Romney - "attacks on my faith are un-American".
 

After claiming:

"I do not define my candidacy by my religion... I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law,"...

and

"If I am fortunate enough to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest ... "

and worst of all:

"The attempts to attack me on the basis of my faith are un-American."

...I am going to risk being un-American and attacke his claims as pure lies.

The current leader of the Mormon Chrurch recently admonished..."The Church will not dictate to any man, but it will counsel, it will persuade, it will urge, and it will expect loyalty from those who profess membership therein."

and..."How grateful, my brethren, I feel, how profoundly grateful for the tremendous faith of so many Latter-day Saints who, when facing a major decision on which the Church has taken a stand, align themselves with that position. And I am especially grateful to be able to say that among those who are loyal are men and women of achievement, of accomplishment, of education, of influence, of strength-highly intelligent and capable individuals."

um, you mean like Romney?

http://i4m.com/think/leaders/mormon_loyalty.htm

hey romney, you idiot, attacking politicians running for president is about as american as you can get. Can't stand the heat? get out of the candidacy.

Can we merge this with the:
"Comparing Ron Paul to the "Serious" Candidates" thread? How many threads to showcase the corruption, idiocy, or extremism of some of the presidential candidates, do we need?

Yes, a very uninspiring speech. Although Rush Limbaugh was applauding him, so the sheeple will probably push him up a few points in the polls.

No. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are two different candidates deserving of different discussion.

Note also that the OP of this thread is specifically aimed at Romney's "JFK moment" which may or may not have been. There are really no other candidates who can be discussed in the same way -- religion doesn't necessarily equate to corruption, idiocy, or extremism.

You know nobody would ever confuse me with a Christian and there is no way I'd ever vote for Romney (or any Republican POTUS candidate). However, this post is fucked up. The site you linked to is a very open anti-Mormon site and I think this is a bigoted attack on Romney and the Mormons.

Meh. Romney is a douche, but being a morman has nothing to do with it. I don't think that his faith should be anymore problematic than the faith of the current evangelical in chief, which some people find problematic.

That being said, from my admittedly limited understanding of the evangelical church it seems that as president bush hasn't really been a very good christian as president. I wouldn't expect romney to be any better of a morman as president.

I think the fact that this has even come up is stupid. The same shit happened when keith ellison was elected to congress- you had people thinking that the fact that he is a muslim meant that he is actively colluding with al qaeda.

this is self-evidently a problem for romney that is created by the discourse he finds himself forced to use because of the assumptions concerning the constituency that he, as a republican, feels compelled to reach. so it is an internal problem for republicans, a consequence of their 20 years of organizing and mobilizing the christian right, for example, and of the drift in their internal language that has resulted from this mobilization.

so i find it vaguely interesting in that another way of seeing this is as a problem confronted by a relative moderate in the context of a party that has drifted well to the right.

but past that, i figure that the republicans made this bed for themselves, and now they have to lay in it.

the other matter raised in the op is of no interest to me.
i dont care particularly about whether fundamentalist protestants or anyone else has a problem with mormons.
that there are such problems is not a surprise.
but like i said above, the republicans made this bed for themselves...

You could make the same argument for any issue or special interest group whether its Mormons, gays, so-called latinos etc. I think Obama is experiencing similar struggles with blacks and Hillary with females. This is not a phenomenon isolated to Republicans (it's time get over this) or Democrats, or Libertarians, or Greens, but rather, politics in general.

jorgelito--
in a general way, sure. but only in a VERY general way: for your post to be accurate at the level of detail, you'd have to assume that both parties are jockeying in the same way for the same demographics--which is not the case--particularly not in the context of the primary season.

working with discursive differences can simply be an analytic move, one that does not necessarily reflect any commitment one way or another. so it follows that by highlighting the ways in which the republicans are boxed in by their own organizational choices doesn't position me any particular place--i'm just looking in this case.

obviously, this is not a claim for objectivity---i work from definite political views, like anyone else---but the fact is that i dont personally identify with any enthusiasm at all with the democrats--i'm among that sector that is inclined to vote for the democrats as the lesser evil----and even that is sometimes hard to maintain. in the tiny world of tfp politics, i rarely post defenses of the democrats--in general, i dont find them worth defending.

i haven't been inclined to lay out my own political positions here in much detail--i operate more from a critical/analytic perspective. i get positioned by other comrades, but generally they are just making up what they impute to me, in my view, trying to put me somewhere. it's a function of a strange compulsion to make the american political spectrum into something that it's not-----a diverse space--and to map everyone and everything onto that construct.

As for this being a JFK moment, so much for that nonsense. The speech was horrible. I'm glad CSPAN played both speeches in tandem so we could see the difference in stark relief. JFK did not demean those who questioned the implications of his Catholicism on the office the President. He certainly didn't call them un-American. In fact quite the opposite, he welcomed their challenges (he did the speech in front of a gathering of ministers, after all) and strove to answer them. He proudly neither recanted his own faith, nor did he back down from steadfast devotion to the oath of office and welfare of the nation as primary.

Romney could have done a lot better. Afterall, like JFK, he has years of record showing the independence of his political positions from that which might be considered "Mormon" politics. And calling anyone un-American for their challenging of a candidate, regardless of the rationale for such challenge, well that is just uncalled for.

Romney's candidacy has brought a new light upon the Church, its members, and its doctrine. Overwhelmingly, I think this has been a good thing. I still see a lot of false claims out there about what Mormons are or aren't, or what Mormons believe or don't believe. I'm not talking about jokes about things like polygamy or such, which we can all laugh about as a long-past part of history.

We have a long history of Mormons in elected office and I don't think anyone really thinks Harry Reid is taking calls from Salt Lake City that are giving him marching orders.

The LDS Church is not a political church. Yes, the membership is heavily conservative, and consequently, more Republican than Democrat. But the aforementioned Reid is a Democrat. No candidates are endorsed from the pulpit. No silly, slanted 'voter guides' are provided for the members. No endorsements are provided for campaigns or parties. Even on big 'culture war' issues such as abortion, the Church does not ask its members to take a particular stand in any election.

I do not think that Romney would be a 'Mormon' President. His history shows that he does not follow the Church in his politics. I believe him when he says he won't answer to SLC as President. I also don't believe that the First Presidency would ever attempt to exploit his status as a member to gain such influence over POTUS.

Mormons aren't going to be voting en masse for Romney. I know I won't for one. If there are any Church instructions for Members in politics, or at voting booths, it is only to be prayerful and thoughtful in making their choices.

I for one welcome the questions regarding what Mormonism is, what we believe, and what it means to the rest of folks. I think that is a positive discussion to have, and there really isn't anything you could say that I would label "Un-American" in engaging in that debate from any quarter.

I'm not sure what Romney's religion has to do with anything, and the fact that he even felt he had to make a speech like this is profoundly depressing.

It reminds me of some of early Christian schisms over little details of doctrine. Ridiculous.

A candidate's faith is really a private matter. A candidate's membership in an organization is a fair question to ask because without clarification, it may indicate personal beliefs or obligations which would compromise the faithful execution of the oath of office. I think it is also fair and proper to ask a candidate to clarify how they view the oath of office and their responsibility to uphold it in light of perceived other obligations. We want a president to act in good conscience so we ought to have some insight into what his conscience is like.

you would think that'd be the case, josh, yes?
and i agree with loquitor, that the fact that romney (or his campaign handlers, who knows?) felt the need to make that speech is sad.
but the populist right of the republican party has been playing an identity politics game for a long time, and that identity politics has consequences.
if romney--who is from massachusetts and a moderate--hopes to win the nomination, he has to play the populist right's game to some extent.

this is why i posted as i did above.
no point in repeating it.

Religion is a black mark against any candidate in my eyes... especially something like LDS.. only thing I can think of that would be worse, is a scientologist... but like having a wife, and 2.5 kids, having a religion is a necessity for any presidential candidate, unfortunately. On the bright side, its almost always just for show.

That's interesting. Is there a particular reason why religion is a black mark? Is it only those who follow the dogma of their religion, or is it a black mark for merely answering the question? I'm especially wondering since you have a hierarchy of some religions being worse that others. Is there something about LDS that 'especially' makes it a black mark?

Well, the more puritanical the religion, the more it makes me uneasy.

I guess I actually made it sound like more of a big deal to me, that it really is. It would be nice if it were possible for a candidate to dispense of the whole religious charade they are obligated to perform if they hope to have a chance at public office. I wonder how many in Washington are closet atheists.

It is not necessarily a big deal, but interesting to discuss at any rate. The distinction I am trying to figure is that between assessing a candidate--or at least ascribing a certain value to a candidate--based upon one's own perceptions of the religion that the candidate claims to subscribe to versus assessing that candidate based on his or her own stated values, especially as it relates to including those values in their job performance.

Here's a question...

Let's presume that I hereby announce my candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President. Someone naturally asks my religion. Being an honest and open fellow, I tell him I am a Mormon. Now, there's likely to be some hushed whispers and comments from the peanut gallery, but after that settles down, the real thing I want to know is this: What is it exactly that people are worried a Mormon or any other apolitical religion is going to do? Is it something like being afraid I'll support blue laws (closing business on Sunday) or things like that? Or is it that I'll answer to President Hinckley in SLC before I answer to the public? Or anything else that a "religious man" is more likely to do that is a bad thing than a "non-religious man."

Josh, please read this post if you have not already:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=74

Scroll down past the parts about the Iranian president. I've documented the fact that the republican party presidetial nomination process, and for the last seven years, even the presidency is under the control of militant fundamentalist evangelical christians. No candidate who is not a "saved" evangelical christian with extremely conservative, repture-centric theology will have an easy time pursuing the party's nomination. These folks....at CNP and in key positions in their media "world"...visit townhall.com and read the columns of the radio talk show hosts and web pundits, will see to that.

Romney, however, is "annointed" because townhall.com honcho and townhall parent, the CNP owned Salem radio network talkshow host, Hewitt, wrote the definitive book about his candidacy:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/...7-8a8e49734117

Democrats have nothing remotely comparable as far as hurdles to jump through.

It is not possible to be a Mormon AND a Democrat. I think that's grounds for excommunication...lol!!!

But since this is just hypothetical...the biggest concern I would have, (and those who have more than just a cursory understanding of Mormonism), is the potential influence of Hinkly and the Elders on policy. There is no misunderstanding among Mormons that loyalty to the leadership is absolute.

Harry Reid is a Mormon and a Democrat.

As I said, I don't see what anyone's religion has to do with anything. It's not like he belongs to some cannibalistic sect or anything.

edit

It was a fucking joke...the give-away was the "lol" at the end. Scheeeeeze!!!!!:shakehead:

edit

Uh Oh...see?...when there is no voice inflection things get so easily misconstrued. I guess "smilies" DO have their place :)

edit

It's interesting to me how he can clamor for being treated fairly for being Mormon while he bashes American atheists/secularists so overtly. I mean, he's not going to win, obviously, but it's interesting to me that he's doing this. Is it intentional? If that's the case, then I wonder if he realizes that the evangelical vote is divided and is even starting to dry up in some areas.

Sometimes I wonder how it is possible to believe in the tenets of Mormonism and be a Republican. But that's just me. While of course there is no denying that there are more Conservatives amongst the Membership than liberals, by the same token that liberal voice is not only pretty well represented, but also growing within the Church. There is a lot of recognition that it is important to be mindful of all aspects of the doctrine, not just those that allow one to fervently support one side or the other of a political debate.

I have to admit, before I came to know them better, I thought of Mormons as a rather odd conservative lot. I am sure that many within the Church fit this stereotype (stereotypes don't exist for no reason), but I have realized that there are a lot of people in the Church that do not. Attitudes towards social issues are shifting, I would say from my observation, in particular when it regards freedom of choice for individuals. There is more recognition that just because you know something to be right does not necessarily warrant enforcing that decision on others. In the Church, there is a strong sense of the need to be community minded, to promote a good environment for children, to take stewardship of the planet, and other liberal-minded ideas.

One of the strongest is the dedication to freedom of religion, the idea being that the fact that America is not a theocratic state, and that all faiths are allowed and protected, without one being able to rule the others. This is a critical part of God's plan, in that it allowed for the Church to be created here in America when it could not have been successfully founded in any other country.

The Mormon Articles of Faith are the 13 key components of the doctrine, and #11 reads:

"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."

That is a pretty powerful statement to me. I don't know of many other religions which make such a concise point in their scriptures of tolerance to other faiths. I certainly don't know of any that make tolerance of other religions one of their core doctrines.

A few years ago, I might have agreed wholeheartedly with labels such as 'puritanical' for Mormonism, and it is about the last Church I thought I would find such open-minded thought in. However, I've had to admit that in finally doing some research on the Church, I have had to let go of many of those past-held stereotypes.

What this means for candidates (not trying to jack this thread here) is that I am very willing to believe a candidate when he explains that his actions may well not fit with what I or anyone else might conclude merely based on our stereotypes of his claimed religion. As always, let the record speak louder than the labels.

If you want to start another thread I am happy to contribute. The same Joseph Smith who put his name on the Articles of Faith also claimed that there was only one true church and all others are "wrong", "an abomination", and "corrupt."

I'm seeing some contradiction here; not the tolerance you assert.

Well I do think that discussing or debating the doctrine itself would warrant another thread. However, I really am aiming to focus on it as it pertains to the issue of Romney's Mormonism and candidacy. I think the reason it is an issue is rooted in people's ideas about what Mormonism is.

I think the contradiction you mention really is a good point and is at the heart of what I asked earlier. I think it comes down to question of whether you believe in something being right or wrong, it predisposes you to outwardly act on that belief, not just in your own life, but upon others' as well. When beliefs are stated strongly, it can become easier to think that a person will attempt to project that belief upon others. However, I don't think that needs to be the case. It is with some people, it isn't with others.

I for one do not drink, but I do not support prohibition. I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice. I strive to keep the Sabbath, but I do not support blue laws. I abhor Nazism and racism, but I will not ban the right to have and share such views. I make choices in my own life in accordance with my beliefs, beliefs that in many areas are seen as quite conservative. However, I do not project those on others, and am tolerant of their right to chose and to act in accordance with their faith. If I can make such distinction, then I think it is reasonable to think a candidate can, and so I am very ready to listen to a candidate and review their record of service, instead of draw a judgment on their religious affiliation. I think if people are drawing incorrect conclusions about what you will do in office based on your religious affiliation, I think it is warranted to speak to the people about the matter and set the record straight. I think that therefore, it was warranted for Romney to make a speech about the matter; I was only disappointed that he did not do a good job in executing it.

I, like the aforementioned Smith, belief my faith to be true (it wouldn't be much of a faith if I didn't!) That de facto means that I believe other, different faiths to be "wrong" or "corrupt" or "flawed". But this does not mean that I in any way wish to limit the freedom for people to worship these other ways unmolested. Tolerance does not require that you accept what another says as true or even reasonable, it just means that you take no action to infringe on their right to hold and share those words.

If one assumes that a candidate for office must as a function of their religious affiliation seek the furtherance of the goals and enforcement of the doctrine of their religion, then would it not stand to reason that a candidate that was not religious would therefore work to infringe on the practice of religion and function of churches. Personally, I don't think either is reasonable to assume. Candidates are, by and large, functions of the forces that brought them to power, be it corporate dollars, populist demands, loyal bloc voting, what have you. One of those forces is personal desire, based on one's personal beliefs, but this is usually more than drowned out by other forces in the vast majority of candidates. I don't think Mitt Romney is an exception.

Josh
 

In the interest of full disclosure, are you Mormon/LDS?

Religion while may not be something I feel one should attack, it is something to consider. I am Jewish, and I strongly feel my values are based upon my religion. Therefore any candidate is a sum of all his parts especially his values.

I hate all the bashing that goes on in politics it sort of avoids a lot of the real issues that really get glossed over. But yet that is the game and if you are complaining about it, then don't play.

So yes his religion does not make me not want to vote for him, (since I never even considered him a viable candidate).

Xazy....I am Jewish as well and I have seen no evidence from Romney's time in government that his religion has influenced his policymaking.

I can't say the same for Huckabee, who when he entered politics 10 years ago, said:

"I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."
http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/jonesboro/afhuckabee08.asp

If I had to choose between the two, I'll take Romney.

So 10 years ago Huckabee makes a statement with which you disagree, but you are okay with Romney, even though he panders to the Christian conservatives, (people with Huchabee's convictions)?

How can it be?

river....i'm not ok with Romney. I agree he has taken flip-flopping on social issues to an art.

I wouldnt vote for either under any circumstances, but of the two, I think, from numerous statements I have read, Huckabee would be more likely to base his policy decisions on his religious beliefs.

I don't get Huckabee at all. I like Romney though. I am NOT Mormon but his religion doesn't bother me just like JFKs religion didn't bother me. How do Democrats view JFKs Catholicism? Did it bother them? Guiliani is just crazy to me and Hilary scares me. For me, the front runners are Romney, Ron Paul, Kucinich, and maybe Obama (I like him but I need something more. I need more info, debate and conviction. Whatever happened to McCain? How did this guy sink so fast and so far? And what happened to Ralph Nader?

JFK's Catholicism was a huge factor at the time, and it was also true that Catholics made up a third of the religious population.

There was a generalized fear that the power of Rome would hold great sway over a Catholic president and historically there would be good reason to believe so. JFK's brilliant speech addressing that fear can probably be given some credit for his narrow win.

jorgelito, isn't it strange that JFK won support for his absolute support of the separation of church and state, and now it would appear that we have a religious test for our presidential candidates? What is your favorite Bible passage? Do you believe every word of the Bible? How often to you go to church? What on earth is going on with this line of questioning, when it clearly contradicts one of the key principles of our constitution? It is the willing participation in this line of questioning that I find most repugnant and cowardly among the candidates.

Elph, that is indeed very interesting. But then again, we would have to ask, who is doing the questioning. It just seems to me like the whole thing is a circus with the media as ringmasters and the candidates are clowns.

Sometimes I get the feeling that these controversies are all fabricated and the real issues get swept under the rug.

Well said, jorgelito.

Yes.

Thank you.

It certainly bears thinking about. I don't really know anyone personally who is worked up over having a Mormon running for president, even the media keeps acting like its one of the defining aspects of his candidacy. I have read the writings of some right-wing religious people who have declared unequivocally that they will never vote for a Mormon, but I doubt this is a huge segment.

Frankly I think the same is true about Hillary and Obama. I don't think the percentage of people that "would have a problem with" or "would never vote for" a woman or a black man is nearly as high as you would think given the hub-bub surrounding the issue.

For me, really, I don't think religion is an unfair thing to discuss, but I don't like it being painted as a thing that would keep people away from a candidate.

Personally, I'd like to see less focus on why I shouldn't vote for a candidate and more focus on why I should vote for them. We complain that the main candidates don't really tell us anything substantive, but the current culture is so set on finding reasons to NOT vote for someone, I don't know if I can blame them. If you come out and aren't afraid to take strong positions, then for the most part we look at that guy likes he's some kind of nut job.

Thanks - I appreciate your reply. Obviously that changes the nature of the converstaion too...:)

Perhaps. I'd like to think of myself as rather objective, but I'm not perfect. Though I suppose I wonder in what way the conversation changes...

Well said.

He probably thinks you're biased or something or maybe wants to discredit you in some way. There is a lot of anti-Christian sentiment on these boards.

No..there is not. There is a lot of sentiment against "aggressive" religiously motivated activity, primarily in US politics. The constitution has language that PROTECTS government FROM religion. The same aggressively political religious organizations who claim tax exempt status, are attempting to gain political and policy control of the US government.

The mormons have baptized almost all of my ancestors who are recorded in any vital (birth, death, marriage) records, without asking or receiving permission from descendants to do so. I resent it, it is an intrusion, others feel even more strongly that I do:
In the thread from which the following was posted, this poll resulted in 25 members voting:
<i>Does voting potential of rapture believers drive U.S. environmental & foreign policy?</i>
The "problem" is not with Romney. It is not with any religion or religious sect, per se. It is about the co-opting of the republican party, the US military, and US foreign and domestic policy, by members of some relgious groups or sects who do NOT "leave their religious beliefs, at the door", when they "politic". It is all part of one agenda, pursuing political power to achieve religious beliefs based controlling authority.

The founding fathers feared that very thing happening. The UK, for example, has an official church, the Anglican church, and the British monarch is the titular head of that church, and of the secular government.

That is part of the "garbage" that our founders fought a revolutionary war to escape from, just as their forefathers had escaped from the UK, 150 years earlier to be free from.

Romney is just one of virtually all republican party presidential candidates, who do not seem committed to seperation of church and state. To be taken seriously by all of us, the two major political parties and all of the candidates who run for office under the "banners" of those parties, must be committed to protecting government from the creeping influence and agenda of religion, any and all religion.

Any lesser sentiments or vigilance violates the oath taken to "preserve and protect the constitution". If that is being "anti-christian" or "anti-mormon", so be it....but it is not anti-American !

Perhaps it's just me, but I cannot see how one can be objective where something as profound as a deeply held religious belief is concerned. Faith in a religion is, in my view anyway, a very subjective matter.

Christian conservatives that might have more than a superficial understanding of Mormonism could not vote for a Mormon. Because you are LDS, and because you would have no problem voting for Romney, I wonder if you could possibly comprehend people feeling that way.

I hope this doesn't come across as patronizing, or worse, disrespectful, because that is not my intent.

"Probably", "maybe" ??? - you don't know me so your assumptions are not only way off base, but ignorant to say the least!

Um, yes, you just admitted you think he may be biased.

I don't know you which is why I used "probably", "maybe". But based on your posts and other posts in this thread, it looks like I am right.

Wrong again. but keep judging me. Apparently you do it well.

I am biased, as is most everyone to some degree or another. I can only claim to strive to be objective. How well I achieve it is hardly for me to judge.

As for how I could comprehend how people might feel, it is called compassion. Also, I haven't always been LDS, so I do know what it is like to be in that position. Years of being agnostic and searching and challenging the world's religions has given me quite a bit of perspective on matters of faith that I do think helps me strive to be more objective when I consider these matters.

Do I understand those that say they are Conservative Protestants and thus can not vote for a Mormon regardless? I understand their rationale, but I just disagree with them about their rationale. If it held true then it would be a breech of my faith as a Mormon to vote for a Protestant, then, would it not? But of course I have no such barrier.

As a matter of fact I have many problems with voting for Romney (as stated in a previous post, he is not getting my vote). It is just that I would be disappointed in anyone choosing to discount him merely on the basis of knowing his religious affiliation. That really goes for any candidate.

I'm not sure how objective the above is, but if you notice any clearly biased views expressed in my posts that seem the result of my faith, please point them out. I might just say 'yep, that's how I feel', but really I mean it when I say I strive to be objective, so I welcome things like that being pointed out to me.