Republican candidate cravenness and Romney/Cult thing

[_Sethbag]

I was just watching some more video on the Romney/cult flap, and I have to say, the slimyness of some of the Republican candidates is downright repulsive.

I saw video of Candy Crowley and others specifically asking candidates including Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, and Rick Perry if Romney belongs to a cult. They all dodged the question. Rick Perry's campaign spokesman apparently said "the governor does not believe Mormonism is a cult" and wouldn't comment further. Rick Perry himself seemed loathe to talk of it in person.

These guys are willing and eager to enjoy the support of these folks. They either believe, along with these folks, that Mormonism really is a cult, but are too chicken crap to say so publicly, or else they don't believe it, but are too chicken crap to say so publicly. So they let the mud stick to Romney, and refuse to take a moral stand one way or another on it.

I think it's pretty slimy, and craven.

Oh, personally I think that all of these religions are cults. The Mormon Church is a cult, the Southern Baptists and pentecostals and all the rest are all cults too. Rev. Jefress is a leader of a 10,000 member Jesus cult in Texas. Either they're all cults, or none of them are. The word is ill-defined, but defining it in a way that privileges one's own religion while sticking it on religions one disagrees with is pretty self-serving.

[_Sethbag]

Oh yeah, as an American Soldier I want to express my disgust for the slimy way in which the Republican candidates seem to dodge the issue of the Republicans who booed the US Soldier in Iraq who revealed that he was gay.

I like what Obama said about this.

“We don’t believe in the kind of smallness that says it’s OK for a stage full of political leaders — one of whom could end up being the President of the United States — being silent when an American soldier is booed,” Obama said. “You want to be commander-in-chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States — even when it’s not politically convenient.”

Well said Mr. President.

ps: I have read that Jon Huntsman and one or two other candidates have rebuked the booing. Good on them! If a Republican were to win the Presidency, so far I'm liking Huntsman. He won't pander to the bigots, so he probably won't win the nomination, but at least he seems to stand up for his beliefs, even when politically inconvenient. That's what I hate about Romney - he's like the anti-Huntsman in that regard.

[_Some Schmo]

I have read that Jon Huntsman and one or two other candidates have rebuked the booing. Good on them! If a Republican were to win the Presidency, so far I'm liking Huntsman. He won't pander to the bigots, so he probably won't win the nomination, but at least he seems to stand up for his beliefs, even when politically inconvenient. That's what I hate about Romney - he's like the anti-Huntsman in that regard.

I agree.

It's a sad commentary on American democracy when sticking up for what's right and important is most often political death.

[_The Dude]

Some a-hole booed the gay soldier. Obama said what he did to shame the Republicans because he's facing a tough election. Huntsman said what he did to draw attention to himself because he's polling at 2%. Romney is the front runner and it's his election to lose at this point - that's why he isn't wasting time rebuking every redneck heckler in the campaign.

This is not an example of him being the "anti-Huntsman".

There are other examples, perhaps.

[_The Dude]

Oh, personally I think that all of these religions are cults. The Mormon Church is a cult, the Southern Baptists and pentecostals and all the rest are all cults too. Rev. Jefress is a leader of a 10,000 member Jesus cult in Texas. Either they're all cults, or none of them are. The word is ill-defined, but defining it in a way that privileges one's own religion while sticking it on religions one disagrees with is pretty self-serving.

Did you see the Anderson Cooper interview with Rev. Jeffress? The Rev says a cult is a religion with a man at its helm, like Joseph Smith founding Mormonism (but not like Paul founding Christianity?). Cooper asks him if the Catholic church is a cult then, with the Pope after all, and Jeffress mutters an equivocal "no". (Jeffress makes up some new BS about how Catholics have a bliblical faith). Cooper asks if Hindus and Buddhists are in a cult and Jeffress unflinchingly says "yes."

Is it possible for a cult to be a religion with a book at it's helm? I think Evangelicals are pretty much idol worshipers to the Bible.

Your point that Jeffress is a leader of a 10,000 member cult is a good one.

Jeffress thinks all religions are cults except "historical" christianity (whatever that is!). Like Sethbag, I just go one religion further in my estimation of "cults".

[_EAllusion]

Meh. While I find it repulsive that the solider was booed the second it became clear he was an open gay man pushing the don't ask/don't tell button, I also find the idea that a solider shouldn't be booed because he's a solider to be repulsive. I find Obama's comment to be exploitative and craven, as is most every position he takes on gay civil rights issues.

Regarding the cult question, what's being done is Romney enemies are prodding people to ask the question of other candidates. That gives them the opportunity to seemingly take the highroad while Romney's name and the word "cult" get whispered into people's ears. Because of how people's cognition works, the association is made even if every party has plausible denial. They're just asking questions, right? It's a simple propaganda technique.

e.g.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-s ... stion-mark

[_Some Schmo]

Meh. While I find it repulsive that the solider was booed the second it became clear he was an open gay man pushing the don't ask/don't tell button, I also find the idea that a solider shouldn't be booed because he's a solider to be repulsive.

Repulsive? Why is that, now?

I mean, had he gone into a village and shot defenseless women and children or did some other heinous war crime, sure, he'd deserve to be booed, soldier or not. But barring something like that, I'm not sure what the issue is. I wouldn't want to be a soldier because I don't have the stomach for it. You don't think they deserve at least some automatic respect for putting their lives on the line to defend our country (or is it the fact that many US troops aren't really defending the country as much as being aggressors - under orders, of course)?

Just curious.

[_EAllusion]

Repulsive? Why is that, now?

Because being a solider doesn't not make a person immune to bad ideas and actions. So they should not be above social disapprobation like booing. What's bad about this case is he was being booed for the wrong reasons. If he instead insisted that we should deport all Muslims, would you have a problem with people booing him? I wouldn't. A solider shouldn't be held to less scrutiny by virtue of being a solider. If anything, they should be held to more because the powers given to them can create an air of authority. Encouraging a deferential attitude towards soldiers is precisely the wrong sort of mental practice we want to encourage in people.

Though in the vast majority of cases I think it's pretty dubious to assert that a soldier is spending his or her days defending freedom or whatever, if you want to give props and respect to a solider for defending you, that's all find and dandy in its place. I don't see why that should earn a get out of social criticism free card.

[_Some Schmo]

Repulsive? Why is that, now?

Because being a solider doesn't not make a person immune to bad ideas and actions. So they should not be above social disapprobation like booing. What's bad about this case is he was being booed for the wrong reasons. If he instead insisted that we should deport all Muslims, would you have a problem with people booing him? I wouldn't. A solider shouldn't be held to less scrutiny by virtue of being a solider. If anything, they should be held to more because the powers given to them can create an air of authority. Encouraging a deferential attitude towards soldiers is precisely the wrong sort of mental practice we want to encourage in people.

Though in the vast majority of cases I think it's pretty dubious to assert that a soldier is spending his or her days defending freedom or whatever, if you want to give props and respect to a solider for defending you, that's all find and dandy in its place. I don't see why that should earn a get out of social criticism free card.

I had a feeling you'd say something like this, and I agree for the most part.

Yeah... hmph. I need to think about this more.

[_Sethbag]

Yeah I want to think about this more too, and post something substantive in reply. I agree with the gist of EA's argument, but am really stuck on the whole "republitards booed a serving American soldier in Iraq because he's gay" thing. I freely admit that, as a soldier, I have a dog in that fight, and I need to think about the ideas EA put down, my own feelings and biases, and come up with a better idea of how I view the underlying principles.