America and the world, have an absolute right to define our own thoughts on what God may or may not be, and reject any call to institute an orthodoxy that hurts the rights of others to do like wise. Most Mormons would never imagine using force or outright coercion to get people to join "The Church."

You invite, and cajole, but you can not force a man.

But Christians on the right do not agree with that idea, apparently, and the attacks against Romney's religion of birth and of service to his fellow believer isn't "good" enough, apparently, to warrant respecting that and actually talking about Romney's ideas and policies as a potential executive officer.

This, I think was the essence of Romney's pleas and one that will probably fall on deaf ears to those whose opinions Romney so desperately wants people to at least agree on. I agree with him on that small point, despite other reservations I have.

But I don't believe it will make a difference. Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians can always get whiped up in a fervor of religious fundamentalism in exploiting and conderming all things Mormon, guilt by association.

Mormons, great and small should realize that there is a uge sector of the Republican party that hates what you think and what you believe, and they bring that religious prejudice in to the ballot box.

This isn't the case with The Left and democratic politicians. When was the last time when you saw talking head's from the Democratic party bagging on Harry Reid for being LDS. Never, that's when.

Republicans are not your friends, people. I hope that the Latter-Day Saint constituency in Utah wakes up and smells that. The right "hates" you for your beliefs, enough to sabatoge an otherwise decent Republican hopeful.

The Right hates Hillary Clinton for entirely different ideological reasons, but conservatives love to hate Hillary in much the same way those some fundie right-wingers hate Mitt's religious background. And they were so gunning to be able to bring such hatred to bear in a general election.

Mormonism can be a "true" religion, or a "false" one and it matters not one bit according to the Constitution, for as long as we people of the United States come together and decide to leave in peace and harmony with one another, that it matters not one whit who is wrong and who is right in the theological debate, but rather who has the best ideas.

I wonder, if when Romney is not nominated, the LDS community will wake up and realize who truly is the "enemy" in the political arena. And it isn't Democrats.

While the Right is eating itself alive on this divisive issue, one that matters to to nut job right wingers, the left has coalesced around their vision for the 21st Century. one free of fundamentalist bigotry, or stooping to such underhanded attacks such as pandering anti-Mormonism.

His name is Barack Obama.[url][/url]

This evangelical would have no trouble voting for Romney. I could also support Guiliani and Thompson. I won't support McCain because I believe in the 1st Amendment.

[_mledbetter]

Republicans are not your friends, people. I hope that the Latter-Day Saint constituency in Utah wakes up and smells that. The right "hates" you for your beliefs, enough to sabatoge an otherwise decent Republican hopeful.
I wonder, if when Romney is not nominated, the LDS community will wake up and realize who truly is the "enemy" in the political arena. And it isn't Democrats.
...

While the Right is eating itself alive on this divisive issue, one that matters to to nut job right wingers, the left has coalesced around their vision for the 21st Century. one free of fundamentalist bigotry, or stooping to such underhanded attacks such as pandering anti-Mormonism.

His name is Barack Obama.[url][/url]

Barak is a socialist. I lived in a socialist country for 2 years. Guess what. Socialism doesn't work. People who vote for socialist are 'useful...

It's not the right who is attacking Romney. It's typical politics in Washington which uses any under-handed tactic to win. Unfortunately for decent politicians on both sides, a large majority of the people who make up the base of their respective parties are ignorant and therefore easily demagogued. It's the thing that has plagued democracies since Athens. I know, I know, we are a republic, blah blah blah. The ignorants who make up the base of the republican party reside in a large portion in the Southern U.S. This also happens to have the highest percentage of the EV population. Not saying or inferring anything, but these people pretty much have the loudest voice in choosing the republican candidates. That's why it becomes more important to these 'hick' politicians to appose stem cell research and abortion than to have any real understanding of the world outside the U.S. or know anything about fiscal responsiblity at home.

[_chonguey]

Barak is a socialist. I lived in a socialist country for 2 years. Guess what. Socialism doesn't work. People who vote for socialist are 'useful...

Not sure what that means, but I assure you, you are deeply mistaken on Barack Obama and what he believes. Take the time to read the Audacity of Hope and then tell me with a straight face that he represents oppressive Big-Government socialism. Reason and evidence do not bear out such a ridiculous stance.

[_richardMdBorn]

Barak is a socialist. I lived in a socialist country for 2 years. Guess what. Socialism doesn't work. People who vote for socialist are 'useful...

Not sure what that means, but I assure you, you are deeply mistaken on Barack Obama and what he believes. Take the time to read the Audacity of Hope and then tell me with a straight face that he represents oppressive Big-Government socialism. Reason and evidence do not bear out such a ridiculous stance.

Obama's a typical corrupt Chicago politician who has benefited from a sweetheart deal with Tony Rezko. He's a follower of the radical Saul Alinski (as is Hillary). He doesn't represents oppressive Big-Government socialism. Rather, he represents non-oppressive Big-Government socialism. The effect, though, is the same.

[_Yoda]

It's a pretty interesting race on both sides. Obama has received a lot of momentum since Oprah agreed to endorse him and go out on the campaign trail with him.

I think this was a huge slap in the fact to the Clinton campaign. Oprah's primary appeal has been to white, middle-class women. Hillary could have really used this type of endorsement.

The fact that Oprah has decided to endorse Obama does not bode well for Hillary's campaign.

[_mledbetter]

Barak is a socialist. I lived in a socialist country for 2 years. Guess what. Socialism doesn't work. People who vote for socialist are 'useful...

Not sure what that means, but I assure you, you are deeply mistaken on Barack Obama and what he believes. Take the time to read the Audacity of Hope and then tell me with a straight face that he represents oppressive Big-Government socialism. Reason and evidence do not bear out such a ridiculous stance.

Let's see, he wants to implement socialized medicine, like Hillary.

...continue and expand the governments redistribution of wealth.

...expand government education and benefits to government education workers.

...expand social security-the biggest scam on the American people in this history of our country.

...expand big-government regulation of our energy, when that's the last thing we need right now.

...expand welfare benefits to the richest poor people on the face of the earth. America's 'poor'.

...further redistribute America's wealth to not only our own 'poor', but to the poor of the world all in the name of the cult of 'global warming.'

And this isn't socialist, how? Do you have any clue what a socialist is? Saying 'oppressive big-government socialist' is redundant. It is 'evident' that you haven't 'reasoned' this out.

I don't have to read his stupid book. I can get all of this from his stupid website.
by the way, read some Karl Marx and you'll understand what I mean by the 'useful...' comment.

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

[_Jason Bourne]

Nice summary and fairly accurate.

[_chonguey]

It's a pretty interesting race on both sides. Obama has received a lot of momentum since Oprah agreed to endorse him and go out on the campaign trail with him.

I think this was a huge slap in the fact to the Clinton campaign. Oprah's primary appeal has been to white, middle-class women. Hillary could have really used this type of endorsement.

The fact that Oprah has decided to endorse Obama does not bode well for Hillary's campaign.

Yup. As a white, middle-class man, I am drawn to Obama for reasons that are my own, but I am glad to see Oprah use her "bully pulpit" for a worthy political cause. This was the other big event this week other than an up-tic among fundies in anti-Mormon rhetoric that gave me great hope for Obama's prospects, both for the primaries and in the general election. It's unfortunate that Romney is being sabotaged by his own supposed "Base," but like I say "Them's the shakes when you throw your lot in with the Devil in charge." :)

Obama 08!

[_ozemc]

It's a pretty interesting race on both sides. Obama has received a lot of momentum since Oprah agreed to endorse him and go out on the campaign trail with him.

I think this was a huge slap in the fact to the Clinton campaign. Oprah's primary appeal has been to white, middle-class women. Hillary could have really used this type of endorsement.

The fact that Oprah has decided to endorse Obama does not bode well for Hillary's campaign.

Yup. As a white, middle-class man, I am drawn to Obama for reasons that are my own, but I am glad to see Oprah use her "bully pulpit" for a worthy political cause. This was the other big event this week other than an up-tic among fundies in anti-Mormon rhetoric that gave me great hope for Obama's prospects, both for the primaries and in the general election. It's unfortunate that Romney is being sabotaged by his own supposed "Base," but like I say "Them's the shakes when you throw your lot in with the Devil in charge." :)

Obama 08!

Yeah, Go Obama.

HAHAHAHAHAHA ... snort ... giggle ...

Oh wait, you're serious, aren't you?

There's no way Obama is going to win the presidency. Regardless of his "Oprahization", he is even further to the left than Hillary is. More than likely, Hillary will win the Democrat nomination.

Like it or not, this is a middle-of-the-road country, and the further to either extreme you go, the less chance you have being elected in the general election. Look at McGovern in '72, Carter in '80, and Mondale in '84. And, just to make it even, Goldwater didn't win in '64, either. Or George Wallace in '68. Those are probably, in my opinion, the most recent examples of the most extreme candidates getting the nomination of their respective parties.

Obama is generating a lot of press now and gone up in the polls precisely because primary voters are the more extreme and more likely to get involved. Most of the country will not even pay attention until the middle of next year.

If Obama is the nominee of the Democrats, count on a BIG republican win.