Lay off Romney and his Mormon beliefs?

[WilliamPitt]

When an examination of those beliefs underscores any number of glaring, vomitous contradictions?

Um.

No.

It's called vetting.

Please feel free to share this:

[Politicalboi]

1. Religion should have

NOTHING to do with any office, but here in our "christian nation" we discriminate at will. If Rmoney wouldn't have talked about how marriage between one man and one woman for 5,000 years or whatever he said. Not sure 3,000 or 5,000. He forgets all about HIS ancestors of less than 100 years. And the fact that the Mormons pushed to make my life harder here in Ca with Prop 8, I don't care if someone brings out the worst about Mormons. I hope more ridiculous stories come out about his religion. And Obama doesn't have to do it himself with all the PAC's out there. The ONLY reason Mormon's aren't considered as bad as Muslims is because there aren't many blacks who are Mormon than Muslim. Otherwise, we would be bringing his religion into this front and center. The christian right would NEVER have allowed Rmoney to go this far.

[EFerrari]

2. Yeah, let's go easy on ALEC and their major funders.

That's the ticket.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

3. Wan't he some kind of minister in his church?

If so, that's a lot different than JFK who wasn't a priest having to follow Catholic church vows and strict doctrine. If Romney continues to hold some kind of religious position then we need to know about his Mormon dictates to the nth degree.

[Lars39]

5. Bishop

[EFerrari]

7. Here you go:

For Romney, a Role of Faith and Authority

BELMONT, Mass. — In ticking off his credentials on the campaign trail — management consultant, businessman, governor — Mitt Romney omits what may have been his most distinctive post: Mormon lay leader, offering pastoral guidance on all manner of human affairs from marriage to divorce, abortion, adoption, addiction, unemployment and even business disputes.

Bryce Clark was a recipient of Mr. Romney’s spiritual advice. Late one summer night in 1993, distraught over his descent into alcoholism and drug use, Mr. Clark, then a 19-year-old college student, decided to confess that he had strayed from his Mormon faith. So he drove through this well-heeled Boston suburb to Mr. Romney’s secluded seven-bedroom home.

As the highest-ranking Mormon leader in Boston, Mr. Romney was responsible for determining whether Mr. Clark was spiritually fit for a mission, a rite of passage for young Mormon men. Mr. Clark had previously lied to him, insisting that he was eligible to go. But instead of condemnation that night, Mr. Clark said, Mr. Romney offered counsel that the younger man has clung to for years.

“He told me that, as human beings, our work isn’t measured by taking the sum of our good deeds and the sum of our bad deeds and seeing how things even out,” recalled Mr. Clark, now 37, sober and working as a filmmaker in Utah. “He said, ‘The only thing you need to think about is: Are you trying to improve, are you trying to do better? And if you are, then you’re a saint.’ ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/politics/for-romney-a-role-of-faith-and-authority.html?pagewanted=all

[freshwest]

107. That will play great with the born-again crowd. Honestly, that piece is pure gold for him.

Anyone who knows and lives in the evangelical spiel, will be attracted to Mitt because of that article.

To them, that's a sign of compassion and humanity on the personal level, and they will disregard the rest.

It's worked for Rush with his drug use, Swaggart using tithes for prostitutes, Palin's family for all they've done.

I'm not saying that is an excuse for anything he is. But that's the REALITY of how they look at attacks on other Christians, no matter how weird they appear to them.

This is why they're going to vote for Romney. So we need to know about that voting block, who is being fed this not less than once a week, often many times a day as their message is on all venues.

[Alcibiades]

126. Except that it will remind them of Romney's Mormonism

One of the few things that do credit to the evangelical movement is that they do recognize Mormonism as an invention of Joseph Smith. They don't recognize Catholics as Christian, but Mormons are counted as even less Christian than them, which is saying something.

It does not matter if you lead a good life or are ethical or a nice person: what matters is that you read the right magic words and hew to the correct doctrine. I think most evangelicals recognize that you cannot espouse one thing so vehemently, even visciously, for your entire lifetime and then abandon it because your political party has nominated an apostate heretic.

Most religions are made-up hooey, but they are hallowed by tradition. Mormonism has the distinction of being a fairly new vintage of fraud, whaich ought to make it more transparent.

[freshwest]

138. I'm not talking those who are in a denominated congregation. The mega churched aren't.

They add many things to their belief systems that are not found in scripture, but more the opinions of a pastor in a personality cult. They are connected to others through mass-produced presentations

These are those who use Focus on the Family and the Left Behind series as daily bread. Biblical texts are merely footnotes to their lives, but they don't study the Bible outside of the studies they recieve from the Colson or Dobson groups, etc.

They don't reject any one denomination as they have already rejected all of them as not providing them a satifying consumer experience. They embrace militant beliefs combined with a cloying sentimentality with buzzwords from right wing sources.

Those I know who are mega churched find Romney attractive for the reasons I stated originally. It's not about the Bible, theology, denomination, doctrine or even reasoning. It's their desire to stay prosperous and not rock the boat for the status quo and authority.
They'll rationalize Romney's beliefs as general and his actions as above their understanding. He's rich, so that means he's weighty. They do not believe there are any evil rich people, it was given to them by God. If anyone is hurt by them, they are regulated to their fate as being charity cases until they find them hopeless.

I know religious people who think hard about scripture and believe in the Sermon on the Mount. They vote Democratic. These others are team players and have no problem with the corporatism that the mega churches promote in school and business matters.

My years and experiences and conclusions do not reflect those of others who have not gone to as many churches as I once did. Many friends in traditional denominations no longer have places to worship and the mega churches with strong funding sources, have taken them over. I have attended these as well. Now they are exposed to these tactics.

By the way, none are Catholics, and I have no idea what their position on Mormonism is, and they seem to be just as diverse a voting block as Protestants and the Charismatics are. I'm talking of certain groups that are politically active and always conservative.

Your comment regarding denominations that would reject Romney based on his Mormonism will hold sway with those you are familiar. There is never a resolution on theological matters. I was churched half a century, watching many evolve to non-denominational cults.

This is a topic I only went into for the political point, which your experience is different than mine and quite valid for those of whom you are referencing.

Thanks very much for your comment.

n/t

[Alcibiades]

144. I'm quite familiar with those folks too

Good post. I was referring to the evangelical core of the core. They will vote Romney anyway, but some might stay home. If the trinitarian godhead is unimportant, why bother with any of it?

[freshwest]

150. It's a social activity requiring less money than many other activities. Not all tithe at 10%.

They've been branching out into daycare, schooling and some healthcare clinics, all with their belief systems. Some are not associating with outside their congregation in business, etc. IMHO, they are setting up small states within states. If they can afford it, that is. It is part of their resistance to paying taxes for the commons as they don't want to be.

I'm seeing some large areas where the upper middle class (?) are forming communities and controlling land use agendas in their regions. They are consistently against public lands and services as they don't need them, having sufficient grounds for parks, etc. They frequently employ an underclass of temporary workers and in such communities there is no social mobility.

Others of less means have to go to public school and are not happy and want them to adapt to what they would have gotten if they could pay to go to a private religious school. They are part of the movement to create charter schools and privatize everything. This is why Democrats are being forced to compromise on things that most of us here hate. When we act as if we don't know where the GOP gets their votes or policies, we're just whistling in the dark.

[Alcibiades]

153. I've noticed that, too

They have also set up their own television and radio networks, retail outfits (as you note), social service networks within their churches, universities, films, etc. This does mean, though, that their tactic of boycotting things they don't like is less successful, because they are already boycotting society at large.

It also has the effect of creating an insular little cloistered world. In the long run, all such movements end as the Shaker did, breed as they will.

[obamanut2012]

9. Bishop -- a position of great influence

For his Stake. They do marriage counseling and everything, too.

[FreeState]

103. My Dads a Bishop, it's hardly a person of great influence

LDS Bishop = 3-5 year non paid volunteer position over a congregation of 300-500 people. Stake Presidents are over 3000 people. He was never a leader of any significance, he never was over more than .01% of membership.

[jmowreader]

165. The LDS uses "bishops" because they're too cheap to pay church leaders

A Bishop is the equivalent of a church-level priest, minister, preacher or pastor, or a synagogue rabbi, except the Mormons (who have a LOT of money, and many well-heeled members) expect their church-level leaders to work for free.

[dembotoz]

4. would love to lay off romney--but it would be better if he never got hired.......

lets beat that sob

[Rosa Luxemburg]

158. I would how equal having four wives is in terms of marriage equality?

[coalition_unwilling]

6. The Romney gene: neither civil nor religious law

applies to them because they are laws unto themselves and we should all bow down and genuflect.

Fuck Romney and any Mormon who supports him.

[xtraxritical]

45. Moroni for President!

[HotRodTuna]

140. He'd have done an awesome job

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/48.17?lang=eng#16

[cynatnite]

8. I really don't give a rat's butt about Romney's religion...

His great-great grandfather is irrelevant. The man did what was socially acceptable in his circle despite the law. That was more than a 100 years ago. It does not matter.

Romney's religion will begin to matter to me if he's in a position to make policy and does so according to that religion.

He's a RW conservative bully who should not be allowed to win.

[xtraxritical]

46. Yeah Mitt does what is "socially acceptable in his circle despite the law" too.

That's why he and Bain used shady practices to bankrupt US companies and skim off management fees that they hid in off shore bank accounts.

[HillWilliam]

125. I wouldn't have given a rat's butt either EXCEPT

he brought it up first and used it as a weapon against me and other LGBT people. If he hadn't, it would have been off-limits AFAIC. But he did, so it is entirely fair game.

End of story.

[malaise]

10. K & R to the effing top of the greatest page

Not laying off!

[jp11]

11. The point as I saw it was you can attack Romney on a number of issues w/o using Mormonism as the

point. It isn't Mormonism that made him the flip flopping selfish weasel he is.

JUST like it isn't any faith that makes the ass holes that claim it as the reason for their hateful beliefs/acts, Christians, Muslims, Catholics, etc.

People are influenced by dozens if not hundreds of things and they all contribute along with the makeup of their personality, brain chemistry, etc to produce the people they become and are in life.

[EFerrari]

13. How do you know that it isn't his association with the Mormon Church

that has made him a flip-flopping weasel -- especially since his weaselling just coincidentally supports all the financial interests of the Mormon Church?

Myself, I'm a lapsed Catholic. I don't believe in coincidences when it comes to politics or weaselling or supporting multi-million $ projects of tax exempt organizations any more than I believe in immaculate conceptions.

[jp11]

35. I don't and even if it was does that make all the people who are associated with the Mormon

Church all bad and evil?

I can't see the idea that all the people who are of one faith/organization as all having the same motives no matter what. There are Mormons who aren't like Romney at all and to use his faith as the reason, attacking it with him, is just a poor way to argue.

I don't see anything redeeming in attacking any religion to call out the losers who cling to it as there will always be people involved with it who aren't cut from the same cloth.

[EFerrari]

38. Except the argument is about RMoney and the Mormon Church leadership,

not about all Mormons. Just as the argument against the corrupt bishops of the Catholic Church is not about all Catholics.

The call out is against RMoney and the church leadership, neither of which seem to have any interest in the welfare of the laity who belong to that religion. None whatsoever.

[daaron]

117. Right? Rmoney is a Bishop in LDS.

An equivalent comparison would then be to one of the Bishops of the Catholic Church or to a minor Evangelical leader (maybe a Ted Haggert). I'd say more equivalence to Ted Haggert than a Catholic Bishop, but either way, it's a far far cry from Harry Reid or John Kerry.

It'd be as if Fred Phelps was running for office.

Rmoney's religion isn't just fair game. His life choices have made it an important issue that must be fully addressed.

Rmoney must be vetted. We need to be having this conversation - warts and all.

[HotRodTuna]

141. Mormonism didn't make him a flipflopper

He pulled that off himself, and it's one of the reasons not all Mormons are particularly enamored with him (or Huntsman, and certainly not Reid). I guess you could argue it's why he came back on the abortion stance, to appeal to a national audience. Who knows what his true feelings are. Probably against it since he has five kids.

[xtraxritical]

48. If you have ever tried to do business in Utah and you're not a Mormon

you would know for sure that they are all cultist, clannish, lying, weasels.

[siligut]

62. And they push you toward conversion

I knew one guy who joined because they told him he wasn't going to get anywhere in his career unless he did. I also talked with a business man in WA state and he said he didn't know anyone who liked doing business with Mormons because they were devious and manipulative.

[freeplessinseattle]

112. my colleague/friend is a Mormon and compulsive liar

She lies left and right, about the oddest things, (including a couple of $ related issues) while also being super nice and extra complimentary, so much it seems fake. Which it probably is.

I caught her in a huge, odd lie the other day-she had forgotten she had said something in particular a text to me a couple weeks ago, so when she said something that didn't jive I acted all confused and forwarded the text to her. Her response:

"Ummmm. Well, I don't know what to say. I'm sorry. That wasn't good to say because it wasn't true....I shouldn't have made light of it and said i had when I hadn't. I am very sorry and will be very careful about what I say in the future."

Yeah, I bet she will! I was nice enough about it, I trust her for the most part, but she does seem to want to control a certain image about herself, and manipulate emotionally, but the frequent contradictions and hypocrisy give her away.

[siligut]

132. When I lived in Utah, I often saw traits of personality disorders.

Narcissism in men and borderline in women. Not the actual disorders, just traits that you can readily identify. Lying and manipulation are characteristics of both. Good luck with our friend, and I am sure i don't have to tell you to not make any sort of money/business deals with her.

[freeplessinseattle]

139. yep, I spent my younger years in SLC, and was bullied by a few Mormon girls

I'm not sure if it was bc of my non LDS status, or because I was shy and dorky, but I remember they sometimes used intimidation to try to get me to do things for them, like showing them my homework, etc.

If I'd known then what I know now.....

[stillwaiting]

83. Sorry, but it could be his very mormonism that CAUSES him to lie so damn much.

"Lying for the Lord" is a Mormon doctrine.

Personally, I have absolutely no idea who the hell Mitt Romney is, and I honestly don't know how any Americans could with his track record, and THAT should disqualify him from the Presidency.


http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord

[bahrbearian]

92. Thanks for the link, it says it all.

[daaron]

118. I hope it's OK - I'm making a thread just for this in Religion.

It's not just a Mormon doctrine, and is another aspect of religion in American that is relevant to this election.

[_ed_]

124. Yeah, but I'd rather attack his Mormon beliefs

So what? Ideas aren't people. People are worthy of respect, ideas are not. Mormonism was officially racist until 1978. That's a fact. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. I'd like to know why he was a member of this racist cult. Note that I'm attacking his affiliation with a racist set of ideas, not attacking any individuals.

[AzDar]

12. Hell no. Not when we are dealing with a religion more cult-like than most...

a religion that permeates and dominates virtually every aspect of its adherent's lives right down to their underpants.

[Great Caesars Ghost]

30. Exactly! It's things like that that needs destroyed!!

[Rex]

14. That was not a sincere OP imo.

Starts of with WE and ends with an accusing YOU...please...fool me once etc..

[WilliamPitt]

15. Um.

I re-read it five or six times just to be sure.

Show me where I used "We" or "You" anywhere.

Beyond that, and maybe because of that, I'm not following your argument here.

[Rex]

16. Oh, er...I am talking about the OP that

caused you to write this one. Sorry, should have clarified and thought you would know what I was talking about.

[WilliamPitt]

17. *whew*

Gotcha.

[Rex]

22. My fault.

[WilliamPitt]

25. I was about to deploy

"Thanks for kicking my thread."

[Rex]

52. LOL!

[EFerrari]

18. Not this OP, *that* OP. n/t

[WilliamPitt]

19. Got it

Not too sharp

[EFerrari]

21. It's always good to see you here, Will.

[WilliamPitt]

23. Thanks

[Rex]

27. +1

My point is, that anyone that starts an accusing thread with WE...should not end said thread with YOU...imo

[EFerrari]

31. Classic. n/t

[obamanut2012]

77. I didn't even notice that

[Rex]

20. Hehe.

I forget some people cannot read my mind.

[EFerrari]

24. Well, you did say 6 weeks for the decoder ring.

[WilliamPitt]

26. Be sure...to drink...your Ovaltine?

Son of a bitch.

[Rex]

29. Ooooh...

Your good!

[librechik]

82. thank goodness fisticuffs were avoided!

[Rex]

85. HAHA!

Well there were some casualties...

[librechik]

91. tee hee!

[sabrina 1]

148. Lol, I read your mind and agreed with your mind completely!

Personally I think we have to be grateful for the consistency I suppose. Makes it all so much easier to recognize!

[JohnnyRingo]

28. Republicans would never use religion for political attacks.

Hahahahahahahaha

To keep up with the 'pubs, we'd have to claim Romney grew up as a Moonie, spent his teen years studying The Watchtower, and later slit the throats of baby goats in voodoo rituals.

We're just saying he's a Morman.

[11 Bravo]

32. For some reason "Lay Off" and "Romney" in the same sentence seems apt.

(And knowing you, Senor Pitt, I have a feeling that crossed your mind as well!)
Well done!

[WilliamPitt]

33. HA!

Actually, it didn't. If it had, "Um...no" would not have been part of the package.

Well played, sir.

[progressoid]

80. That was my thought too.

I'd like to lay Rmoney off!

[TlalocW]

34. If Mormons are not wanting us to look into their religion because one of their own is running

THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT ALL THOSE TIMES THEY WOKE ME UP ON SATURDAYS WANTING TO TELL ME ABOUT THEIR RELIGION IN THE FIRST PLACE!

TlalocW

[Egalitarian Thug]

36. K&R. I didn't want to even kick that other idiocy, so thanks for the alternative.

The logical fallacies presented were very tempting, but lending it credence by pointing them out seems to be the poster's intent.

[SalviaBlue]

37. The Mormon support of Prop 8 in CA

is all I need to know about to allow me to "go there" with his religion (which I believe is bat shit crazy).

I had the Mormons in my neighborhood (of which there are many) out in full support of Prop Hate. They went door to door and they all had their yard signs and they stood out at the intersections with signs.

Until then, I was all "live and let live."

But not anymore.

I was fired from a job when the new Mormon owner told us either we join the Mormons or find another job. They only take care of their own but they still want to dictate what the rest of us do.

Mormons have an agenda and Mitt is part of it. It will not be good for America.

[EFerrari]

40. This.

You don't bring marshmallows to a knife fight.

[Daemonaquila]

41. Not just Mormons.

You only get to say this if you include ALL religions, including the nice evangelical Christians down the block, the Jews, the Muslims, etc. There are great people who belong to every religion there is (though we may think they're nuts for doing so), but you will find that every religion has its freaks who behave like this.

[EFerrari]

44. In CA over Prop H8, it was the Catholic bishops

who called in the Morman money to pass the bill. Very specifically.

While there are cynical manipulators in every group, these two groups were responsible for disenfranchising thousands of people in my state in that instance so yes, they can be called out very accurately.

[SalviaBlue]

101. I agree... It's not just the Mormons. But Mitt is a Mormon.

[obamanut2012]

97. They also gave money to help pass Amendent One in NC

People need to remember that, too.

[cleanhippie]

120. "...with his religion (which I believe is bat shit crazy). "

Do you feel this way about all religions or just Mormonism?

[HotRodTuna]

142. If someone told you you had to join a religion for a job

I'd say you've got a lawsuit on your hands.

[Daemonaquila]

39. Heck, no. Time to expose ALL religious kooks in government.

Yes, that applies to even the nicest, left-wing Christian folks who try to do the right thing as they believe Christ taught - IF they take that into office with them. If a politician makes choices based on "what God wants," that person is absolutely unsuited to office.

[obamanut2012]

78. Nice, Left-Wing Christians don't tend to be "kooks"

I also have no problem with people making choices on what Jesus Christ taught in the Gospels, since he taught love, tolerance, and humility, and was one to expose hypocrisy at every level.

[LanternWaste]

42. I'm starting to see the appeal in

Not gonna happen


This Presbyterian finally has some other faith to mock and ridicule; and I'll be damned, but I'm starting to see the appeal in making fun of other people's religions...


But yeah... regardless-- it's just the national vetting process doing what it's always done.

[Zorra]

43. Does anyone here really want to see the Mormon Church in control of the United States?

"We know the voice of the lord. And when he wants us to do something, we know how to do it."

Think about it. Just, please, don't think for too long.

8: The Mormon Proposition

When Mormons stop telling lies about the LGBT community, we will stop telling the truth about them.

They think they know the only truth
and all the rest is lies
and in the darkness of their minds
there is no compromise
they want to make us be like them
their big book tells them so
but they did not understand the word
they really need to know...

Love...

This word is Love.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

[xtraxritical]

54. How are they able to keep their tax exempt status with all the politics and money?

[Zorra]

63. Good question. I suspect that they have numerous high paid lawyers and lobbyists

taking care of all that for them.

The LDS church is wealthy beyond our comprehension, and they are certifiably dishonest.

I'm just sayin'...

[siligut]

64. I think you are right and they want a Mormon in high office to get even more influence

A Mormon as POTUS would have far reaching consequences, it would be insidious and invisible to most people, but I doubt the US could recover.

[Zorra]

74. Thank you. They are a 1% multinational religious corporation, and they want

everyone under their control. Their incessant, annoying door to door proselytizing is obvious proof of that. They want religious control. Why would they not want economic and political control?

Finances of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Finances of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are similar to other non-profit and religious organizations, where the principal source of funding comes from the donations of its members and the principal expense is in constructing and maintaining facilities.

When the LDS Church takes in more donations than it pays out in period expenses, it uses the surplus to build a reserve for capital expenditures and for future years when period expenses may exceed donations. The LDS Church invests its reserve to maintain the principal and generate a reasonable return and directs its investments into income-producing assets that may help it in its mission, such as farmland- and communication-related companies (see below).

The LDS Church has not publicly disclosed its financial statements in the United States since 1959.[2] The LDS church does disclose its financials in the United Kingdom[3] and Canada[4] where it is required to do so by law. In the UK, these financials are audited by the UK office of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The LDS Church maintains an internal audit department that provides its certification at each annual general conference that LDS Church contributions are collected and spent in accordance with LDS Church policy. In addition, the LDS Church engages a public accounting firm (currently Deloitte & Touche) to perform annual audits in the United States of its not-for-profit,[5] for-profit,[6] and some educational[7][8] entities. In a June 2011 cover story, Newsweek magazine stated that the LDS church "resembles a sanctified multinational corporation—the General Electric of American religion, with global ambitions and an estimated net worth of $30 billion."[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

[get the red out]

55. I agree!

We are too silent on this. I don't trust anything about Mitt Romney, whether he takes his marching orders from ALEC, Wall Street, or the Mormon Church. We don't need any of those entities controlling their own puppet President.

[myrna minx]

47. The gloves came off with Prop 8.

We have every right to know what his religion is all about - especially if it is actively working against civil rights.

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. Two kinds of politics. Effective and ineffective.

If we make nice about Mitt's magic underwear, it will be less insulting to the mormons. Maybe 5% of them will choose to vote Democratic.

If we ridicule and marginalize his beliefs, It'll alienate those 5% but galvanize others against him.

[EFerrari]

50. It could be our little slingshot against the financial clout of LDS,

not to mention, his backing by BushCo.

[Arugula Latte]

51. Don't you know IOKIYMR?

"It's okay if you're Mitt Romney"

[EFerrari]

53. LOL

[Bruce Wayne]

56. Attacking religious minorities is an old tradition.

It's one I think we can do without. We can also do without attacking candidates for what their great great grandparents did. In fact, this country was founded by people getting away from their great great grandparents' home.

Of course the OP is using intentionaly vague language. There's nothing "vetting" about attacking Romney for what his great great grandfather did. It is not a "glaring, vomitous contradiction" to have one wife and oppose polygamy, as Romney does. This is a crass appeal to religious prejudice wearing only the thinnest disguise of "opposing hypocricy".

I remember back when Democrats opposed religious prejudice. With so many legitimate and contemporary issues to attack Romney one, it's appalling that anyone, much less a supposed supporter of the First Amendment, would reduce themselves to spurious arguments rooted in nothing but religious bigotry.

[EFerrari]

57. The Mormon Church is hardly a "minority" when it comes to

buying legislation. Not only do they not pay taxes but they buy our Congress via ALEC.

Not a minority status by any measure but nice try. Religious prejudice, my bald headed granny. Oh, and she would have called this bs out, too.

[get the red out]

59. The business that is this Church

really worries me. It is a business too, many are, but few others virtually control an entire state and their adherents to such a degree.

[EFerrari]

60. Agreed. n/t

[Rex]

58. That was your 666 post.

Ah yes...the 1st amendment canard.

[Zorra]

65. They funded and promoted the removal of rights from the people of California!

Mitt Romney's PAC Funded Anti-Gay Marriage Group Under The Radar

NEW YORK -- In 2008, Mitt Romney's political action committee made a $10,000 donation to the National Organization of Marriage at a time when the anti-gay rights organization was seeking repeal of a California law legalizing marriage equality.

While neither the donation nor Romney's opposition to same-sex marriage were a secret, the precise way in which he contributed to NOM remained under tight wraps until Friday. One of the only public comments on the matter came when the former Massachusetts governor's top spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, told the Deseret News that Romney supported California's Proposition 8, which would reverse the state law allowing for same-sex marriage, and that he would be writing a check to NOM.

"The governor feels strongly that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, and one of the most high-profile fights on this subject is happening in California," Fehrnstrom said at the time.

But when Romney eventually made his donation, he did so quietly, and through an unusual channel. Records filed by Romney's Free and Strong America PAC with the Federal Election Commission did not include details of that $10,000 donation. Nor did NOM's public 990 form. In fact, record of the payment was only uncovered Friday when the pro-gay rights Human Rights Campaign was sent a private IRS filing from NOM via a whistleblower. The Human Rights Campaign shared the filing with The Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/mitt-romney-gay-marriage_n_1391867.html

Romney Slams Proposition 8 Verdict, ‘Politics And Prejudices’ Of Judges

In 1994, Mitt Romney called for “full equality” for LGBT Americans, but this afternoon his presidential condemned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling against Proposition 8. “Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court,” Romney said. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.” As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent asks, “That note about judges who interpret the Constitution according to their own “prejudices” — is that a reference to the fact that the judge on the case was gay, which was cited by Prop 8 supporters as proof of his bias? Naah, probably not. A major party presidential candidate would never go there.” For more on Romney’s devolution on LGBT equality, click here.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/02/07/420874/romney-slams-proposition-8-verdict-politics-and-prejudices-of-judges/

No quarter for this duplicitous person or for the duplicitous organizations of which he is a member.

[Ikonoklast]

70. The LDS elders would have no problem outlawing your religion if they could.

If they ever gained control on this nation, which is one of their stated purposes, your First Amendment argument would be moot, as they would abolish it.

[Bruce Wayne]

155. Entirely missing the point.

Besides the evidence-free charge that all Mormons are plotting to take over the country and install some theocracy, you ignore the basic point: attacking other people on religious grounds is wrong. It's wrong when Mormons do it and it's wrong when DUers do it. I oppose both.

Saying it's okay to attack Mormons for their religion because they would do it too is like saying it'd be acceptable to deny Social Security payments to Republicans because that's what they want to do. Or that we should try and defraud Republicans out of their votes because some Republicans want to do that to Democrats.

Anyone who makes such an argument could never be called a democrat or a liberal.

[Zorra]

163. *snarf* "Hey kids! Try some of Reverend Jim's special kool aid! It's totally killer!"

I said Rev. Jim Jones, and his religion, were insane before 918 people died from Kool-Aid poisoning.

Peoples Temple

People's Temple was a religious organization founded in 1955 by Jim Jones that, by the mid-1970s, included over a dozen locations in California including its headquarters in San Francisco. It is best known for the events of November 18, 1978, in Guyana, in which 918 people died at the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project (informally, and now commonly, called "Jonestown&quot and nearby airstrip at Port Kaituma, and Georgetown in an organized mass suicide/killing.

The mass suicide and killings at Jonestown resulted in the greatest single loss of American civilian life in a non-natural non-accidental disaster prior to the events of September 11, 2001. Casualties at the airstrip included, among others, Congressman Leo Ryan.

My failure was not in criticizing insanity of the religion of Jim Jones, or his personal insanity, it was in not criticizing the religion loud enough and soon enough to maybe help save the lives of 908 innocent people at Jim Jones' hand. If your organization deliberately hurts innocent people, like Romney and the Mormon Church hurt the LGBT community, I will not STFU about it, and as an LGBT progressive Democrat, I fully resent being told that this is what I should do.

Romney, along with his organization, because of their religious beliefs, deliberatelyhurt my friends, my community, and my people..

That makes them my enemy. And I aim to stop them, to the best of my ability, from getting even more power to hurt more innocent people.

Am I going to believe what I see, or what you tell me, "Bruce"?

Churches and individuals are not automatically exempt from critical attack because of their "religion". They fully warrant it when they have a history of preaching and doing evil.

[Bruce Wayne]

168. Kirk to Khan: "You keep missing the target"

Seriously, try and focus. No one said to quit denouncing what the Mormons did. What people from both inside and outside of California did in attacking basic civil rights for gays in California was morally reprehensible and it should be denounced. That kind of political bullying must be denounced.

But that doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about too many DUers using what some Mormons did as basis for criticizing the beliefs of all Mormons. That is the very definition of prejudice and that kind of bigotry is just as wrong as the bigotry of everyone who worked against equal rights in California last year.

It stuns me when allegedly enlightened people think they can fight bigotry with more bigotry.

Beside which, it wasn't just Mormons who were the out of staters paying for an attack on equality in California. All kinds of people from all kinds of backgrounds were involved in that hatred. But for some reason it's usually the Mormon Church that gets singled out for the lion's share of the denunciations. And that reason happens to be because Mormons are a distinctive religious minority who have a history of being singled out for their differences--including ongoing attacks on the polygamy that they haven't practiced for over a hundred years.

Again, this is textbook bigotry. Just because it's bigotry against somebody I don't like or agree with doesn't mean it isn't disgusting. Liberals, real liberals, ought to know better.

So no one is telling you to shut up about your rights. I'm on your side and I think our side should fight like hell to secure equal domestic rights for everyone. However I am asking you not to display religious bigotry in doing so since bigotry is the main problem we're fighting.

[ellisonz]

79. +1

I agree, the OP misuses the word "vetting" which is generally described as being used to uncover hidden elements of personal/political life. In this case, Mitt Romney has been nothing but forthcoming about his faith and so there really is nothing to find in this regard. If we wanted to talk about "vetting" Mitt Romney, the place to start would be his tax returns, not his Bible.

[marble falls]

61. We need to look at the church calling of "multiple marriage' and polygamy. Yes there were guys .....

guys like Brigham Young or Bring'em Young as my Mormon wife called him. In the eighteen hundreds women not only could not vote, but couldn't own property either. Most multiple marriages were about keeping widows and orphans on their farms and in shops and businesses they owned. There was no sex involved usually and some of these men maybe saw these wives with years between visits. The LDS church will excommunicate any and all members in polygamous relationships with no hesitation 100% of the time. I don't know what form of Mormonism Romney's Mexican family follows, but if they are still polygamous they aren't following Salt Lake City. After Utah joined the US as a state, women got sufferage and could own property in Utah, the first in the nation, I think.

The LDS Church has some current problems. Polygamy in the LDS Church isn't one of them.

[Bluenorthwest]

86. CA was first in 1850 with property rights. Utah admited to the Union in 1896....

Wyoming was the first with the vote.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

110. According to some information, New Jersey women were granted the right to vote in 1776

Chronology of Woman Suffrage Movement Events
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/chronology-woman-suffrage-movement-events

[Bruce Wayne]

156. That's a fact. Actually how it happened was...

The wording in New Jersey's first constitution was that any "person" owning property over a fixed amount was entitled to vote. In their haste to write a state constitution at the start of the Revolution, the men who wrote it didn't think through what "person" meant--it was unusual but not impossible for a woman to own property in that time, although upon marriage the property went into escrow under her new husband's management. But many unmarried ladies and unremarried widows in that age in fact did exercise their right to vote right up until the law was changed in the 1844 constitution, which shut the loophole that'd let women and free black property owners participate in very small numbers.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

159. A belief that the language was due to "haste" (and apparently carelesssness) is contrary to those

who believe that it was due to the Quaker heritage in which all people were treated equally when making decisions.

See, e.g., "The Petticoat Electors": Women's Sufferage in New Jersey, 1776-1807
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3124150?uid=3739656&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56179483113

In the 1600's,

proprietors Lord John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret ... sold New Jersey to the Quakers, [with the result that] the colony was split into West and East Jersey. ... The two were reunited in 1702 by Queen Anne.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_State_Constitution

Later, when there was an insufficient number of Quakers, the right of women to vote in New Jersey was officially taken away with respect to public matters. They still particpated in voting with men at their meeting halls, however.

Later in 1848, 4 Quaker women (Lucretia Mott, Jane Hunt, Martha Wright, Mary Ann McClintock) and Elizabeth Cady Stanton held their first Women's Rights Convention. Then, in 1851, Stanton met Susan B. Anthony and worked together for the rest of their lives to increase the rights of women. The difference is that Anthony focused her attention and energy towards the right to vote on public matters while Stanton supported that but also actively promoted co-education and dress reform.

The right to vote in this country is tracable back to the Quakers who once bought New Jersey. They were familiar with their own history in England plus the Vikings who invaded England and recognized their wives as being equals with respect to voting matters.

[marble falls]

116. Utah was first ......

"The Mormon issue made the Utah situation unique. In 1870 the Utah Territory, controlled by Mormons, gave women the right to vote. However, in 1887, Congress disenfranchised Utah women with the Edmunds–Tucker Act.....", "In 1890, Wyoming was admitted to the Union as the first state that allowed women to vote, and in fact insisted it would not accept statehood without keeping suffrage.", from wikipedia

[NightWatcher]

66. If a person believed his sofa was a deity would you give him access

to the kitchen knife drawer? No, you wouldn't.

I wouldn't want someone in power or control who believed some of the stuff he claims to believe. The religion he follows was conceived by a convicted fraudster.

[WilliamPitt]

67. My sofa is a deity

and I wouldn't vote for me, either.

[NightWatcher]

72. I'd vote for you but then again I'm a born-again Sofamarian

and High Hoohah of the Order of The Recliner.

[EFerrari]

75. LOL

[bahrbearian]

94. My lazy boy is more powerful than your Sofa.

My lazy boy allows for only one true beleiver at a time, except for maybe 4 or 5 Dogs.

[DirkGently]

109. Zogon The Orange Pleather Ottoman scoffs at the Sofa Lord.

[Flatulo]

96. How is that different from every other religion? nt

[cleanhippie]

121. "...some of the stuff he claims to believe."

What makes the things he believes any different from the rest?

[KamaAina]

68. Comparing this to the JFK situation is a false equivalency

JFK was a lay Catholic. Willard the Bully was Boston stake president for several years.

The argument was that JFK would take orders from church leadership. We don't have to worry about that with Willard, because he IS church leadership.

[EFerrari]

73. Nicely laid out. n/t

[hfojvt]

69. actually, to be fair to Mr. (Miles) Romney

What he did was marry a widow, a single mom with two young kids, ages 5 and 8, and although his new wife was only 27 at the time, he never had any kids by her, even though he was only 54 and probably still fertile. He had other children in 1896 and 1897.

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=dowfam3&id=I327130

It would seem that the marriage was never consummated.

Further, since Miles Romney had lived in Mexico since at least April 1887, he was under no obligation to follow US law. His other marriages were in 1862, 1867, 1873 and 1877 and one of his wives died in 1879.

[Iggo]

71. No, thank you.

[HeiressofBickworth]

76. Mormon Prophesy worries me in this context

from Wiki:
"Writers such as Richard Abanes and Elaine Wolff have speculated, on the basis of the prophecy, that Mormons expect the US to eventually become a "Mormon-ruled theocracy divinely ordained to 'not only direct the political affairs of the Mormon community, but eventually those of the United States and ultimately the world'", and that "a Mormon, if he were elected president, WOULD TAKE HIS ORDERS FROM SALT LAKE CITY.&quot emphasis added)

When JFK made his speech about his Catholic religion, he definitively stated that he would NOT take orders from Rome. In light of the concerns about Romney, he needs to make a similar statement to allay fears about his religious ties. Of course, as we know, Romney being Romney means he will never take a single position on anything. Any statement about taking orders from SLC can't be believed because, like the little boy who called wolf, Romney takes too many opposing positions on not only many, but seemingly ALL issues.

[Zorra]

134. "Mormons expect the US to eventually become a "Mormon-ruled theocracy divinely ordained

to 'not only direct the political affairs of the Mormon community, but eventually those of the United States and ultimately the world'".

Over my dead body.

[HotRodTuna]

147. Considering that would take place after other prophecies of mass destruction and upheaval

(like Armageddon) that would likely be the case. But you'd have a lot of company.

[JoePhilly]

81. No need to attack, just ask Mitt to clarify

[TNLib]

84. Normally I would disagree. But Romney was a church Leader.

Not just a normal parishioner attending church. I would think the role he played in leadership needs to be vetted but not the core religious beliefs.

Who's to say his believes are more or less nonsensical than any other candidates religious beliefs.

[countryjake]

87. Thank you, Will!

I have some fairly good friends who are converted Mormons, my landlord is a convert, two women who I work for were born into the church, and a guy who we know thru the party here in my area comes from a long line of them...every one of those folk are good people ( a bit misguided, in my book, but willing to honestly debate faith and religion-based discrimination of others with me always). To a person, not a one of them either trusts or intends to cast a vote for Rmoney. That's all I need to know when deciding whether or not to go after his wack-a-doodle philosophies and bigoted pronouncements...the guy is a corrupt power-monger.

[Bluenorthwest]

88. Considering their global door knocking routine I find it impossible to believe that Mormons don't

want to talk about their Mormonism. It is funny that people are typing 'don't talk about his faith' when his faith spends so much energy trying to talk about their faith. In fact, I find it worth noting that an organization that is consistently asking to explain their faith to others is reacting to the National stage with a sudden silence. I wonder if their 'missionary' work in the US is going on as always, or if they are reducing it to serve Mitt? Are the missionaries going to do campaign work?
And then there are actual questions regarding the practice in terms of suitability for the office. Would he not go to Temple in office, or would his security all be Mormon so they could see the big secrets? Should any President be picking a detail sworn to his own non governmental affinity group and then going into places where no other eyes can see or ears hear? A person could use such a thing as a ruse to meet with all manner of political and business forces. To meet with anyone, in fact. Not sure that is groovy sauce.

[JitterbugPerfume]

89. K&R

I can add nothing to this thread but that I agree with Will

[DLevine]

90. K&R. n/t

[DirkGently]

93. Religious belief is as germane to politics as religious groups cause it to be.

JFK took great pains to talk about the fact that his religious beliefs wouldn't be the basis of his decisions as President. This was of course because Catholicism is not the preferred American brand of Christianity, and his opponents raised the specter of him taking orders from the Vatican.

But our politicians seldom make that distinction anymore. A lot of them argue the opposite -- from Huckabee saying that the Bible takes precedence over the Constitution, to Santorum promising to drag us back to the good ole 1500's. I think Obama has expressed secularist restraint, but carefully, because of the huge Evangelical drumbeat we have now insisting that we are a "Christian nation."

What is Romney's take on this? Doesn't he hold some kind of rank in the Mormon Church? Is it not more likely than not that LDS leaders have his ear? And the Mormons don't stay out of politics either. They have proudly been a huge influence in stifling gay rights. How would be unreasonable to question the political influence of a religious organization with explicit, extreme views that is ALSO heavily active in trying to influence American law?

It is and always should be fair to question whether a candidate's ties to a politically active organization impact his or her positions. If religious groups want to be left out of the political limelight, they need to actually ... stay out of the political limelight. Can't have it both ways.

Moreover, as religious groups in American politics become more openly fundamentalist, and continue to demand an influence on policy, it's fair to question those beliefs themselves. LDS, like other fundamentalist groups, doesn't tolerate metaphorical or theoretical views of religious doctrine. It insists that bizarre, supernatural occurrences and rituals are literally true, and literally required by "God," to the point where defying the church can lead to complete ostracizing from all other church members, including family.

We always give these beliefs a pass, somehow, because of a cultural preference for the dominant religions. But we wouldn't consider for a moment a political candidate from some non-preferred sect who believed in some OTHER magic plates or some other virgin birth or some other sacred undergarments. We'd question their sanity and their judgment and laugh them off the national stage.

So which is it? Do we want candidates who put religious thinking first, including magical beliefs and ancient thoughts on what constitutes moral behavior, or are we going to insist that whomever we appoint to lead will please remember that we are a nation of secular laws, not supernatural beliefs?

Candidates for office have a choice. They can declare that they put secular law first, period, in which case their spiritual beliefs are irrelevant. Or they can claim their beliefs or their church are part of their qualifications, or try to fudge the issue (as Romney seems to be attempting) in which case those beliefs and those churches ought to be examined under the same microscope as the rest of their personality.

[ibegurpard]

95. hell no...exploit it to the hilt

[Flatulo]

98. Attacking a candidate for what his great-grandfather and his great-great-grandfather

did will not be effective or relevant.

Mitt has both condemned and eschewed polygamy, as has his church. What happened 100 years ago is completely irrelevant.

Mitt is a corporate wrecker who is on the wrong side of every issue.

[Major Hogwash]

99. We're not attacking his ancestors, it's his belief/value system that is being scrutinized.

So, we need to keep Mitt out of office unless you think "good, old-fashioned, man-on-top, get-it-over-with-quick sex" will satisfy everyone.
Mormons don't believe in oral sex.

And that's half my act.
So, Just Say No To Mitt The Shit.
Who doesn't approve of oral sex.
Yes, we can!

[Alcibiades]

127. That's your opinion

It shows you're a sensible human being, which means that it's useless in understandin the GOP, or how to oppose them.

We should not forget that, to conservatives, your destiny is determined by who your family is. It was ever thus: they believe in a kind of thinly-vieled feudalism without even realizing it. Remember that the most important fact about Barack Obama, according to them, is who his father was. It does not matter that he did not raise him, nor did it matter what his actual beliefs were. Google "Obama" and "Mau Mau" and you get 1,200,000 hits, even though the President didn't really know his father, the Mau Mau Revolution happened before the president was born and Obama Sr. was out of the country at the time anyway. None of that matters: Obama's father was Kenyan, the Mau Mau Revolution happened in Kenya, therefore President Obama is a classic opponent of wester colonialism. Q.E.D. Though why it is that the opposition of any American to colonialism and imperialism, especially British colonialism and imperialism is somehow disqualifying is beyond me.

Of course it doesn't make any sense to look into the matter of Romney's Mormonism, but that's the point: if the President is somehow dangerous because he listened to Rev., Wright's sermons, how can Romney's faith, supposedly the essense of the core of the soul of his being, be out of bounds?

Mr. Romney is a man who believes manifestly absurd things simply because his parents believed them. I think that's relevant.

[Flatulo]

128. Isn't it still true that people vote their wallets?

The issues where Mitt is really vulnerable are 1) his obscenewealth, 2) his paltrey 13% effective tax rate and 3) his takeover and destruction of blue-collar industries.

This country is in no mood for hyper-rich frat boys who'se only concern is how to squeeze another nickel out of the working man.

I'm not saying his religious beliefs are off limits; I just think that he's distanced himself far enough from the fringe elements in the Mormon church to be out of the blast radius.

[Alcibiades]

143. The Mormon church is one big fringe element

It's the theological equivalent of Amway, and Joeseph Smith is the 19th century version of L. Ron Hubbard.

It was a common tactic of the more freethinking of the founding fathers to take advantage of the fact that there were so many religious sects. Jefferson was less feared by the Baptists than the Anglicans, because he at least sought to establish no official church.

This is a street fight. We should give up no weapon. If the evangelical movement, which has become the core of the GOP core, has hated Mormonism since its inception, why not use that fact? Barack Obama ought to be more acceptable to these folks, because he accepts the core of Christian doctrine, including the trinitarian godhead, which Romney does not.

It's all nonsense anyway, of course: if there is a god, then having the correct magical formula is probably not the way to hallow yourself in its sight. Nonetheless, why not make the nonsense work to our advantage for once?

[SunSeeker]

130. Romney made what happened 100 years ago relevant when he attacked same sex marriage.

At his pandering Liberty University speech, he said marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Well that's a lie, not just according to historical fact, but his own family tree and religion. It's completely fair game.

[Alcibiades]

145. It's also a good example of moral relativism

You know, that thing they are so fond of accusing us of peddling.

[SunSeeker]

149. Also, aren't Mormon "sister wives" married to each other just as much as to their husband?

Just sayin'--these women were cohabitating with each other, raising each others' kids just as much if not more intimately than they were with their husband.

[we can do it]

100. Fuck the Hypocrit and His Waco Religion

[Odin2005]

102. They helped push Prop H8, they are fair game.

[Major Nikon]

162. They were fair game well before that

Utah was formed as a theocracy and still is. If they chose to ignore the boundaries of church and state, why should anyone else be required to ignore the religious beliefs of their candidates?

[99Forever]

104. K&R

[guappo1]

105. The Reason for not laying off

I was a member of the LDS church for over 30 years. I found the people to be kind and carrying people.
The problem is when I got deeper into it I became aware of certain beliefs that I could not except. The
Idea that the leader of the church is considered a prophet, sear, and revelator. Meaning he speaks for god
on all issues. They look upon him as anyone looks up prophets in the bible. That alone would keep me from
supporting Romney. He dare not go against anything that the church president would ask of him.

[spanone]

106. you'd think this would raise hackles in the media.....naaaaaaw.

Last edited Mon May 14, 2012, 11:15 PM - Edit history (1)

seems like a tad of hypocrisy that he be asked to explain.

[Generic Other]

108. I believe in separation of church and state

When a church (any of them) chooses to interfere with the governing of the state, they should expect to have their actions debated.

[Wind Dancer]

129. +1000

[cr8tvlde]

111. Right. Give me a Freaking Break...Every RWers believes in and swears by the Bible/Old Testament

...and anyone who has even peeked into that...and I read the Bible through 4 times...knows that there is some really messed up stuff in there based on our non-barbarian culture.

They do the same thing...hey, that was then, not now. We don't believe in that, even though it's part of our sacred scriptures that God (Joseph Smith) ordained and wrote every word.

But don't claim it, then say it doesn't matter. Duh.

[boomerbust]

113. One Republican friend of mine

Once told me he voted for Bush because He was a Christian, and yesterday I asked him if He would vote for Obama because, you know, He is the only "Christian" running.

[obamanut2012]

119. OOOOO what did he say?

Because, I don't know if there is one Christian denom that IDs the LDS as a Christian denomination. Many claim it is a a cult, including the Baptists, no matter if Romney just spoke at Liberty.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

114. ahh, thank you

I feel my underwear thread has been vindicated.

[obamanut2012]

115. Read up on Theodemocracy

Theodemocracy was a theocratic political system that included elements of democracy. It was theorized by Joseph Smith, Jr., founder of the Latter Day Saint movement (Mormonism). According to Smith, theodemocracy was meant to be a fusion of traditional republican democratic rights under the United States Constitution with theocratic principles.

Smith described it as a system under which God and the people held the power to rule in righteousness.[1] Smith believed that this would be the form of government that would rule the world upon the Second Coming of Christ, which he believed was imminent. This polity would constitute the "Kingdom of God" which was foretold by the prophet Daniel in the Old Testament. Theodemocracy was an influence for the short lived State of Deseret in the American Old West.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodemocracy


An ex LDS friend said he was actually taught this at church and in a class at BYU. The White Horse Prophecy is also worth a wiki.

[Ichingcarpenter]

122. During BAIN Capital he was a bishop and area leader for LDS churches in Mass.

Think about that and how fucked up Bain Capital was.

its relevant.

[_ed_]

123. Mormonism was officially racist until 1978

All religions are wrong and silly, but if you're an adult Mormon, you were a member of an officially racist cult until 1978. Mitt Romney was a Mormon bishop (and don't try telling me that Bishops aren't important), and he was an adult in 1978.

Mormonism is a set of ideas like Keynesian economics or Republican ideology. I'll attack bad and illogical ideas as I please. I respect individuals, but I don't respect ideas like Mormonism.

[Capt. Obvious]

131. Just like Romney enjoys being able to lay off people?

[bayareaboy]

133. again I look to the words of Cyrus Arbuckle ...

You get what you pay for!

You don't listen to gypsy's telling you that they can fix the dent in your car for really cheap.

You don't listen to the Irish Traveler who wants to tear off your roof and give you a new one, really cheap

So why listen to Mormon Mitt?

I have had LDS followers in my family and friends, as most of us do who live out here in the west. I have learned to not put my faith in them because of some of their religious or religious/cultural actions.

[Bruce Wayne]

157. Wow, a bigotry triple. Well played.

[tblue37]

135. Frankly, I think that

Romney should be laid off, since he says he so likes to lay off those who work for him.

[madrchsod]

136. nope they think they should be above the law

they were run out of every state for that reason until they made it to utah and mexico.

[cr8tvlde]

137. It wasn't some nice folk from Utah that proudly and almost singlehandedly

brought down Proposition 8 in California. I lived there at the time. They were MORMONS...and did so because it was an affront to their RELIGION. And I'm going bet Mitt donated financially to that campaign.

They are crossing the religion/state lines...in fact they don't believe in it, as do not most RWers. They need to at least twist in the wind on their hypocrazy (misspelling intentional.) to bow at the feet of Joseph Smith.

I just don't get anyone left of George Wallace who can watch a religious and avowed racially bigoted group take down their values (marriage equality, church and state, blacks and non-Mormon whites as second class) and then stand back and say, "Let's make nice and find some other things to talk about. This is so unpleasant."

And at the risk of repeating myself...forget the gutted social net programs for a moment. Can one imagine a stacked court of MEN who secretly do not believe in the separation of church and state, among other egregious insults to Americans? Bad enough a current investigating group of only one gender/mixed religions convened to set the other gender's physical rights to their bodies et al rights back a couple of centuries. And we're giving them a pass "hoping" they will "play nice"?

Yes, I know Mormons, lived down the street from a few, and they are very nice people. There.

Other than that, Balderdash.

[Alcibiades]

146. If Wright is fair game, then Mormonism is

Of course, the right brought up Rev. Wright four years before the Obama campaign said anything about Romney and his family's religions, but that does not matter, as it's expected you've forgotten that. It's entirely circular: Rev. Wright is fair game, therefore Romney's religion is fair game, therefore Rev. Wright is fair game, therefore....

It is relevant. We should not forget that, to many conservatives, your destiny is determined by who your family is. It was ever thus: they believe in a kind of thinly-veiled feudalism without even realizing it. Remember that the most important fact about Barack Obama, according to them, is who his father was. It does not matter that he did not raise him, nor did it matter what his actual beliefs were. Google "Obama" and "Mau Mau" and you get 1,200,000 hits, even though the President didn't really know his father, the Mau Mau Revolution happened before the president was born and Obama Sr. was out of the country at the time anyway. None of that matters: Obama's father was Kenyan, the Mau Mau Revolution happened in Kenya, therefore President Obama is a classic opponent of western colonialism. Q.E.D. Why it is that the opposition of any American to colonialism and imperialism, especially British colonialism and imperialism, is somehow disqualifying is a question that isn't asked because there's no answer.

Of course it doesn't make any sense to look into the matter of Romney's Mormonism, but that's the point: if the President is somehow dangerous because he listened to Rev., Wright's sermons, how can Romney's faith, supposedly the essense of the core of the soul of his being, be out of bounds?

Mr. Romney is a man who believes manifestly absurd things simply because his parents believed them. I think that's relevant.

[iverglas]

151. the sins of the great-great-grandfather?

Give me a fucking break.

I'm an atheist through and through, and I say that no one's religion is an issue in public life unless they make it an issue.

And if they do, the only response is: your religion is not in issue, keep it out of the public discourse please and make your case based on common values and the constitution.

You get into critiquing somebody's religion and you've lost already, because everybody's religion is nonsense, and picking on one just makes you look like a bigot. What you would be.

Kennedy's religion actually did tell him to obey his pope and not his government. (That's the whole reason the Acadians were expelled from Nova Scotia and ended up being Cajuns: they would not swear allegiance to the government of the day; and the RCers also had that whole secret oath thing, where you could do it but cross your fingers behind your back.)

And that just seems a trifle more significant, politically, than somebody's great-greeat-grandfather having had 12 wives.

Cans of worms. Don't wanna eat 'em, don't open 'em, is my advice.

[cr8tvlde]

152. and if he were a practicing Muslim with a GGGrandfather who had read Muslim rites ?

and current family who were practicing Muslims, and a Democrat?

He made it an issue...one man one wife...for the past 3,000 years. It flies in the face of his cultural/religious history. It's a lie to him in his heart. End of story. No haters. No bigots. HIS history. In politics, religion is ALWAYS an issue...for ill or for good. That is an issue that "we" didn't make...au contraire. As an atheist or agnostic or "other", to be constantly hearing we are a Christian Nation is the RW Onward Christian Soldiers battlecry. Just ask the Middle Easterners.

[iverglas]

154. well, we disagree

I should probably point out that I'm Canadian and we don't look kindly on people making their religion an issue in public discourse, for the most part.

If somebody wants to argue for marriage discrimination, let them make their case based on common values and the constitution. If they can't do that, keep telling them they have to and just ignoring their arguments from religion, other than saying that not everybody's religion agrees.

Or let some other religious types take on that job. That happens here -- the religious right fought same-sex marriage, and all the more progressive churches got together and opposed them. Let them fight the theological fight out among themselves, as publicly as necessary, of course.

You can't beat the religious right at its game within the circle of politics, even if they are the most utter and complete hypocrites when it comes to following their own religion.

You aren't gonna find a religious person who is not a religious hypocrite, ever. You aren't going to find a person who isn't a hypocrite, in fact.

Our current Prime Minister belongs to one of the worst, stupidest Pentecostal churches there is. The hypocrisy there is that it's just too obvious that he doesn't actually believe any of their crap. He's a political right-winger with no interest in any "culture" issues at all, and just joined the damned thing so he could achieve political power, after being an ordinary common or garden non-practising Protestant of some sort up to then, like most English Canadians. Nobody else really cares, so it was a win-win choice for him: play to that base. It's impossible to believe he has any real religious convictions, let alone that he believes the universe was created in however many days or even that women are inferior beings.

Anyhow, I will just recommend the approach. Stand firm on the line that nobody's religion belongs in public discourse. Their own discourse can be informed by their religion, obviously, and sometimes that's even a good thing, if their religion happens to be the social gospel, say, and it doesn't even hurt for people to say where they get their views.

But argument from religion, on public policy, has no place in public discourse. Establishing the values to be followed in public policies is the job of constitutions.

It really is the only option that doesn't make you look like bigots. Looking from the outside in.

[Zorra]

166. So, if a candidate's religion drafted, funded, and promoted, an amendment to

make marriage between African American men and women illegal, and succeeded in getting the amendment passed, causing widespread pain to the African American community, and to all decent people as well, would this not warrant attacking the candidate's religion?

And would attacking the candidate for this be off the table, despite the fact that he had supported the dirty deed?

"We're sorry Barack, your marriage to Michelle is not recognized in this state, thanks to us, the Mormon Church. Please understand, it's not that we're racist, we actually love everyone sooooo much, it's just that, well, our religion teaches that people with black skin are sinners and inferior to whites, and therefore, blacks should not be able to marry."

"We're sorry, Barbara, your marriage to Michelle is not recognized in this state, thanks to us, the Mormon Church. Please understand, it's not that we're homophobic, we actually love everyone sooooo much, it's just that, well, our religion teaches us that LGBT people are sinners and inferior to heterosexual people, and therefore, people of the sex same should not be able to marry."

Not your problem, unless they come for you, right?

I really resent it when anyone takes the fact that these bigots almost single-handedly took away our legal right to marry in California so lightly.

If they did this to any other group, there would already be blood on the moon from the outrage and backlash.

What the Mormon Church, Romney included, did to the LGBT community was flat out mean and evil. Plain and simple. And to this day, they, (Romney included) have no remorse for what they did.

“The American culture promotes personal responsibility, the dignity of work, the value of education, the merit of service, devotion to a purpose greater than self, and, at the foundation, the preeminence of the family,” Romney said. “As fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debate. So it is today with the enduring institution of marriage. Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.”

The ultra-conservative crowd broke into cheers.

A USA Today /Gallup poll released yesterday shows that a majority of Americans – and an even larger majority of independent voters – approve of the President’s position on marriage equality.

“This morning, Mitt Romney spoke out against marriage equality at a school that does not even allow openly LGBT students to enroll,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “It is unbelievable that in this day in age – when a majority of Americans support marriage equality and a majority of Americans explicitly approve of President Obama’s leadership on marriage equality – Mitt Romney instead is taking up the mantle of far-right, anti-gay organizations who seek to demonize LGBT families. Mitt Romney continues to insist he’s against discrimination, but his remarks on marriage equality and the company he keeps paints a very clear and a very disturbing picture of the anti-LGBT forces that are driving Romney’s campaign.”

http://qsaltlake.com/2012/05/12/romney-reiterates-anti-gay-marriage-stance-at-commencement-speech/

No quarter.

[iverglas]

167. why do you need to attack the candidate's religion? (edited)

Last edited Thu May 17, 2012, 05:02 AM - Edit history (2)

I don't get it.

So, if a candidate's religion drafted, funded, and promoted, an amendment to ...

Religion doesn't do any of those things. Religion is an abstract concept. It doesn't have money, and it can't write.

Religious organizations sometimes do those things. But the religious organization isn't running for office.

Why can a candidate not be attacked based on their public policy positions? And why can that not be done by citing the constitution, or by citing common values of equality and privacy and so on, and showing that the candidate's own positions are contrary to those things?

A good candidate will resign from a bad church, as Jimmy Carter did from the Southern Baptists.

A good church will relieve a bad candidate of their membership, as the Quakers did to Richard Nixon, I believe.

But if you're just talking about a bad candidate, why is it necessary to mention their religion? Their policies are bad. For reasons that have nothing to do with religion -- isn't that the whole point?

It's a can of worms. Roman Catholics can be attacked on their church's stand on contraception and abortion; do you really plan to attack all the Roman Catholic Democrats -- who don't try to legislate their theology -- for being RC? Would you want them to be attacked for that?

Why is the issue what their church does or says, instead of what they do or say?

Attack the church for its efforts to have rights violations legislated. Attack the politician for their efforts to legislate rights violations. What's wrong with that?

The best thing you can do when it comes to the churches is to get the good churches going after them, or at least coming out strongly on the side of right. Then, for those who might care about it, it's apparent that not everybody's god is on the side of wrong.

Whom are you going to persuade by attacking a candidate's religion? Bigots? They're already bigots. People who share that religion? Not likely.

Go after the churches. Go after the candidates. Do both. Just go after the candidates in the political arena, for their public policy positions and the justifications they offer for them. If they offer religious justifications, tell them to go away and come back with something that doesn't violate the constitution and doesn't deny people's civil and human rights. Show them up for hypocritical Americans, not hypocritical Christians or whatever else they might be. That's a losing game on every score. Because it's their game, and their rules, and they win by definition.

Nobody has yet succeeded in persuading a population that their religion is false by arguing with them. And arguing with them about their religion isn't going to convert people of other religions or no religion to your cause by giving them reasons to support it. Only people within a religion can influence their co-religionists with religious argument.

I just hate to see people letting the game be determined for them and dooming themselves to defeat, in the sense of totally wasting their breath, from the outset that way.

And I have to repeat that it really is just bigoted. There isn't a religion in the world that doesn't have some position on some public policy, and try to exercise some influence on it, with the most laudable intentions though it may be. Saying that people of any one religion should not be doing that doesn't work.

It's what they are doing, not why they are doing it, that is your concern.

Not least because, like, does anybody really believe they're doing it for theological reasons?


edit

Not your problem, unless they come for you, right?

I had kind of missed that. It was a rhetorical impersonal question, and not meant for me, can I assume? Because I didn't say anything whatsoever that would have deserved that response or in any way suggested that I thought such a thing.

They're not coming for me because I'm in the US. If I were in the US, they would be coming for me already. I'm a woman. I've heard about that war on women thing.

I just thought I'd show you how it was done in Canada. As you may know, the change first came from the courts in several provinces, striking down provincial laws that provided for marriage licences to be issued to opposite-sex couples only. So the first legal same-sex marriages in the world actually were performed in Canada. Because the provinces have jurisdiction over the formalities, but marriage itself is governed by federal law (like about what family members may not marry), it was decided that the best way to clarify the situation would be to enact federal legislation expressly permitting same-sex marriage. The Liberals took the chicken way out and referred the question to the Supreme Court (as was done in Massachusetts, only the govt here referred legislation to permit same-sex marriage).

What follows is a list of all the parties given standing to argue in the Supreme Court, for or against the legislation. I will boldface the ones of interest that supported the legislation, and underline the ones that didn't.

You fight politicians witih politicians, and churches with churches. At all the major press conferences and so on while this was going on, liberal church representatives were front and centre. But the proponents of same-sex marriage rights didn't attack churches opposed, or attack politicians opposed by attacking their religion. They attacked them for trying to violate Canadian equality rights.



Peter W. Hogg, Q.C., and Michael H. Morris, for the Attorney General of Canada.

Alain Gingras, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.

Robert W. Leurer, Q.C., Margaret Unsworth and Christy J. Stockdale, for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta.

Leslie A. Reaume, for the intervener the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Cathy S. Pike and Amyn Hadibhai, for the intervener the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Aaron L. Berg, for the intervener the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.

Andrew K. Lokan and Odette Soriano, for the intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Elliott M. Myers, Q.C., and Rebecca Smyth, for the intervener the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

James L. Lebo, Q.C., for the intervener the Canadian Bar Association.

William J. Sammon, Kellie Siegner and Peter D. Lauwers, for the interveners the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Barry W. Bussey, for the intervener the Seventh‑Day Adventist Church in Canada.

John O’Sullivan, for the intervener the United Church of Canada.

Kenneth W. Smith and Robert J. Hughes, for the intervener the Canadian Unitarian Council.

Mark R. Frederick and Peter D. Lauwers, for the intervener the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

R. Douglas Elliott, Trent Morris and Jason J. Tan, for the intervener the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto.

Cynthia Petersen, Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., Vanessa Payne and Kathleen A. Lahey, for the interveners Egale Canada Inc., Egale Couples (Melinda Roy, Tanya Chambers, David Shortt, Shane McCloskey, Lloyd Thornhill, Robert Peacock, Robin Roberts, Diana Denny, Wendy Young and Mary Teresa Healy) and B.C. Couples (Dawn Barbeau, Elizabeth Barbeau, Peter Cook, Murray Warren, Jane Eaton Hamilton and Joy Masuhara).

Martha A. McCarthy and Joanna Radbord, for the interveners the Ontario Couples (Hedy Halpern, Colleen Rogers, Michael Leshner, Michael Stark, Aloysius Pittman, Thomas Allworth, Dawn Onishenko, Julie Erbland, Carolyn Rowe, Carolyn Moffat, Barbara McDowell, Gail Donnelly, Alison Kemper and Joyce Barnet), and the Quebec Couple (Michael Hendricks and René LeBoeuf).

D. Geoffrey Cowper, Q.C., for the intervener the Working Group on Civil Unions.

David M. Brown, for the intervener the Association for Marriage and the Family in Ontario.

Ed Morgan and Lawrence Thacker, for the interveners the Canadian Coalition of Liberal Rabbis for same‑sex marriage and Rabbi Debra Landsberg, as its nominee.

Linda M. Plumpton and Kathleen E. L. Riggs, for the intervener the Foundation for Equal Families.

Luc Alarie, for the intervener Mouvement laïque québécois.

Noël Saint‑Pierre, for the intervener Coalition pour le mariage civil des couples de même sexe.

Peter R. Jervis and Bradley W. Miller, for the interveners the Islamic Society of North America, the Catholic Civil Rights League and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, collectively known as the Interfaith Coalition on Marriage and Family.

Gerald D. Chipeur, Dale William Fedorchuk and Ivan Bernardo, for the interveners the Honourable Anne Cools, Member of the Senate, and Roger Gallaway, Member of the House of Commons.

[K.T.M.]

170. What about his great, great, great grandfather????????? how do you know he did not kill indians?

The apple does not fall far from the tree, he is obvioulsy geneticly pre-disposed to rape, bigotry, sexism and murder!

[craigmatic]

160. It's fair to look at his family and poligamy and the role of race in the church's history.

[Woody Woodpecker]

161. For the first time in my entire life

I found the nearest Moron church. Planning to heavily curse that church and its morons.

That place is less than 8 blocks from my house.

[WilliamPitt]

164. Up

[Bruce Wayne]

171. You're still dead wrong.

Two reposts from upthread, assuming you missed them...

It's one I think we can do without. We can also do without attacking candidates for what their great great grandparents did. In fact, this country was founded by people getting away from their great great grandparents' home.

Of course the OP is using intentionaly vague language. There's nothing "vetting" about attacking Romney for what his great great grandfather did. It is not a "glaring, vomitous contradiction" to have one wife and oppose polygamy, as Romney does. This is a crass appeal to religious prejudice wearing only the thinnest disguise of "opposing hypocricy".

I remember back when Democrats opposed religious prejudice. With so many legitimate and contemporary issues to attack Romney one, it's appalling that anyone, much less a supposed supporter of the First Amendment, would reduce themselves to spurious arguments rooted in nothing but religious bigotry.

When another DUer pointed out that Mormons were organizationally tied to attack on gay rights, I responded...

No one said to quit denouncing what the Mormons did. What people from both inside and outside of California did in attacking basic civil rights for gays in California was morally reprehensible and it should be denounced. That kind of political bullying must be denounced.

But that doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about too many DUers using what some Mormons did as basis for criticizing the beliefs of all Mormons. That is the very definition of prejudice and that kind of bigotry is just as wrong as the bigotry of everyone who worked against equal rights in California last year.

It stuns me when allegedly enlightened people think they can fight bigotry with more bigotry.

Beside which, it wasn't just Mormons who were the out of staters paying for an attack on equality in California. All kinds of people from all kinds of backgrounds were involved in that hatred. But for some reason it's usually the Mormon Church that gets singled out for the lion's share of the denunciations. And that reason happens to be because Mormons are a distinctive religious minority who have a history of being singled out for their differences--including ongoing attacks on the polygamy that they haven't practiced for over a hundred years.

Again, this is textbook bigotry. Just because it's bigotry against somebody I don't like or agree with doesn't mean it isn't disgusting. Liberals, real liberals, ought to know better.

So no one is telling you to shut up about your rights. I'm on your side and I think our side should fight like hell to secure equal domestic rights for everyone. However I am asking you not to display religious bigotry in doing so since bigotry is the main problem we're fighting.

Every time you bring up someone else's religion in a debate on civil rights, you alienate allies, you divert from the real issue, and you crawl into bed with the bigots you think you oppose.

[K.T.M.]

169. I bet if we go back farther...

we could find even more evil deeds done by his ancestors.

It would not supprise me a bit to find out that his long ago relatives were involved in some of the worst atrocities ever commited. It is almost guaranteed that they have been killing, torturing and tormenting people throughout history.

[cleanhippie]

172. Does this apply only to Romney or can we do this for everyone?

I'm all for it. Really getting to the bottom of what one believes regarding the supernatural and how that belief affects their decision making? Yes yes yes.



But I guarantee that as soon as that same measure is applied to majority religious believers, we wil hear a very different story about personal privacy.