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

[bleeding heart]

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.

I had thought this thread was about speculation as to whether or not such a thing would have an effect on an election.

Not "criticism" for candidates not bringing it up.

[Guest American Woman]

Ummm, yeah, but be that as it may, apparently that doesn't stop people from doing it. In other words, my comment wasn't about the "thread," but rather in response to comments that have been made.

[The_Squid]

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.

You are avoiding the nuance of the issue. And where did I criticize for not bringing up religion? I don't think that I did.

The reason it is criticized is because it is a contest of who is the better Christian. Who believes in God more.... and why didn't he invoke God in that speech??? That's terrible! Is he Muslim? The bible will be the basis for lawmaking... (Christian) prayer in schools... That is the stuff that gets criticized.

An interest in what a candidate believes and how it might affect his policy decisions (if at all), I don't think is really a bad thing to be avoided. In fact, knowing what a politician will base their policies on is important. It is important to know whether someone's "private" belief will have a very public effect when they enact policies.

I think those two schools of thought on how a public discussion about religion should take place are very different. It is about how and in what context that the discussion takes place.

Edited November 20, 2012 by The_Squid

[Guest American Woman]

You are avoiding the nuance of the issue. And where did I criticize for not bringing up religion? I don't think that I did.

I wasn't referring to you.

The reason it is criticized is because it is a contest of who is the better Christian. Who believes in God more.... and why didn't he invoke God in that speech???

No, that's not why it's criticized, and I don't recall any "who is the better Christian" contests. Where have there been discussions among candidates regarding who believes in God more?

That's terrible! Is he Muslim?

How is "is he a Muslim?" or "that's terrible!" any worse than than highlighting Mormon's beliefs and questioning Romney because of it?

The bible will be the basis for lawmaking... (Christian) prayer in schools... That is the stuff that gets criticized.

An interest in what a candidate believes and how it might affect his policy decisions (if at all), I don't think is really a bad thing to be avoided.

So what's the difference between your former sentence in this quote and the latter? First you say that it's the specifics that get criticized, then you say that specifics shouldn't be avoided. Romney made it clear that he would make secular decisions as POTUS, so what more needs to be said about his beliefs? Why should they be a factor?

In fact, knowing what a politician will base their policies on is important. It is important to know whether someone's "private" belief will have a very public effect when they enact policies.

Again, if they say their religious beliefs won't affect policy, and they don't speak of their religious beliefs, I don't see why their beliefs should be part of their campaign. But if they will base their policies on policies they will enact, I agree that it is important to know - therefore I don't understand the criticism of candidates who do bring religious beliefs into the campaign. If that's going to be part of their decision making, I do want to know.

I think those two schools of thought on how a public discussion about religion should take place are very different. It is about how and in what context that the discussion takes place.

It all ties together. How can it not?

Edited November 21, 2012 by American Woman

[eyeball]

...I don't recall any "who is the better Christian" contests. Where have there been discussions among candidates regarding who believes in God more?

You should probably be thankful you don't recall them because they take place in the imaginations of Christians. The more devout the Christian is the louder the discussion is that they hear.

I have a pretty bad case of tinnitus myself, a devil's symphony if there ever was one. It's so loud my wife claims she can hear it too.

[kimmy]

No, that's not why it's criticized, and I don't recall any "who is the better Christian" contests. Where have there been discussions among candidates regarding who believes in God more?

Well, the Family Research Council "Value Voters Summit" and the Focus On The Family "Thanksgiving Family Forum" are two examples of events hosted by religious groups where Republican candidates are invited to talk about their faith and pander to religious voters.

The description "who's a better Christian contests" isn't far off the mark in describing those events.

Again, if they say their religious beliefs won't affect policy, and they don't speak of their religious beliefs, I don't see why their beliefs should be part of their campaign. But if they will base their policies on policies they will enact, I agree that it is important to know - therefore I don't understand the criticism of candidates who do bring religious beliefs into the campaign. If that's going to be part of their decision making, I do want to know.

Claiming that his religion wont influence his policy decisions is good. However, I think there are other reasonable questions that can still be asked. For example, in regard to Mormonism, black people were officially discriminated against by the Mormon church until 1978. Mitt Romney was 31 years old in 1978, he'd been on missions for the church and been a leader within the church by 1978. I think it would have been a fair question to ask how he squared the church's position on racial discrimination with his own values. I think his response to that question could have given voters insight into his values. (personally, I think the only true insight we got into Mitt's values came from the "47%" video and the "gifts to young people and minorities" post-election conference call... but that's for another thread.)

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Well, the Family Research Council "Value Voters Summit" and the Focus On The Family "Thanksgiving Family Forum" are two examples of events hosted by religious groups where Republican candidates are invited to talk about their faith and pander to religious voters.

The description "who's a better Christian contests" isn't far off the mark in describing those events.

Having never attended one of those events, I really couldn't say - but I see nothing wrong with events hosted by religious groups, just as I see nothing wrong with the Wiinipeg police chief being interviewed by a religious magazine.

Claiming that his religion wont influence his policy decisions is good. However, I think there are other reasonable questions that can still be asked. For example, in regard to Mormonism, black people were officially discriminated against by the Mormon church until 1978. Mitt Romney was 31 years old in 1978, he'd been on missions for the church and been a leader within the church by 1978. I think it would have been a fair question to ask how he squared the church's position on racial discrimination with his own values. I think his response to that question could have given voters insight into his values.

Why would he have to explain that? How he squares his beliefs with the church is between him and the church. He's been in politics for some time, so I would say his record, his policies, would give voters a greater insight into his values than mere words of explanation would.

Edited to add: Romney was raised by parents who believed in equal rights and fought for equal rights and marched for equal rights.

Edited November 24, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Why would he have to explain that?

Someone is a leader in a racist organization and you don't think it's kind of important to find out about their values when they run for president?

[Guest American Woman]

Someone is a leader in a racist organization and you don't think it's kind of important to find out about their values when they run for president?

Did I say it wasn't important to find out about their values? What I said is that I don't think it's necessary to find out how he reconciled his values with the church.

Having said that, how is the church racist in the present? Or when Romney was a bishop?

[kimmy]

Having never attended one of those events, I really couldn't say -

I've never attended one either, but they were widely reported on, and video clips are easily found online, so I feel adequately informed to tell you that to describe them as "who's a better Christian contests" is not far off the mark.

but I see nothing wrong with events hosted by religious groups, just as I see nothing wrong with the Wiinipeg police chief being interviewed by a religious magazine.

Politicians can appear at whatever events they like, and they can say whatever they like, but they're also responsible for the consequences of those choices.

Rick Perry can go to the Family Forum and talk like he's the Redneck Pope if he wants to, but he has no business blaming anybody but himself later on if people start talking about him like he's a religious kook. But Rick, of course, wanted it both ways. On the one hand he was out telling evangelical voters that they ought to support him because he's got more Jesus Juice than the rest of the candidates, but on the other hand, he had his wife out crying that he was being attacked for his religious views.

Or Michele Bachmann. Some people thought that asking her what 1 Timothy 2:12 means to her was way over the line. But she is the one who made her religious faith the center of her campaign, so it's fair game.

I really don't care if people like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann want to tell religious voters that they're guided by their religious views. That's up to them. But they have no business crying about it afterward if that message isn't much of a hit with non-Christian voters and with Christian voters who believe in that "render unto Caesar" thing.

I have no quarrel with candidates who have religious beliefs, but I have a big quarrel with candidates who want to pander to a religious base on the one hand, but cry "persecution!" when people who aren't in their base want to ask about their religious views.

Why would he have to explain that? How he squares his beliefs with the church is between him and the church. He's been in politics for some time, so I would say his record, his policies, would give voters a greater insight into his values than mere words of explanation would.

Look, man, if a former Cannibal is running for office, I want to know if he's ever eaten a human. And if he has, I want to know how he weighed his religious beliefs against that human's right not to be eaten and I want him to explain when and how he realized it was wrong to eat people. To me, those are important questions that he needs to address before I'd consider voting for him.

Barack Obama had to answer questions about how his own views of Rev. Wright's racial rhetoric, over and over again. To me, that says that many Americans want answers to this sort of question.

Edited to add: Romney was raised by parents who believed in equal rights and fought for equal rights and marched for equal rights.

Well then it looks like Mitt was ahead of his church on that issue, and would have had a strong answer had the question been asked. That doesn't mean that the question was out of bounds.

-k

[cybercoma]

Well then it looks like Mitt was ahead of his church on that issue, and would have had a strong answer had the question been asked. That doesn't mean that the question was out of bounds.

-k

Mitt converted to Mormonism for his wife. His family was Mormon.

[kimmy]

Mitt converted to Mormonism for his wife. His family was Mormon.

Que? -k

[cybercoma]

Que? -k

I thought I read somewhere that he converted to Mormonism just before he got married (at 28) to his wife, who was already Mormon. I assume that means Romney's family of origin was not Mormon. I'll see if I can find anything on it.

[cybercoma]

Guess not. His father was Mormon.

Edit: Seems he started going to BYU because he was going to marry his wife and she was going there. That must be why I was confused.

Edited November 25, 2012 by cybercoma

[kimmy]

Guess not. His father was Mormon.

Edit: Seems he started going to BYU because he was going to marry his wife and she was going there. That must be why I was confused.

The Romney family history in the Mormon church goes back practically to the very start of the Mormon church.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Look, man, if a former Cannibal is running for office, I want to know if he's ever eaten a human. And if he has, I want to know how he weighed his religious beliefs against that human's right not to be eaten and I want him to explain when and how he realized it was wrong to eat people. To me, those are important questions that he needs to address before I'd consider voting for him.

Look, man, a "cannibal" is someone who eats other humans, period. As I've said before, everyone who belongs to a specific religious church doesn't necessarily share ever single belief that the church represents. I've pointed this out time and time again. The fact that Romney's parents believed in, and fought for equal rights proves that point. So again, all we have to know is Romney's stand on the issue, which is fine and dandy to ask him about. We can also look at his record of political service. We do not, however, have to know how he reconciled his beliefs with the church. Again. That's between him and the church.

Barack Obama had to answer questions about how his own views of Rev. Wright's racial rhetoric, over and over again. To me, that says that many Americans want answers to this sort of question.

To me, that says that many Americans had a political agenda and wanted to make Rev. Wright's racial rhetoric a problem for Obama.

[Mighty AC]

To win the GOP nomination candidates battled to be holier and more socially conservative than the next guy. Upon winning the Mittster instantly had to do an about face to appeal to moderates. In my opinion, this action invites the questioning and analyzing of his religious beliefs.

If Mitt opposes homosexual equality because his religion commands it, then it is fair to inquire and speculate into what other positions he is forced to take.

Mitt wanted to lead the most powerful nation on earth, so if he claims to believe the earth was created near Kolob and then moved to it's present position, in the solar system, shouldn't rational people try to find out if he is: 1) bat shit crazy or 2) lying?

[Bonam]

Mitt wanted to lead the most powerful nation on earth, so if he claims to believe the earth was created near Kolob and then moved to it's present position, in the solar system, shouldn't rational people try to find out if he is: 1) bat shit crazy or 2) lying?

They should, but they have no problem believing in other religious claims that are equally fantastical so why would that particular one phase them?

[bleeding heart]

They should, but they have no problem believing in other religious claims that are equally fantastical so why would that particular one phase them?

i agree completely, but like i said earlier, there's one important difference: the secrecy.

Mormons--and Scientologists--are both highly secretive about key parts of their religious doctrine.

Why?

A Christian will, without blinking, concede that his faith rests on core ideas of the Divinity of the virginally-birthed man/God who performed miracles. And Muslims do not seem shy about professing that their Prophet, astride a great white horse, leapt from the rock of Abraham into Paradise.

But bring up Kolob to a Mormon, and you're met with hostility; ask a Scientologist about Xenu, and "this interview is over!"

So while the (to me) lunacy of many literal beliefs aren't terribly differentiated in a fundamental sense...the notion of being secretive about it, of keeping the "gentiles" or non-believers or believers of other faiths out of the loop is...well, interesting, and strange.