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

[Guest American Woman]

...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.

Furthermore, to assume he believes everything "the Church" believes is no more than an assumption. I recall an interview where Romney was being told what he 'had to believe' as a Mormon, and he was getting quite annoyed by it.

[bush_cheney2004]

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?

Again, you don't understand how the lawful release of nuclear weapons occurs for the National Command Authority (NCA) under two-man rule provisions and procedures.

[Guest American Woman]

Again, you don't understand how the lawful release of nuclear weapons occurs for the National Command Authority (NCA) under two-man rule provisions and procedures.

I think it's interesting that we should or shouldn't vote for a presidential candidate based on what "their religion" believes - this from people who claim religion has no place in elections.

[bush_cheney2004]

Furthermore, to assume he believes everything "the Church" believes is no more than an assumption. I recall an interview where Romney was being told what he 'had to believe' as a Mormon, and he was getting quite annoyed by it.

Agreed....Romney is not a Mormon robot or cult leader. He has been very successful in the public and private sector despite any assumed liabilities from his religion, in fact, much more successful than so called "mainstream" Christians.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think it's interesting that we should or shouldn't vote for a presidential candidate based on what "their religion" believes - this from people who claim religion has no place in elections.

Agreed...it is an odd conversation. I think it speaks to some American complexities that escape the usual drive-by shootings around here. And as is my custom, Canada's Constitution Act is steeped in far more "religion" than the U.S. Constitution.

[dre]

Thread = Funny

[cybercoma]

Furthermore, to assume he believes everything "the Church" believes is no more than an assumption.

Romney was a bishop in the Mormon Church. It's a more valid assumption that he believes all of the tenets of the LDS Church than to make the claim that he doesn't. Why can you not see that claiming he doesn't believe the teachings of his Church is absurd when he has the highest rank of priesthood there? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he doesn't believe these things? Has he made public statements that he doesn't believe them? Because it's public knowledge what position he holds in the Church and that's evidence that directly contradicts your argument that he may not believe those things.

Edited November 12, 2012 by cybercoma

[segnosaur]

...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.

I never claimed there wasn't quirky claims in all religions. Yeah, belief in a Zombie Jesus (i.e. standard "christian" belief) isn't any less weird than belief in magic underwear.

The issue is that the claims made by Mormonism are different that those of the Baptists/Methodists/Presbyterians/etc. And while some branches of protestantism may have restrictions on things like alcohol or pr0n, most christians probably understand where those bans are coming from. Most would probably think a ban on coffee is silly though.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is quite possible he doesn't believe all "those things". Did "mainstream" priests and bishops accused and convicted of molesting children somehow forget what they were suppose to believe in?

[bush_cheney2004]

I never claimed there wasn't quirky claims in all religions. Yeah, belief in a Zombie Jesus (i.e. standard "christian" belief) isn't any less weird than belief in magic underwear.

It is difficult to build an argument based just on the perceived differences when ample evidence abounds for such differences already being fcatored in to the candidate nomination and voting process. To wit, such personal beliefs are largely out of bounds.

The issue is that the claims made by Mormonism are different that those of the Baptists/Methodists/Presbyterians/etc. And while some branches of protestantism may have restrictions on things like alcohol or pr0n, most christians probably understand where those bans are coming from. Most would probably think a ban on coffee is silly though.

And Barack Obama was different too....ye he was still elected president. Mormonism is just another state of being different.

[segnosaur]

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?

Again, you don't understand how the lawful release of nuclear weapons occurs for the National Command Authority (NCA) under two-man rule provisions and procedures.

Even if the president can't unilaterally order a nuclear strike, there are other things they can do... use executive authority to deply troops in (for example) middle eastern areas even if it is not in the country's best interest to do so, if he thinks it will "do gods work". (Although congress needs to be involved to declare war, the president still has certain abilities to act alone in that area.)

[dre]

In any case, no CC, I dont think it would have made much difference. There IS a certain ammount of prejudice held by other christians against the mormon sect, and I suppose that manifested itself in the election to a small degree, but the real problem wasnt the candidate its the republican party, and the fact that their core demographic is shrinking. The population is changing... the non-white vote grew by a couple of percent since the last election, otherwise the republicans would have won.

[bush_cheney2004]

Even if the president can't unilaterally order a nuclear strike, there are other things they can do... use executive authority to deply troops in (for example) middle eastern areas even if it is not in the country's best interest to do so, if he thinks it will "do gods work". (Although congress needs to be involved to declare war, the president still has certain abilities to act alone in that area.)

The original post specifically alluded to "launch codes". Declaring war is a political exercise not even practiced in Canada, as was evidenced by PM Chretien's unilateral military actions.

[cybercoma]

In any case, no CC, I dont think it would have made much difference. There IS a certain ammount of prejudice held by other christians against the mormon sect, and I suppose that manifested itself in the election to a small degree, but the real problem wasnt the candidate its the republican party, and the fact that their core demographic is shrinking. The population is changing... the non-white vote grew by a couple of percent since the last election, otherwise the republicans would have won.

I don't think his belonging to the Mormon Church should be an issue either. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, it's like discriminating against a Presidential candidate because he's a Jew.

Wasn't there some minor controversy around Kennedy being Catholic at the time because all previous Presidents were Protestant or something?

[bleeding heart]

Wasn't there some minor controversy around Kennedy being Catholic at the time because all previous Presidents were Protestant or something?

Yes. That's why, in "The Sopranos," the very conservative Italian-Catholic Uncle Junior speaks wistfully: "I loved that man!"

Edited November 12, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

....

Edited November 12, 2012 by bleeding heart

[segnosaur]

It is difficult to build an argument based just on the perceived differences when ample evidence abounds for such differences already being fcatored in to the candidate nomination and voting process.

Need I remind you that over half of the people in a survey last your admitted they know very little or nothing about mormonism?

And this is after Romney's 2008 presidential bid (where he didn't win the nomnation,. but he did win multiple states!), and after years of having other Mormons in various political offices. Heck, years after Donny and Marie had their show on. Yet most people don't know the fundamentals of the Mormon religion.

If the whole political process is supposed to allow people to educate themselves regarding a candidates religous beliefs, then how come over half of all Americans don't know much about Mormonism?

To wit, such personal beliefs are largely out of bounds.

Whether they should be out of bounds or not was not the question. The question was if they were discussed (either by the candidate themselves or their opponents) would knowing the tenants cause a loss of votes.

The issue is that the claims made by Mormonism are different that those of the Baptists/Methodists/Presbyterians/etc.

And Barack Obama was different too....ye he was still elected president.

And its quite possible that he lost votes for being different as well.

We're not talking whether his differences in religion would make Romney unelectable, just whether that his religon would cause a loss of votes (at least a significant number of them).

[Guest American Woman]

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

Again. The fact that it wasn't discussed any more than it was is testimony to the reality that people didn't care.

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.)

What if someone is able to put aside their "personal beliefs" in their professional life? Romney has said that his religion allows him to act in a secular way.

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.

"The right wing" could have brought it up long before Romney got the Republican nomination, and the left wing would have no such fears.

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).

So apparently they didn't have a reason to care enough to do it; more to the point, they didn't care to the extent that it would affect their vote.

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....l-Election.aspx

So how many of those people do you think cared enough to find out more? That's my point ..... they didn't. If it would have affected their vote, they would have made it a point to find out - just as they wanted to know about his tax returns and made no bones about it.

[segnosaur]

Even if the president can't unilaterally order a nuclear strike, there are other things they can do... use executive authority to deply troops in (for example) middle eastern areas even if it is not in the country's best interest to do so, if he thinks it will "do gods work".

The original post specifically alluded to "launch codes".

Yes it did.

But in this case I think we can assume the use of "launch codes" is a little poetic license. (Much like if he had said "do you want his finger on the nuclear button" when there is no actual button to press.)

I believe the other poster was trying to argue "should we give military authority to someone who's religous beliefs supercede the needs of the country."

[cybercoma]

If Romney was part of a fundamentalist sect of Islam, rather than Christianity, would it be viewed differently?

[wyly]

religious beliefs are fair game in politics...I look forward to the day when atheists are in the majority and common sense rules politics rather than sky pixies and magic underwear...

[Guest American Woman]

I believe the other poster was trying to argue "should we give military authority to someone who's religous beliefs supercede the needs of the country."

So do you agree? Do you think a candidate's religious beliefs should be a major factor in elections/campaigns?

Edited November 12, 2012 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Need I remind you that over half of the people in a survey last your admitted they know very little or nothing about mormonism?

As I stated ealier, Mormons are not uncommon in the USA. Knowledge of specific beliefs would parallel those of other, differeing religions. One could even make a case for a net benefit in gaining such knowledge, not unlike discoving the nuances of Sunni vs. Shiite Islam.

And this is after Romney's 2008 presidential bid (where he didn't win the nomnation,. but he did win multiple states!), and after years of having other Mormons in various political offices. Heck, years after Donny and Marie had their show on. Yet most people don't know the fundamentals of the Mormon religion.

But many do, and are very much aware of LDS Hallmarks. They build some kick-ass churches and have one helluva choir.

If the whole political process is supposed to allow people to educate themselves regarding a candidates religous beliefs, then how come over half of all Americans don't know much about Mormonism?

People can educate themselves for things important to them, usually garden variety issues. Any pursuit of a candidates religion would be met with a backlash, as evidenced by the Reverend Wright Affair.

Whether they should be out of bounds or not was not the question. The question was if they were discussed (either by the candidate themselves or their opponents) would knowing the tenants cause a loss of votes.

No....there has been no evidence presented to support this idea concerning Mormons or any other religious group.

And its quite possible that he lost votes for being different as well.

His character and record likely held far more sway than his different religion. He would most certainly have lost votes as an atheist.

We're not talking whether his differences in religion would make Romney unelectable, just whether that his religon would cause a loss of votes (at least a significant number of them).

Understood, and I maintain the answer is no significant loss of votes. Just ask Senator Harry Reid.

[segnosaur]

Wasn't there some minor controversy around Kennedy being Catholic at the time because all previous Presidents were Protestant or something?

Yes there was.

I believe that many protestants were worried he'd be "taking orders from the vatican", and he did go through a lot of effort to assert his independence...

From: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Speeches/Remarks-of-Senator-John-F-Kennedy-at-American-Society-of-Newspaper-Editors-Washington-DC-April-21-19.aspx

There is only one legitimate question underlying all the rest: would you, as President of the United States, be responsive in any way to ecclesiastical pressures or obligations of any kind that might in any fashion influence or interfere with your conduct of that office in the national interest? I have answered that question many times. My answer was - and is "NO". - JFK

Even with his attepts to state that he would not be influenced by his Catholic beliefs, it should be noted that in the 1960s election, Richard Nixon actually increased the percentage of the protestant vote for the Republicans. (This was offset by an increase in the catholic vote for Kennedy.)

So, for all the whining and complaing about how "religion shouldn't matter", the 1960s election illustrates that having different religous views can affect an election.

[bush_cheney2004]

But in this case I think we can assume the use of "launch codes" is a little poetic license. (Much like if he had said "do you want his finger on the nuclear button" when there is no actual button to press.)

There are quite a few buttons to press in the completion of IMU spin up, targeting, launch tube pressurization, interlocks, arming/fuzing, hatch flooding and opening, prepare sequence, and launch. But OK, we will include sending the Marines to Liberia for the sake of "argument".

I believe the other poster was trying to argue "should we give military authority to someone who's religous beliefs supercede the needs of the country."

Yes we should, as provided for in the US Constitution. "We" in this context does not include Canada.