Well its Started, The C word has entered the Presidential

[_Quasimodo]

"Homophobia" and now we have "Mormonphobia"!

Mormons in the presidential race will make this re-election season must watch TV.

I've never been a homophobic. I might have to admit to being a Mormophobic. At least as far as Presidential candidates are concerned.

I agree that a Mormon in the race would make it interesting. Also, a little scary.

[Guest]

by the way, Quasimodo, I think Jon Huntsman is the most reasonable Republican. That is his burden.

I agree that Huntsman is the best that the Republicans have mustered so far. I'm guessing (as you) that it will doom him. "Reasonable" is a dirty word in the Republican world right now.

I agree. Huntsman is the only republican candidate that I, as an independent, would vote for. Unfortunately, I think he is the Republican Obama - someone that his own party extremists will never be happy with while the opposition party will resist him on every turn.

But if he were to get the Republican nomination, I would strongly consider voting for him. His positions on just about everything from climate change to economic development to taxation have a strange look to them - like he actually thought about it and came to a reasonable conclusion.

To me, that is why Huntsman's Mormonism doesn't matter. It doesn't dictate to him how he should think. And if the apparently more imposing radicalized elements of the Republican party can't push him around, I have even less fear that President Monson will be setting up a hot line to the Oval Office if Huntsman gets elected.

Bachmann terrifies me more than the others for that reason. It's exactly how her Christianity reflects in her views that sends s chill down my spine when I think of her as President. Perry - the fact he defended his previous actiona regarding HPV and immigrant education pushed him closer to the side of rational in my opinion. The whole hunting ranch/racism thing is another story.

[_hugh jass]

I agree that a Mormon in the race would make it interesting. Also, a little scary.

Scary for LDS Inc, IMHO.

If you think his past and current publicity was bad for LDS Inc, imagine if he was in the limelight 24/7/365 X 4

[_Hoops]

I don't think so. Atheists usually are without strong opinions in matters of religion. It's the lack of opinion (belief) that makes them atheists.

Perhaps I'm jaded by board participation

What they learned as children is the reason they still believe. If they had approached religion as adults, they would not believe. Neither would you if you were given the chose now, instead of in your childhood.

I don't know that that is fair., I know many people who came to faith as adults. Me, for one. My Bible teacher, who has built a career as a world reknowned scientist for another.

Mores the pity. I'm still hoping.

One man's dogma is another's core beliefs. It's tiny tightrope to walk I think.

[_Hoops]

I find this assessment interesting. I'm curious, Hoops - is this your view of how atheists see things? That they believe they have the answers to life's difficult questions, coming from within their own heads?

Fair question. Yes, there is no where else for them to go. Either it's already in there, or someone has offered a reasonable explanation that they can support through their own intellectual processes. But, inevitably, atheists answer to no one. Or thing.

Do you think another option may be on the table? That being - accepting that none of us may have the answers to life's difficult questions?

Which is also an answer.

[_honorentheos]

I find this assessment interesting. I'm curious, Hoops - is this your view of how atheists see things? That they believe they have the answers to life's difficult questions, coming from within their own heads?

Fair question. Yes, there is no where else for them to go. Either it's already in there, or someone has offered a reasonable explanation that they can support through their own intellectual processes. But, inevitably, atheists answer to no one. Or thing.

To be fair, I think as far as any of us can observe we all are answerable in the here and now to the same things. Not always justly, and not always in an obvious manner. Where one gets one's principles is varied across the spectrum of humanity. I think at best, we all are answerable to those and our better angels regardless of religion. My observation is that the belief in a God has mixed effects on the above.

Do you think another option may be on the table? That being - accepting that none of us may have the answers to life's difficult questions?

Which is also an answer.

cool. :)

[_Infymus]

Bachmann terrifies me more than the others for that reason. It's exactly how her Christianity reflects in her views that sends s chill down my spine when I think of her as President. Perry - the fact he defended his previous actiona regarding HPV and immigrant education pushed him closer to the side of rational in my opinion. The whole hunting ranch/racism thing is another story.

Agreed. It's an ugly GOP lineup this year. And seriously, the one who seems less crazy to me is Huntsman. He seems to have distanced himself from Mormonism lately. Out of the house of crazies, he is the lesser.

[_Hoops]

To be fair, I think as far as any of us can observe we all are answerable in the here and now to the same things.

I'm not sure I can support that. Of course, I can only speak for me, thoough I hardly think I'm unique. There are times when I make decisions based on what I think is a scripturally informed evaluation of "the right thing." Not often enough, I'll grant you, but it has ocurred. And these have sometimes costly me greatly in the here and now.

Not always justly, and not always in an obvious manner.

For sure.

Where one gets one's principles is varied across the spectrum of humanity. I think at best, we all are answerable to those and our better angels regardless of religion.

That's a fair observation. However, the question on the table is how or whether or not one who gets one's principles from an outside source can be trused with great power. I think one can. Some here do not. I'm fine with that, but where one falls on the question does not make one inherently ... what's the claim again? Untrustworthy?

My observation is that the belief in a God has mixed effects on the above.

Ah yes. I can't disagree here. But one is left to wonder with what one can compare? Since there have always been religious people, how can we tell if society/culture would be better? Atheists certainly add a lot to our quality of life, but religious people do to. What to do?

[_Hoops]

I'm curious what this has to do with anything, so I'll answer.

First, as a christian, I wonder if you feel the following align well with your Christian values? -

• Providing help to people with long-term illnesses whose treatment would overrun lifetime dollar limits on essential health coverage

For it.

• Preventing children with pre-existing conditions from being excluded from their parent's health care plan. This is including having a disability

Assuming facts not in evidence.

• Providing help for people who are "medically uninsurable" because the risk to a health insurance company is too great. Kind of an "anti-death panel" if you will. Unlike, say, the board of directors at a health insurance company...Anywho...

For it.

• Providing relief to people making less than $88,000 for a family of four today to apply to health care coverage

Assuming facts not in evidence.

As someone who has to pay for health care, I wonder how your values align with this? -

• Requiring that 80 cents of every dollar in premiums from individuals and small employers be spent on medical care. (Reread that one. It seldom gets talked about and is one of the reasons some people will never call this bill by it's real name - ObamaCare helps focus the mind on ObamatheAnti-Christ rather than protecting patients and providing affordable health care)

Against it.

I state the above because it's a common complaint when I ask a conservative what it is about the President that they hate.

His policies.

Personally I find middle class conservatives interesting myself. Mainly because I don't understand, "Why?" Just simply, "Why?"

Maybe you could shed some light on that for me, too.

His policies. I don't hate him either, I find him incredibly interesting and would love to shoot hoops with him. But saying that people who oppose his policies hate him is just more deflection by his supporters. But I disagree profoundly with his policies.

[_honorentheos]

I appreciate the thoughtful answers, Hoops. I think this point offers the best avenue for further discussion in that vein -

Where one gets one's principles is varied across the spectrum of humanity. I think at best, we all are answerable to those and our better angels regardless of religion.

That's a fair observation. However, the question on the table is how or whether or not one who gets one's principles from an outside source can be trusted with great power. I think one can. Some here do not. I'm fine with that, but where one falls on the question does not make one inherently ... what's the claim again? Untrustworthy?

I had to go back and reread because the word "untrustworthy" wasn't what I was thinking. I tend to think of it as how open do I think this person will be to new facts that may challenge their worldview.

The truth is, in my opinion, we all are prone to hanging on to irrational beliefs when confronted with new conflicting facts but some are more vested in predetermined conditions than others. If one, for example, inherently believes that homosexuality is a vile sin by nature, one is prone to make certain policy decisions based on that belief.

My concerns seem evident in every Republican debate I've watched so far.

To me, there is a qualitative difference between "values and principles" and moral beliefs. I think the best way to differentiate is that values such as courage, respect, integrity, and compassion transcend religious views. An agnostic or atheist can have all of the above in spades as can a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc., etc., etc.

And I think that is a good thing. I personally don't care where a person has found the material to build their foundation for such, so long as they have built it.

The moral beliefs question is another matter entirely. I think it is best differentiated by the tendency of such to be associated with a narrowly defined given cultural set of norms and values.

When a candidate for high office exhibits a narrow interpretation of the latter, they remove themselves from my consideration of voting for them. It doesn't matter much what label one gives to their narrow range of self-identifying "purity traits". Atheists of this bent not excluded.