Why Romney Won't Talk about LDS faith

[_just me]

I seem to remember that John Fitzgerald Kennedy didn't wish to talk about his Roman Catholicism. It was and is believed by some that because of Kennedy's concern of appearing a puppet of the Pope, that he allowed the Supreme Court to remove prayer and Bible reading from Public Schools without lifting a finger. It is likely that had Dwight D. Eisenhower still had been President when that decision was made, a Constitutional Admendment would have been immediately added to the Constitution correcting the mistake and protecting historic religious access.

Okay, I'll bite. Correcting what mistake?

[_Darth J]

I seem to remember that John Fitzgerald Kennedy didn't wish to talk about his Roman Catholicism. It was and is believed by some that because of Kennedy's concern of appearing a puppet of the Pope, that he allowed the Supreme Court to remove prayer and Bible reading from Public Schools without lifting a finger. It is likely that had Dwight D. Eisenhower still had been President when that decision was made, a Constitutional Admendment would have been immediately added to the Constitution correcting the mistake and protecting historic religious access.

1. No, the President of the United States does not "allow" the Supreme Court to rule any particular way on a case. That is not how separation of powers works.

2. Despite your distaste for the Establishment Clause, removing the requirement for students to pray in school was not a "mistake." Students still have the right to pray. What the First Amendment prohibits is a public school telling students to pray. Nor are students forbidden from reading the Bible, nor are public schools forbidden to teach the Bible as literature. Schools are not allowed to teach the Bible as a religious text.

Somehow I get the feeling that if a school district decided to lead students in prayer facing Mecca five times a day, or if the school district started teaching from the Koran, you would develop a very strong fondness for the Establishment Clause.

[_Cicero]

I seem to remember that John Fitzgerald Kennedy didn't wish to talk about his Roman Catholicism. It was and is believed by some that because of Kennedy's concern of appearing a puppet of the Pope, that he allowed the Supreme Court to remove prayer and Bible reading from Public Schools without lifting a finger. It is likely that had Dwight D. Eisenhower still had been President when that decision was made, a Constitutional Admendment would have been immediately added to the Constitution correcting the mistake and protecting historic religious access.

1. No, the President of the United States does not "allow" the Supreme Court to rule any particular way on a case. That is not how separation of powers works.

2. Despite your distaste for the Establishment Clause, removing the requirement for students to pray in school was not a "mistake." Students still have the right to pray. What the First Amendment prohibits is a public school telling students to pray. Nor are students forbidden from reading the Bible, nor are public schools forbidden to teach the Bible as literature. Schools are not allowed to teach the Bible as a religious text.

Somehow I get the feeling that if a school district decided to lead students in prayer facing Mecca five times a day, or if the school district started teaching from the Koran, you would develop a very strong fondness for the Establishment Clause.

But Darth, surely the Establishment Clause does not mean what you think it means. The United States is a Christian nation founded by devout Christian men that all descended from Christians seeking . . . oh, yeah, freedom from a government-established religion!

[_LittleNipper]

I seem to remember that John Fitzgerald Kennedy didn't wish to talk about his Roman Catholicism. It was and is believed by some that because of Kennedy's concern of appearing a puppet of the Pope, that he allowed the Supreme Court to remove prayer and Bible reading from Public Schools without lifting a finger. It is likely that had Dwight D. Eisenhower still had been President when that decision was made, a Constitutional Admendment would have been immediately added to the Constitution correcting the mistake and protecting historic religious access.

Okay, I'll bite. Correcting what mistake?

That would be the removal of open religious community heritage, to appease the religious secularism of a few. What this did was to undermind public education and sterlize logic. People need to learn to deal with opposition and question what they believe. One does not discover this in an environment devoid of open bebate and historical ideals. Reading the Proverbs never made a person a Christian, Jew, or Moslem but helped to foster enlightenment. Not reading the Proverbs didn't make students more enlightened.

[_krose]

If an LDS "true believer" were to explain why Mormonism produces so many leaders, the answer would reveal that LDS leaders were special spirits in the pre-existence, some of whom were already chosen to be leaders on this earth.

Don't you think Mitt's patriarchal blessing might include something to the effect of him being one of those chosen to save the Constitution from its hanging thread and usher in the last days?

This doesn't seem far fetched to me, considering how his stake patriarch would have been familiar with his family's political aspirations, and may have thought that the son would go even further than the father.

[_palerobber]

I seem to remember that John Fitzgerald Kennedy didn't wish to talk about his Roman Catholicism. It was and is believed by some that because of Kennedy's concern of appearing a puppet of the Pope, that he allowed the Supreme Court to remove prayer and Bible reading from Public Schools without lifting a finger. It is likely that had Dwight D. Eisenhower still had been President when that decision was made, a Constitutional Admendment would have been immediately added to the Constitution correcting the mistake and protecting historic religious access.

lol, i was wondering how you were going to connect the dots of your conspiracy theory, thinking you'd need to have Kennedy travel back in time to appoint all those justices during the FDR-Truman administrations. never saw the Eisenhower constitutional amendment by fiat coming -- brilliant (except why didn't Nixon do it? i'm dying to know)

[_EAllusion]

I think his religious association is just a net negative for him. It doesn't have the capacity to move a lot of meaningful votes his way, but it does have the capacity to draw down some of his base turnout. So the less it is brought up, the better.

[_LittleNipper]

I seem to remember that John Fitzgerald Kennedy didn't wish to talk about his Roman Catholicism. It was and is believed by some that because of Kennedy's concern of appearing a puppet of the Pope, that he allowed the Supreme Court to remove prayer and Bible reading from Public Schools without lifting a finger. It is likely that had Dwight D. Eisenhower still had been President when that decision was made, a Constitutional Admendment would have been immediately added to the Constitution correcting the mistake and protecting historic religious access.

1. No, the President of the United States does not "allow" the Supreme Court to rule any particular way on a case. That is not how separation of powers works.

2. Despite your distaste for the Establishment Clause, removing the requirement for students to pray in school was not a "mistake." Students still have the right to pray. What the First Amendment prohibits is a public school telling students to pray. Nor are students forbidden from reading the Bible, nor are public schools forbidden to teach the Bible as literature. Schools are not allowed to teach the Bible as a religious text.

Somehow I get the feeling that if a school district decided to lead students in prayer facing Mecca five times a day, or if the school district started teaching from the Koran, you would develop a very strong fondness for the Establishment Clause.

No one was "forced" to pray; however, individuals soon learned that they would live in a world where people considered things one might feel uncomfortable considering. Boys brought their Scout knives to class for show 'n tell and some fathers had guns unlocked in cases at home. No one was afraid that they would be shot --- perhaps face a bully but we survived. The consideration was that students needed to realize what was important was not necessarity material but perhaps spiritual. And frankly, the more openly discussed religion is, the less likely cults are able to gain a foothold. Students begin to see differences in beliefs and question what is good and why, plus what is bad and why? Why is getting a Tattoo desirable or why is it really stupid and wasteful? Why is sex after marriage a good or bad thing, and might sex before marriage bring about disillusionment and confusion? These are the sort of things a religiously open classroom could discuss 50 years ago.

[_moksha]

Makes sense to not talk about Mormonism and Money. Would you have him combining the two by riding up the Supreme Court steps on his Dressage Horse Rafalca dragging the constitution by a string hanging to Rafalca's tail?

As far as Massachusetts, a commercial of Romney leading the Minute Men to the safety of the Big Dig trench would be outstanding.

[_sethpayne]

I have frequently heard it noted by talking TV heads that Mitt needs to be more willing to address the "three Ms" that he's avoided thus far: his vast money, Massachusetts, and Mormonism. He seems reluctant to address any of these three. One interviewer asked Mitt what it was about Mormonism that produced so many leaders, which is a very positive question, and he still dodged. Here's my opinion on why Mitt is avoiding the topic of his religion, and how it has framed his life.

I don't think he's worried about voters thinking it's a cult or weird in particular. I think he's worried that honestly answering questions about Mormonism will offend people because of the arrogance and hubris that is part and parcel of LDS theology.

If an LDS "true believer" were to explain why Mormonism produces so many leaders, the answer would reveal that LDS leaders were special spirits in the pre-existence, some of whom were already chosen to be leaders on this earth. The answer would reveal that LDS people have access to the GIFT of the Holy Ghost, and have the benefit of knowing the TRUTH about human life. The answer would reveal the distinction LDS make between themselves and the rest of the believing world. And the rest of the believing world would be insulted, just like they were during the early days of the LDS church when such arrogance and hubris set them in such serious conflict with their neighbors.

What do you think? Am I close?

Beastie,

I don't quite agree, although I see where you are coming from.

Evangelicals claim that they have THE truth and will be raptured before the rest of us.

The Pope reaffirmed recently that the Catholic Church is THE only true Church.

Muslims have THE truth.

Jews are God's chosen people.

I don't see Mormonism being all that different.

In fact, it seems that Eastern faiths (Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, etc...) are the ones who don't claim absolute authoritative TRUTH.

Romney shouldn't talk about his Mormonism because it doesn't matter, in my opinion. It doesn't matter that President Obama is a liberal Protestant and it doesn't matter than Mitt Romney is a Mormon. What I think a lot of people care about is effective domestic policy and a strong foreign policy.

I don't think you are way off .... any claims to absolute truth are annoying, if not offensive. But most faiths believe they have the truth and have learned, just like Mormons, that the TRUTH card is only to be played at appropriate times.

Seth