How many votes would Romney have received.....

[cybercoma]

Again. Back off. I'll make any point I want to make.

Back off? Are you trying to shut down conversation? Tell me what I am or am not ALLOWED to post?

THAT'S NOT FOR YOU TO DECIDE!

Again. THAT'S NOT FOR YOU TO DECIDE. You don't get to determine if my point is "intelligent" or not.

Actually, yeah. That is for me to decide. When you make an argument, it's open to criticism. Get over it.

Edited November 12, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

????

Of course not. you're oversensitive.

Yes, I'm oversensitive. Not Cybercoma.

For the record, I don't care what you think about this and I have no desire to discuss it with you. I will, however, keep telling Cybercoma to back off when he tells me to "stop" posting my views - whether you approve or not. Capice?

Now you have yourself a nice day.

Edited November 12, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

I didn't once tell you to stop posting your views. I said stop being argumentative just for the sake of arguing. I don't for a minute believe that you actually believe what you're arguing because it makes absolutely ZERO sense and you're smarter than that. So, I came to the conclusion that you were arguing just for the sake of arguing. The discussion is more fruitful when you actually make intelligent points that you believe.

Edited November 12, 2012 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

The discussion is more fruitful when you actually make intelligent points that you believe.

It's not all about what you judge to be "fruitful" or "intelligent". We are members of this forum the same as you and will post as we please within forum rules. If you don't like it, please do not read them.

[bleeding heart]

Yes, I'm oversensitive. Not Cybercoma.

Correct. He's the only one on this thread who has received a personal attack; not you.

And yet your principled stance against personal attacks doesn't extend all the way to the one person who was actually personally insulted.

Meaning, of course, that it's not an issue for you in any way.

Which sort of renders your entire premise here moot.

For the record, I don't care what you think about this and I have no desire to discuss it with you.

????

There seems to be some evidence against this.

Edited November 12, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

For The Squid - my response to your last post can be found buried here - http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21861&st=30#entry851056 - I hope we can pick up on our discussion again.

[bush_cheney2004]

Which sort of renders your entire premise here moot.

Great...we can let the mods decide who is in the wrong. In the meantime, members get to post whatever they please within forum rules without being told to stop making "arguments" for the purpose of silencing opposing views.

[eyeball]

It's like arguing about religion and politics around here some days.

[bleeding heart]

Great...we can let the mods decide who is in the wrong. In the meantime, members get to post whatever they please within forum rules without being told to stop making "arguments" for the purpose of silencing opposing views.

Of course. Fortunately, no one was trying "to silence opposing views," so there's no problem.

[bleeding heart]

It's like arguing about religion and politics around here some days.

Ha!

[Guest American Woman]

Of course. Fortunately, no one was trying "to silence opposing views," so there's no problem.

Fortunately, you don't get to decide if something is a problem or not.

[segnosaur]

Ergo, Romney was not penalized for his religious beliefs any more than other "mainstream" candidates.

Keep in mind that while he didn't appear to be penalized for his beliefs, it was also never really discussed in the election.

Remember, the opening post asked if the electorate knew about Morman principles and practices (belief in Kolab, magic underwear). The assumption appears to be that most people don't know about these things, but might change their votes if they knew more.

I rather suspect that while most people knew that Romney was a Mormon, they probably don't know what exactly that entails and how it differs from other brands of Christianity.)

That's your unsupported opinion....he did quite well.

Again, Yes he "did well", but the question is how would things have changed if the principles of Mormonism were better known.

[bleeding heart]

Fortunately, you don't get to decide if something is a problem or not.

It should go without saying that this applies equally to my two opponents in this little discussion. Fortunately.

Edited November 12, 2012 by bleeding heart

[eyeball]

Anyone who doesn't believe that a candidate's capacity for suspending their disbelief shouldn't be an issue is deluding themselves.

You'd give the launch codes to anyone who's belief's have such a strong hold over them? You're just kidding right?

[Guest American Woman]

Keep in mind that while he didn't appear to be penalized for his beliefs, it was also never really discussed in the election.

Which is as it should be. His personal beliefs are his personal beliefs, and have nothing to do with the office or his ability to perform his duties had he been elected. If the public at large cared, it would have been discussed in the election - or at least brought up. Over and over again. As his tax returns were. But as it stands, while Americans at large cared about his tax returns, they didn't care about his personal religious beliefs.

Remember, the opening post asked if the electorate knew about Morman principles and practices (belief in Kolab, magic underwear). The assumption appears to be that most people don't know about these things, but might change their votes if they knew more.

First of all, it is an "assumption," and secondly, if they cared, they would have looked into it, found out (assuming the didn't know), and made it an issue.

I rather suspect that while most people knew that Romney was a Mormon, they probably don't know what exactly that entails and how it differs from other brands of Christianity.)

I think most people have a general idea of how it differs, and if they cared, if it made a difference, it would be very easy to google it and find out. There's plenty out there regarding the Mormon religion and Romney.

Again, Yes he "did well", but the question is how would things have changed if the principles of Mormonism were better known.

If such things would have made a difference, why do you think people didn't care enough to look into it more? And why do you assume that the principles of Mormonism aren't as well known as they should be?

Would this be an issue in a Canadian election?

Edited November 12, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

It's not all about what you judge to be "fruitful" or "intelligent". We are members of this forum the same as you and will post as we please within forum rules. If you don't like it, please do not read them.

Don't read, don't post, don't criticize arguments.

Anything else i'm not allowed to do, team?

This isn't the slightest bit ironic, given your claims about what I'm doing.

[cybercoma]

Of course. Fortunately, no one was trying "to silence opposing views," so there's no problem.

Well, I'm not, but they clearly are. Apparently criticizing someone else's arguments is silencing them.

[segnosaur]

No...he is called Governor Romney for a reason, as was his father. Obama's belief system is not held in any higher constitutional regard than are Romney's. This is the point you are missing.....Romney has a right to religious freedom, a right that appeals to many voters.

Nobody is claiming Romney doesn't have the right to religious freedom. He can follow any religion he wants, and even as a member of that relgion run for any office he is entitled to.

The question that was asked is "would it cause him to loose votes if the details of that religion were better known.

Unusual compared to what? Do you really want to go down that road?

I think in this case, "unusual" can mean "uniquely differing from different sects of christianity (not saying any more or less valid).

I know of no other mainstream protestant church that believes in "magic underwear". No other that places restriction on the consumption of coffee. No other that believes in jebus visiting North America or visiting other planets.

[cybercoma]

Anyone who doesn't believe that a candidate's capacity for suspending their disbelief shouldn't be an issue is deluding themselves.

You'd give the launch codes to anyone who's belief's have such a strong hold over them? You're just kidding right?

What's more concerning is the LDS Church's beliefs about speeding up the apocalypse to bring about the Second Coming. You want to give that person the launch codes?

[bleeding heart]

Well, I'm not, but they clearly are. Apparently criticizing someone else's arguments is silencing them.

Well, now you know. Political forums are educational in many ways.

[Moonlight Graham]

Christianity is about just as unbelievable as Mormonism is.

[segnosaur]

Keep in mind that while he didn't appear to be penalized for his beliefs, it was also never really discussed in the election.

Which is as it should be.

Whether it should be that way was not the quesiton that was discussed in the opening post. The question is if it was discussed.

The world does not always act according to logic.

His personal beliefs are his personal beliefs, and have nothing to do with the office or his ability to perform his duties had he been elected.

For the most part I agree... unless of course someone's personal beliefs might lead me to think they would not apply the proper logic/skepticism when dealing with problems in office. (For example, i would be less likely to vote for a creationist.)

If the public at large cared, it would have been discussed in the election - or at least brought up.

Who would have brought it up? The right wing? No, they would want to downplay anything that would make their candidate seem 'different'.

The left wing? No, they realize that they don't want to be seen as a bunch of "godless heathens" so they probably won't touch religion with a 10 foot poll.

I rather suspect that while most people knew that Romney was a Mormon, they probably don't know what exactly that entails and how it differs from other brands of Christianity.).

I think most people have a general idea of how it differs, and if they cared, if it made a difference, it would be very easy to google it and find out. There's plenty out there regarding the Mormon religion and Romney.

If such things would have made a difference, why do you think people didn't care enough to look into it more? And why do you assume that the principles of Mormonism aren't as well known as they should be?

The fact that people could google what Mormons stand for doesn't mean that they automatically will, unless they had a reason (i.e. something to provoke their curiosity).

As for why do I assume the principles aren't well known... how about a poll in the U.S. that showed more than half of all people admitted they knew "very little/not very much" about Mormonism.

http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Romneys-Mormon-Faith-Likely-a-Factor-in-Primaries-Not-in-a-General-Election.aspx

[bush_cheney2004]

Keep in mind that while he didn't appear to be penalized for his beliefs, it was also never really discussed in the election.

Romney's Mormon religion was questioned as to whether it was truly "Christian" early on in the election cycle.

Remember, the opening post asked if the electorate knew about Morman principles and practices (belief in Kolab, magic underwear). The assumption appears to be that most people don't know about these things, but might change their votes if they knew more.

Again, no evidence has been presented to support this notion. The belief systems of many religions provide for lots of magic.

I rather suspect that while most people knew that Romney was a Mormon, they probably don't know what exactly that entails and how it differs from other brands of Christianity.)

Yes and no. The LDS and Mormonism is more mainstream than many other smaller denominations and branding. Like I stated above, it has not hurt the U.S. Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid).

Again, Yes he "did well", but the question is how would things have changed if the principles of Mormonism were better known.

As well as JFK in 1960, I suspect.

[bush_cheney2004]

You'd give the launch codes to anyone who's belief's have such a strong hold over them? You're just kidding right?

No worries, as the "launch codes" are subject to a process and release authority that is more complex than what you see in American movies.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I know of no other mainstream protestant church that believes in "magic underwear". No other that places restriction on the consumption of coffee. No other that believes in jebus visiting North America or visiting other planets.

...or restrictions on playing cards or Playboy Magazine. The very concept of "Jesus" as the son of God who died for mankind's sins and rose from the dead is not any less "magical" than the planet "Kolob" in some people's minds. Quirky church dogma can be found in any religion.