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

[Shady]

Seems like a pretty scummy way of bringing Stark's (lack of) religious faith into the election.

-k

Politics, scummy? Are you new to this? It's the same way that Republicans that don't want Catholic institutions to be forced to pay for abortions and/or contraception being characterized as wanting to "ban" both of those things.

Correct....atheists face an uphill climb in the USA....and I'll bet it's no picnic in Canada either.

Exactly. The same uphill climb Catholics faced a several decades ago.

[kimmy]

Politics, scummy? Are you new to this? It's the same way that Republicans that don't want Catholic institutions to be forced to pay for abortions and/or contraception being characterized as wanting to "ban" both of those things.

The Republicans tried to play politics with the HHS mandate and it went extremely badly for them. And if Rick Santorum would have stopped talking about the evils of contraception and the injustice of Griswold vs Connecticut, people wouldn't have had reason to keep asking that stuff during the primaries.

Politics is politics, but there's a line that you don't cross, and if you do cross it it can blow up in your face extremely badly. A classic example is, of course, the ads mocking Jean Chretien's hideous, mangled, busted visage. Backfired badly. Offended and disgusted voters, turned people off, caused great harm to the Progressive Conservatives. Still famous 20 years later for being a classic example of how not to attack your opponent.

Attacking your opponent's religion or ethnicity is something that sane campaigns avoid because it has an extremely high probability of blowing up in your face. None of Mitt Romney's opponents this year, not in the primaries and not in the election, said anything negative about Mormonism, because quite simply it's severely bad politics.

Had Pete Stark been a Mormon (or a Muslim or a Jew) Eric Swalwell would *not* have said "do you really trust a Mormon to represent your values?" Because it would have been grossly offensive and he would have spent the rest of the campaign trying to apologize to voters who were disgusted by such a crass display of bigotry.

But Eric Swalwell had no qualms about asking voters if they trusted a guy who doesn't believe in God to represent their values. And he did so without repercussions.

Exactly. The same uphill climb Catholics faced a several decades ago.

Several decades ago? Half a century ago, to be more precise. To put it in perspective, America got its first Catholic president while some parts of the country still had whites-only schools.

-k

[-TSS-]

Deliberately offending someone is very bad manners but why is offending someone's religious views considered somehow more serious an offence than offending someone by making fun of how he or she looks like? While people's religious sensitivities are under such protection those same religious people can offend the views of non-religious people with impunity.

[bush_cheney2004]

Because religious freedoms are protected by constitutions, not so for an ugly/funny face !

[Sleipnir]

http://disappearingromney.com/

Check this site out, kinda fun to watch.

[kimmy]

Deliberately offending someone is very bad manners but why is offending someone's religious views considered somehow more serious an offence than offending someone by making fun of how he or she looks like?

Attacking somebody's religion makes you a bigot... attacking somebody's appearance just makes you an asshole.

http://disappearingromney.com/

Check this site out, kinda fun to watch.

I recall reading last summer that many of Mitt's facebook friends were widely believed to be computer-generated profiles as opposed to real people... believed to have been generated by some kind of internet marketting company that specializes in doing that sort of thing.

So even if real people abandon Mitt, he'll still have the friends he bought.

-k

[Sleipnir]

I recall reading last summer that many of Mitt's facebook friends were widely believed to be computer-generated profiles as opposed to real people... believed to have been generated by some kind of internet marketting company that specializes in doing that sort of thing.

That makes sense, how else would he bleeding friends 24 hours a day?

He lost 25 friends while I was typing this response.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Sleipnir

[eyeball]

Questioning an ability to think rationally given the things some people claim are real seems like fair game when the people in question might be in possession of the launch codes to the biggest stockpile of nuclear bombs in the known universe.

This doesn't seem to unreasonable in a day and age when evidence of a toke three weeks ago is enough to make people unemployable for even the most mundane of occupations.

[-TSS-]

Because religious freedoms are protected by constitutions, not so for an ugly/funny face !

You're right but isn't freedom from religions also protected by constitutions? Not that non-religious people would be that uncertain about their views that they would need such protection.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're right but isn't freedom from religions also protected by constitutions? Not that non-religious people would be that uncertain about their views that they would need such protection.

Yes, in the case of government, but not private citizens lawfully practicing their faith and traditions. If people want to put Baby Jesus in the Manger scenes (made in China) on their front lawn, not much anybody can lawfully do about it.

[The_Squid]

So those who say that the tenets of a particular religion plays no part with how the electorate votes, do you think a scientologist could be voted in to office?

[The_Squid]

No one is willing to opine whether a Scientologist could be elected? I am surmising that a Scientologist would be unelectable, that their religious views would certainly be an issue all because of the craziness of that religion.

Anyone disagree with that premise?

[eyeball]

I bet a Scientologist would still have a better chance than an atheist.

[-TSS-]

I'm optimistic about the future. I'm sure that the USA will follow the general trend of the western world where "no religion" is the fastest growing answer to questions about one's religious adherence.

Edited November 17, 2012 by -TSS-

[Guest American Woman]

I'm optimistic about the future. I'm sure that the USA will follow the general trend of the western world where "no religion" is the fastest growing answer to questions about one's religious adherence.

One can hope, eh?? It sure would be awful if Americans didn't follow the general trend of the western world and maintained their belief in God! The horror!

[The_Squid]

One can hope, eh?? It sure would be awful if Americans didn't follow the general trend of the western world and maintained their belief in God! The horror!

So if a Scientologist was running for office, would their beliefs be an issue? Would you be in favour of the media/opponents making their beliefs an issue? Would it be an issue for you?

[Guest American Woman]

So if a Scientologist was running for office, would their beliefs be an issue? Would you be in favour of the media/opponents making their beliefs an issue? Would it be an issue for you?

What people do within the law in their private lives is no concern to me at all. So no, their beliefs wouldn't be an issue and I would not be in favor of the media/opponents making their beliefs an issue. In fact, when they do make such things an issue, it only draws attention away from the real issues.

[The_Squid]

You would vote for someone who was part of a cult? Interesting....

[Guest American Woman]

You would vote for someone who was part of a cult? Interesting....

So someone's private beliefs would affect your vote, regardless of their platform and their public life? Would you vote for someone whose political stance you found less ideal over someone whose private beliefs you disagreed with?

[The_Squid]

So someone's private beliefs would affect your vote, regardless of their platform and their public life? Would you vote for someone whose political stance you found less ideal over someone whose private beliefs you disagreed with?

I disagree with everyone's private beliefs.... Sometimes you have to choose the lesser evil. If I found out they were a Scientologist, I certainly wouldn't vote for them. They would have to be extremely stupid, gullible, dangerous, or all three to be a Scientologist. It would cast serious doubt on their mental capacity. If they let their religious beliefs (whatever they were) dictate public policy, I wouldn't vote for them. If they travelled abroad trying to make converts, I wouldn't vote for them. If they were a catholic priest, I wouldn't vote for them.

I readily admit that these things may not be brought up in a campaign and i might not know about them..... But all these things show the true character of the candidate.

[Guest American Woman]

I disagree with everyone's private beliefs.... Sometimes you have to choose the lesser evil. If I found out they were a Scientologist, I certainly wouldn't vote for them.

So would you vote for someone whose political stance was less agreeable to you over them?

They would have to be extremely stupid, gullible, dangerous, or all three to be a Scientologist. It would cast serious doubt on their mental capacity. If they let their religious beliefs (whatever they were) dictate public policy, I wouldn't vote for them. If they travelled abroad trying to make converts, I wouldn't vote for them. If they were a catholic priest, I wouldn't vote for them.

Pointing out that I specified "private life," I wouldn't vote for anyone who let their religious beliefs - or lack of them - dictate public policy, either. I believe in separation of church and state, and I practice what I preach. What someone believes in the privacy of their personal life doesn't affect my vote.

I readily admit that these things may not be brought up in a campaign and i might not know about them..... But all these things show the true character of the candidate.

In what way do they show "character?"

Edited November 17, 2012 by American Woman

[The_Squid]

So would you vote for someone whose political stance was less agreeable to you over them?

Certainly. We have a lot of choices and political parties here to choose from.

In what way do they show "character?"

Missionaries push their religion on others.... Often on the most vulnerable.

Scientologists believe in the writings of a scifi author and follow ridiculous tenants. Very gullible. Stupid?

Actions Display one's character.

[kimmy]

Pointing out that I specified "private life," I wouldn't vote for anyone who let their religious beliefs - or lack of them - dictate public policy, either. I believe in separation of church and state, and I practice what I preach. What someone believes in the privacy of their personal life doesn't affect my vote.

I agree for the most part... but isn't there at some point a line where somebody believes things that are just too strange for you to take the rest of their ideas seriously?

I had this not too long ago. There was a young woman on our last city council-- my vote helped elect her, in fact. Later on I heard her speaking at a rally... ranting about things that were basically conspiracy theories. Even though she had some policy ideas I believed in... I was quite embarrassed to have voted for somebody who was, basically, a kook.

In what way do they show "character?"

Through their life's work.

I was reading yesterday about Tulsi Gabbard, the first Hindu ever to be elected to Congress. Hindu beliefs are pretty poorly understood by ... well, probably by pretty much everybody except Hindus themselves... and the popular perception is that they have some pretty weird ideas.

However, Miss Gabbard's service and accomplishments speak highly of her character, especially considering she's just 31 years old.

-k

[bleeding heart]

For me, the primary difference is one of doctrinal secrecy that might or might not be telling in and of itself.

The Squid pointed out the Mormon belief in Kolob. The fact that this is not well known is interesting. It is not well-known precisely because Mormons wish it to remain comparatively occluded. They are not at all eager to share this part of their knowledge and wisdom.

Why not?

As for Scientologists, you can't even ask them about Xenu, or about Scientology cosmogeny generally, without eliciting outrage. "This interview is over!"

Ask a Christian about the Divinity of Christ---"Of course!" Or whether Jesus performed miracles: "Certainly!"

Even insofar as sectarian beliefs differ, there remains very few important, doctrinal, secret "truths" that must not be discussed with outsiders, or with "gentiles," or whathaveyou.

Mormons and Scientologists seem to be telling us "You can't handle the truth!"

Interesting.

Edited November 18, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

Before the election, the U.S. was criticized for bringing religion into politics, into the POTUS election. No other nation does this, after all. Harper's beliefs mattered not, for example. Now, evidently, the criticism is for not bringing religion, Romney's not wanting to bring his religion, into the election.

Gotta love it.