Mitt Romney and Mormonism
 

I didn't see a thread on this. Mods, please merge if I missed it!

Mitt Romney is a Mormon and a Republican. Depending on the poll, between 15% and 37% say they wouldn't vote for a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints under any circumstances. The problem a lot of people have with Mormonism is that it is secretive. This is why Romney's in the unenviable position of having to explain just what he believes.

Would you vote for a Mormon? Does Romney's religion factor into your opinion of him?

Yes. Yes.

The man was an adult member of a faith that explicitly denied positions of authority to blacks (until 1978 blacks could not be even deacons and could not "secret" parts of temples) and as an adult operating in that mileau I would like to know how he behaved then (did he push for the reforms that changed the churge or fight them or watch passively, for example). The man is an adult member of a faith that has a distressing history of blurring the separation of church and state.

Now, I don't give a flying fig that he believes Jesus visited North America or that the church in the past (and in fringe ways in the present) protects polygamy. The actual LDS is not any stranger, in my view, than that of Catholics, Scientologists, JWs, Hindus, etc.

But what I listed are two very real examples of how the practice of his faith would appear to intersect with the president's position as policy maker and agenda setter. So no, his faith is not completely irrelevant as he'd like us to pretend (and neither is the faith of any of the other candidates just because they are more mainstream).

What I want to know is how many Osmonds will be political appointees if he's elected? ;)

Again, I agree with Alex.

This was brought up in a class discussion this Summer, and the distressing thing for me is that many objected to his religion because they didn't think he (and Mormons) believed in Jesus or God. I am not Mormon, but a good portion of my family is. Heck, I'm Agnostic. But... they do believe in the same God of the Christians, the same God of the Catholics, they believe in the same Jesus. It just goes to show how clueless so many are.

There's a lot (IMO) to disagree with the LDS church over, but what many have voiced their disagreements with Mormonism over is simply stupid.

Disclaimer: I'm a Mormon.

If his/her politics were inline with mine and I thought they'd be a credible leader, yes, I'd vote for them. But not just because they're a Mormon.

Does his religion factor into my opinion of him? Only inasmuch as that's something we have in common.

What I find interesting (and somewhat comical) is how his running is putting so much focus on this (often and very) misunderstood religion. Like it's the first time a Mormon has run for any political office. Or that it's the first time anyone of any faith has run for political office.

Would I vote for Romney? I'm not leaning that way, no.

Interesting question.

I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state, and on those grounds, a President Huckabee is more worrisome.

I'm not a fan of Romney because I think he's a phony and an opportunist.

I wouldn't vote for anyone named "Mitt"

But I agree with Alex's discussion points above.

If the Mormon Church were a lot more transparent about what the beliefs are ... but that is not the case.

The church provides a website where everyone can go and learn all about the beliefs. All the scriptures are made available free to the public, on the website or in print.

The only thing not made public are the more sacred parts of one of the temple ceremonies. But nothing in that ceremony is new information to those who participate. In other words, all of the doctrines and beliefs taught in the temple are in the scriptures or other public references.

So I really don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah the secretive thing is a bit odd, but every religion has its secrets.

I hear stories about Mormons being excommunicated for not being able to bear children, or it being very repressive to children, stuff like that. And I know that they don't take too kindly to gays, but then again, neither do many orthodox Jews.

My actual friends that are Mormon, however, are some of the kindest, most generous, most fun (and kinkiest *ahem* must be that repression) people that I know. And many of them did that Mormon mission thing to various places too. So really, as my views of Mormons come from them, it is positive.

With respect to Mitt, however, he's a Republican, and I would not vote for him because of that.

Yep, I know quite a few Mormons, and my exprience is akin to Cherny's in that they are amongst the kindest and most fun-loving people I know.

Um, but not the kinkiest. I must be going to the wrong Mission-escape bars.




There are plenty of reasons I wouldn't vote for Romney. We have to go far down the list till I get to Mormanism. That's not a disqualification for me. Only if he's fervent. (And that would be the same disqualifier for any candidate who's fervent about any religious faith.)

I don't think it's all that difficult to find information on the LDS church in this day and age of teh intrawebs. Perhaps once upon a time the mystery over what they believe could be a credible argument for the people I was referring to, but it simply isn't the case. Anyone, save for those so hopelessly in the boonies they have access to nothing, can go to mormon.org or even Wikipedia to get some reliable information on the Latter-Day Saints. Heck, even in my church-going dying-to-believe in something days at a Baptist church in Michigan, we covered LDS and they said they believed in God and Jesus, but they were wrong about Joseph Smith, or some such thing.

Maybe my earlier post didn't clarify enough what these people were in disagreement over, but the people quoted in the article from over the Summer disagreed with Romney because he "didn't believe in the same God" and some equated Mormonism with "Devil Worship." What distresses me is how many in the general population make assumptions and become vocal without becoming informed, even on the most basic level. The general population's treatment of those whose religious views, lifestyles, and whatever else that is different from themselves is disappointing at best - which is commentary on the public, and not-so-much Romney.

Toward the original post, religion plays a factor in my decision to vote. It clues me into how he may or may not react to things that are important to me. I would vote for a Mormon if his beliefs and how he may vote align with my own preferences, just as I would vote for a "regular" Christian, a Catholic, a Jew, a Hindu, a Muslim. To that end, what has disappointed me about Romney was his pro-choice stance that changed due to Republican/Conservative pressures. As much as LDS has blended church and state (take a trip to SLC and take a look for yourself), for the most part I got a "freedom of religion" and "freedom of lifestyle" vibe from Romney early on, but of course he's flipped on that, too. Or so it seems.

Religion aside, he seems like someone who I wouldn't vote for on account of his flip-floppiness and general phoniness.

No. If you go into a Methodist Church, the pastor will tell you everything there is to know about that branch of Protestantism. S/he will not charge money for the information. You do not have to join the Methodist Church to get the information. The same is true for all the mainline Protestant churches.

Yeah, I gotta say Mormons are pretty nice people. When I went through my family crisis, they helped my entire family, even those that weren't LDS. And you know, they never pushed me to change my own views. I thought that was pretty nice. :)

Do you think Mormons charge for information? Or are you confusing them with Scientologists?

I think you have to be a member in various degrees of standing to receive the Mormon Church's beliefs in increments. I assume that to be a member in good standing of the Mormon Church, you have to contribute something. So yes, I do think Mormons charge for information in that way.

The secrecy is the main reason why many Christians think Mormonism is a cult, like Scientology. I haven't thought enough about Mormonism to know if it's a cult.

I think in the past joining the church and going through the various levels was the only way one could get certain information. But as Erica said with the internet much of that is now easily found public information. The same with say the Masons or other "secret" orginizations. There are shows on the History Channel and the like with "insider" information.

I don't know where you got this from but it's absolutely and totally false. Go look in the internet, visit a Mormon church, ask a Mormon friend, or even pull aside one of the millions of missionaries out there whose sole duty is to teach all the church has to teach and you can find out everything you want to know.

It's the lies, the misinformation, and half-truths spread by anti-Mormon propaganda that has lead to what appears to be lack of transparency.

Would that be the part where they get anointed with oil on their privates and baptized in a huge tub on the backs of 12 oxen? Or is there something more secretive than that?

But really, the mormons I know are great people. My only concerns lie in the separation of church and state. As far as which religion... doesn't matter.

I do believe it has cultish aspects, and yes, from what I understand there are certain things you have to know for the ceremonial stuff - though I've never felt it necessary to pay them anything to understand what was going on. I've never known anyone to really have to pay - but then, I don't know everything there is to know about Mormons. I do know the basics: they believe in the Christian God and tiny infant baby Jesus with golden fleece diapers. Which is what some out there think they don't believe in. But, they don't consider themselves a part of any of the more "traditional" Christian churches - they're a continuation of the Church of Christ... something a little different.

Mormons do seem to take their tithing a little more seriously than most other churches I've gone to - 10% - and most LDS seem to give it. But, tithing is usually a part of Jewish and Christian organizations, so that's nothing really different and I don't really see it as a "Pay to Play" situation.

And, like I said earlier, they really helped my family out without making anyone feel guilty for not going to their church or supporting their religion. My aunt left LDS some time ago for their stance against women in the temple wearing pants, or rather that there was a dress code associated with communing with God. They seemed rather accepting of her differing views - which I think is probably more of a sign of the modern-day church. They've dropped polygamy (with the exception of a few extreme sects), and a bunch of other stuff.

Hehe - as for cults, I think all religions are cults. But that's just me.

Nobody gets anointed on their privates (not even if you wanted it). Not every temple has a baptismal font on the backs of 12 oxen. But baptism is also done in most of the church buildings and anyone is welcome to watch. Nothing secret about baptism.

My best friend in elementary school was Mormon. I lived in St. George, Utah and Park City, Utah in the early '80s. At the time, both towns were 99.9% LDS. It is just not true that all beliefs of the Mormon Church are readily available to non-Mormons.

It's the lack of transparency that concerns people and causes "lies, misinformation, and half-truths" and cult suspicions to pop up. The Mormon Church is certainly within its rights to withhold information from non-Members. The Mormon Church needs to own its lack of transparency and accept the speculation, rumor, and misinformation that results.

Feel free to be specific. Since I'm not coming up with which beliefs you're talking about you'll need to let me know.

I remember a Mormon friend telling me about the possibility of having his own planet after death. This was many years ago that he told me so I wanted to make sure I was remembering correctly. An internet search produced this article. Does it accurately describe some of the beliefs of the Mormon Church?

Other than my snarky comment earlier, religion plays almost no part in my vote. I really do not have an interest in that as I do not feel embracing or not embracing a faith has anything to do with the job that is president. Unfortunately, it does seem to be a huge factor to many, just not so much to me. I'd much rather cast my vote based on someone who has views on issues similar to mine and has much more intelligence than me to do the job and is crazy enough to want to do it.

So the general consensus seems to be that organized religions all have their skeletons in the closet. Some more than others.

Would you support an atheist for President of the United States?

Helen, I'd be interested in your answer to the first question you asked (if you gave it and I missed it, I apologize).

If secrecy in religion in an issue for anybody here, then is membership in other secret societies (such as the many masonic or masonic inspired organizations) a significant issue?

Like iSm, I have a laundry list of qualities that I look for in a candidate, and their religious beliefs are waaay down on that list. Having said that, a candidate who chooses to incorporate his or her beliefs into the way they run the government as opposed to informing the way they think (splitting hairs, I know, but still... ), frightens me. Since an atheist wouldn't be saddled with any tricky religious dogma, it's just one less thing to worry about. It wouldn't be a deciding factor, but it certainly would enhance the candidate rather than detract from him or her.

I'm trying to read through that whole thing but I'm running short on time. But what I have read so far (about half), is exactly what I was talking about earlier... the half-truths and misinformation provided by anti-Mormon propaganda. The whole "follow a few simple rules and get your own planet" thing is a twisted misconception of the belief that God is our Father and wants us to become like Him. That means we (by "we" I mean all mankind) have the potential to be gods ourself. Notice the small "g" and not a big "G." That's to say that we become like Him, not replace Him or even equal to. Just receive all that He has. Which is also taught in the Bible. Does that mean you "get your own planet"? I suppose it's possible, and why not? But it's also no guarantee. It's also not as simple as following a few simple rules. Nor does it imply that the rest of humanity will go to hell.

The problem with this doctrine is not that it's secretive or that you have to "pay to play." This is one of the fundamental doctrines and it's one of the first things taught to non-members who are interested in learning more. But it's also one of the deepest and can be the hardest to comprehend. (And in my rush I'm probably making things worse.) I mean in someways it's very simple but in others we're dealing with a finite mortal mind trying to grasp the concepts of eternity and immortality.

The author also twisted what the role of the priesthood is and how it relates to women. This is probably because of the perception and role of the priesthood in other churches as having authority to advise or instruct. The author implies that a prepubescent boy can rule over his mother, but that just isn't the case and it's not how the priesthood works in the Mormon church. It's a role of service. If said prepubescent boy is not obedient to and honor his mother then he's not honoring his priesthood. The claim that Mormon women are oppressed would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

I would not vote for Romney based on his anti-gay record as Massachusetts' Governor. He was against same-sex marriage, fine whatever. But to be also against civil unions is baffling. Oh well.

I also believe in the separation of church and state and if I am convinced that a candidate would not mix the two, I would vote for them (and if I was in agreement with their takes on other issues as well).

But there is no way I would vote for a Republican presidential candidate in 2008.

Romney being a Latter-day Saint doesn't bother me. But the anti-gay stance his church has does bug me. But the anti-gayness of Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan etc ticked me off too...

I am backspacing over what I just wrote because I think it's just getting into a completely different subject than what the OP addresses, and for my part in that, I do apologize. I just think it's so odd that people can profess such beliefs against a religion, and therefore Romney, they don't seem to understand. (Understanding something and agreeing with something are two separate issues.)

There's a lot of misinformation out there, just as there is a lot of misinformation on a number of other cultures and religions. Worse, we're (not me or you, necessarily, but the general us) using misinformation instead of track records and performance to judge our political candidates. Again, I'm no Romney fan, but his Mormonism has nothing to do with that.

I'm not in line with the idea that Mormonism is all welcoming until you want to enter the temple and are considered "unclean." I'm also not on board with the whole women subservient to men belief, but that's not exclusive to Mormons.

I'm not sure that I would vote for a Mormon, but that's mainly based on what their beliefs would lead their political leanings to be. I'm not socially conservative.

Ugh. I just finished reading the rest of the article. Nothing but absolute lies. Especially regarding everything it said about marriage, divorce, and well, everything else too. Ugh.

My friend took the tour that is offered of the temple in Salt Lake City, so my knowledge comes from what was told to her directly from the Mormon tour guides. I don't know about all the historical stuff, but the subservience thing is definitely emphasized. I'll have to catch her later to have her tell me again what was said, but it did not leave a good impression on her.

Sorry you had to read a loser internet source, Bill.

I'd never vote for Romney because he's a Republican. Romney has said that he believes the American political system connects with his religion and he believes that the power of the U.S. is a God-given gift to be used to dominate other parts of the world. The U.S. would extend its role of being the world's policeman, just because Romney happens to believe that God would favor the U.S.

Would I vote for a Mormon if s/he were a Democrat? If a Mormon's political beliefs coincided with mine, then I'd consider voting for that candidate. I part company with Romney over his politics.

As for the live-and-let-live thing, my understanding is the Mormon Church believes all other Christian churches are in a state of apostasy, meaning that they are inferior in their Christian beliefs. It's rather similar to the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church that regarded Protestants as not in the fullness of the Christian faith. To my knowledge, this is the position of the Mormon Church at the present time - otherwise, why would they send their missionaries out to convert other Christians? Unless you're baptized and converted to Mormonism, you're outside the Pearly Gates. Eternal life is not accessible.

My husband was told by a Mormon who tried to convert him on the shores of Bear Lake in Idaho that being a Lutheran was a positive step beyond Catholicism but was not yet acceptable to the more advanced revelation of the Mormon Church. He said "You're half-way there but you haven't gotten there yet."

FYI....one of only two GOP Senators opposed to the Iraq war is a member of The Church of Latter Day Saints.

For what it's worth;)

With everything else being equal between two candidates, I would vote for the atheist every time. Every time.

It hasn't come up as often as I would have expected, but while the best known Mormon politicians seem to be Republican (before Romney, Orrin Hatch is probably the one most would have named), the current Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is Mormon.

So if one wants a Democratic version of the question, there's one. The other four Mormon senators are Republicans. In the House 7 of 10 are Republicans.

All else being equal, abso-freakin-lutely. I am in the minority here, by a considerable margin, but that's ok. If issues and all else put two candidates on a level playing field, the atheist would easily get my vote.

What concerned me about listening to Mitt this morning was not that he was a Mormon, but how religion would clearly define him and his decisions. He was careful to say that his personal religious beliefs would not guide his policy (hard to believe, but I'll take it on it's face for the sake of argument) but that belief in a "creator" would certainly define his administration. Not that this would technically be different than many if not all that preceded him, but he seemed far more adamant about it than is typically discussed from mainstream candidates and I have to admit frankly that it scared me a little.

Oh yeah, if there was no other differentiation between a non-atheist and an atheist. Then I would throw my lot to the atheist.

But if the only differentiation is between a Mormon and a person of some different faith/religion then it wouldn't really matter at all.

I don't expect to be offered the first choice within my lifetime (and being a materialistic atheist I also don't expect to be offered any choices after my lifetime either).

Well, sh**.

I don't get people who say they would NEVER vote for a person of a certain political party. While you may lean one way or the other, would you rather have an obviously bad person of your preferred party rather than one of "the other side" who might actually do some good?

Au contraire. Back in high school I loved dating Mormons. Those girls always put out, and the higher up in the church Daddy was, the freakier they were. Some rebellion against the cult thing, I think. I've got stories that are Forum worthy of things we did while the Elders were in the other room with the parents divvying up the spoils, er, I mean going over the church budget.

Yep, not much sexier in this world than a hotty in Jesus Jammies with a stifling religion to rebel against. :evil:



As far as Romney, I don't think his Mormonism is any worse than anyone else's religious affiliations. Personally I see Mormonism as more of a big Men's Club than a religion anyway.

The less religion plays a part in a politicians life, the happier I am with that politician. So, Romney would not be high on my list of potential canidates to vote for. I heard his comments several times today while driving around. Besides the fact the I kept thinking of Lloyd Benston's comment to Dan Quayle I was really disturbed by this comment:
No, Mitt, you are wrong. Now, go take your dog on vacation. (Sorry, but I cannot forget nor forgive that cruel act.)

I'm glad Jazzman has his priorities straight!

I can concur that those with a stifling religion to rebel against in fact DO put out.

I suppose that if some Democrat was looking to lower taxes for the rich and remove social aid programs and take art and music out of the classroom, and by some chance got nominated... and if some Republican was looking to raise taxes for the rich and add social aid programs and better fund the arts in the classroom and in the country... then yes. Yes, I would vote Republican.

Nobody is good or bad, everyone is complex and it seems to me that almost everyone does what they're doing because they think they're in the right. What I'm trying to illustrate with the above is that I really, highly disagree with the Republican party's stance on most things, and I'd be only likely to vote for them if they changed their stance to mine.

Also, I hope I'm not proven wrong, but I tend to think that Republican beliefs lend themselves more to what constitutes "obviously bad" behavior in my opinion (i.e. ME ME MEism, money-seeking and war profiteering, etc) and Democrats, less so. Not that the potential for bad behavior doesn't exist on both sides, but to someone who values empathy and social aid, the Democrats always come out smelling fresher - if only in the dirty diaper versus rotting corpse sense.

Any time people start thinking that one political party is truly better than the other, I remember this classic clip from Richard Jeni (RIP). Better words were never spoken.

I do like Richard Jeni, but I'm still not sure why the things he said about Democrats are so horrible.

And sure, everybody's a little dirty, everybody's a little annoying, everybody's a little hypocritical in one way or another.

Though I'm sure you don't agree, it really is OK for me to agree with one set of principles over another. And to keep doing it consistently.

I enjoyed Jeni, but I was always more of a Bill Hicks fan (remember, in this audio clip he's talking about Bush, Sr. and the first gulf war).

...and here's part two of the clip.

So are you saying that what he said in that routine (I assuming that you watched it and are commenting on it) about Republicans is true but what he said about Democrats is horrible?

I am not saying that it is not okay to have a set of principles. Instead, I believe that:

1. NO political party will ever stand for all that I believe in. And I believe that this holds true for most everyone else as well.
2. I believe that both of the major political parties have long ago lost sight of what there core values are and this is why I cannot support either one of them. Yes, I lean towards the Right (primarily because of their historic fiscal issues), but strongly disagree with many of their societal stances (gay marriage, abortion, etc.). But I cannot side with the Democrats either because historically, they want to take and spend too much of my money.
3. At elections, I review (as best I can) EACH candidate to see what they want to do in office, review their track record against that and see which I feel has the best chance of doing what I believe to be right. Whether they are Democrat or Republican usually has little bearing in and of itself.

Maybe we should make decisions for president based on comedian's sketches.

...but then how would we decide which comedian is right?

Ask the politicians.

Mormons seem no ore cultish to me than Catholics or pagans, everyone's got their rituals and I'm cool with that.

What bothers me more than religion is people who are dogmatic about their beliefs, and dogmatic atheists are as hard for me to stomach as evangelists. The more people talk about their religious beliefs the less likely I would vote for them

I do confess that I would have a very hard time to vote for anyone who holds a position in a religion. Anyone who is an ordained minister is an automatic no for me.

As for secret societies, I confess a certain fascination for those and would like to create my own some day.

How do we know you haven't already?

I especially enjoy these comments along with €'s avatar. He looks so contemplative in that picture.

(And, I still love my € button. That may have been worth the price of my laptop, alone.)

Shhh, it's a secret

I'm not voting for him until he teaches me the secret Temple handshake and code.;)


Actually, my MIL is Mormon, and since we share a house I get some up close and personal interactions with them. By and large nice group, but if you aren't with them you are not one of them. You get invited to bring presents to wedding receptions, but never the weddings. You are actually left out of a lot of things. And, apologies to PB, but they most definitely do subjugate their womenfolk. Nothing new in religious societies, but it is there, and pervasive. Maybe men don't notice it as much, but I can tell you the women certainly do. Still, I would vote for Romney, if he believed in anything I did politics-wise.

That's The Secret to you.

Isn't that an Oprah thing?

Hey! I wasn't invited in to the Secret Society. I guess I've been snubbed again.

Interesting question. Actually, if someone was a declared atheist, probably not. But that's because I've known too many proselytizing atheists who push their religion of non-religion on people. In other words, even atheism has its orthodox practitioners.

Now, would I vote for someone who didn't declare a particular preference for any specific set of beliefs but claimed they were at least spiritual, or who owned up to being a very casual practitioner of whatever their religion was? Hell yeah.

edit: how the hell did I end up putting a flamingo in this post? Bizarre. But cool. I think I'll leave it.

Secrecy in religion bothers me because I'm not sure you can declare that you believe in a particular religion when you haven't been told what you believe in.

Secretive organizations, on the other hand, are just cliques with a little costume drama. Joining a secretive organization is a bit different from declaring you believe in things you don't even know about.

Um...I'm not talking about the practitioners not knowing what there involved in but them not being willing to tell people not yet within the circle. Romney knows everything he needs to know about Mormonism; the question is whether he is open with other people about what those things are.

I'm not sure how being a half-hearted religious person is an improvement. I have more respect for people who realizing what they believe commit themselves to it wholeheartedly. I just thing they're wrong.

I'd vote for an atheist over a religious person if their qualities were the same. I don't vote down party lines and don't plan to start anytime soon.

Not quite what I was getting at. By the time people get to the inner circle, they've long since committed themselves to believing what they're told. And I wasn't really relating that to Romney in any way.
Not so much half-hearted as disconnected from dogma or perhaps willing to follow their heart when it differs from the religion they otherwise consider themselves as believing in.

Yes, but that is what I was talking about and you stated your post as a response to my question. So I figured I'd clarify.

I know this is obnoxious, but I just had to quote this in honor of yet another genius gone too soon. Loved Richard Jeni. Platypus Man will always be one of my favorite comedy features ever.

Apparently, candidates who are going to talk about religion, talk about it close to primaries. This is because those who show up to vote in primaries skew toward believers and even more than that, toward church-goers.

No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying; I am saying that what he said about Democrats is NOT horrible. (I said "I didn't understand why it's so horrible," meaning "I didn't understand what's so horrible about what he said," not "I didn't understand how he could say these 'horrible' things about Democrats.") I didn't say anything about truth on either side. Blanket statements tend to have a kernel of truth and a whole lot of generalization - especially when used for comic effect.

You didn't know me when, but I used to be a vocal political activist for breaking the two-party system. This was before the Iraq war, when my priorities were shaken by the actions taken led by our Republican government. And yes, the Democrats didn't stop him from going to war. But personally, I doubt we would have gone if Gore had been in the office. And I very, very much regretted my third-party vote (even if it wouldn't have helped) the moment we stepped into Iraq.

I do review every major candidate, in any party, during the year or two before the election. But it all seems pretty futile to me. No, no single candidate stands completely in alignment with me, and they never will unless it's ME running. We're all beautiful ****ing snowflakes, etc. But that does not stop me from noticing that most of the Republican candidates' political views are in opposition to my views, while the Democrats are (for the most part) campaigning for things I agree with.

I'm not a centrist. I very very much want to get us out of Iraq. I want to stop the hemorrhaging war funds leading to war profiteering while bankrupting the country. I very much want to seek out goodwill internationally because I believe we've sullied our name with our middle-eastern meddling over the last thirty or forty years. I want to legalize gay marriage. I want to keep church and state completely separate. I want to see arts funded and schools funded and social aid programs funded. I want to fund it myself, with raised taxes. I want people who can afford taxes (MYSELF INCLUDED) to pay them. I want wealthy people to pay them even more. I want a better healthcare system. And yes, I even want to unite the partisan country under a common goal of improving life for each other and NOT taking lives overseas. If, in my review, I can find a Republican who agrees with me about these things, I'll consider voting for them.

Heh, re-reading your statement, Kevin, it seems clear to me that you and I just never going to agree here because of our opinions regarding taxation. You are centrist because you're socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I am liberal because I'm both socially liberal AND looking to take and spend too much of your money on things like textbooks for classrooms as opposed to body armor for soldiers. Wait. The Republicans aren't funding that, either!

Oh, and in case anyone didn't know, Mitt's real first name is Willard.







I don't know what that has to do with anything, but I believe I figured out why he goes by "Mitt".




:D

I think having a president named Willard would be prefereable to Mitt or Strom or Orrin. I do wonder where some of these names come from.

Augustus Throckmorton Peele for president

Well, we've had one named Millard...

That makes it worse. He CHOSE to go with Mitt, rather than being stuck with it. Now I REALLY can't vote for him.

I have some pretty odd names in my family tree. My grandfather was named Dorr, one further back was Mahetable.

I had a great-aunt Fronie!

Lavancha was a popular name in my mother's family for 3 or 4 generations. My grandmother broke that tradition with her 5 daughters, but then named one of them Gleytus. :rolleyes:

I had a grand uncle named Topsy. (They used to call him that because he used to fall topsy turvy on the street because he was so drunk.)

And my dad's sister's nickname is Faffy. (LOVE that one.)

And best of all, my dad's mom was called "The Black Orchid". I always found that one to be really neat.

My Aunt Sophie goes by the name Bunny.

My paternal grandfather was nicknamed "Grumpy." My maternal grandfather was nicknamed "Poopy." Both of these nicknames came from some grandchild or grandchildren that couldn't say "grandpa."

I have a niece who calls me "Duncle."

I'm going to be in the minority here and say that I pretty much decided he wasn't a candidate for my vote the instant I found out he was Mormon. I agree with others here that most of the Mormon's I've known have been really swell people (and, living in AZ, I've known quite a few). But having spent so many years in a cult, I'm just not willing to vote for a member of what I consider to be another cult.

And yes, I think all religions are cultish in some ways, but in all the cult psychology research I've been doing, Mormons and JW's are the only mainstream religions discussed. The level of mind control is so much higher than most Catholics, Baptists, whatever. That and the fact that Mormon's consider themselves the "true faith" like JW's, I just wouldn't trust that he wouldn't be pushing a religious agenda in govt.

Now there are varying degrees of fundamentalism in Mormonism, and there are some for which it's more of a social/business thing, if I got that vibe from Romney then maybe it wouldn't be an issue. Or if I agreed with his politics then maybe I could get over the religion thing. But as it stands, he's Republican and Mormon, and I just don't want to use my first presidential vote on that combination.

Getting back to presidential names….

We have had:

6 James
4 Johns
4 Williams
3 Georges
2 Andrews
2 Franklins

1 each of the following:

Abraham
Benjamin
Calvin
Chester
Dwight
Gerald
Grover
Harry
Herbert
Lyndon
Martin
Millard
Richard
Ronald
Rutherford
Theodore
Thomas
Ulysses
Warren
Woodrow
Zachary

My grandmother's name was Prudence but we called her "Caudie". My best friends grandmother was "Manu".

Great-great uncle Baker (Bake for short). My grandfathers middle name was Trout. Great Aunt Raghnild. My great grandmother's middle name was Lola - she was no Lola. Some relative was Ivor.

Sorry to add to the derail portion of this thread, but I can't help mentioning a name from my own family tree. I had a great-uncle who went by O.B. That's because his folks named him Orange Bud Pickett. Yep, Orange Bud Pickett. I don't know if he ever had it legally changed, but OB is all he ever answered to, and O.B. Pickett is what his grave marker reads.

Melford is my middle name and it was my grandfather's first.

I see a lot of names of people in their sixties who live in the South. I see some very interesting names. Unfortunately, I cannot post them.

Zero. There's an esteem builder.

And how about last names, eh? Butts, Willfahrt, and Hooker - all names I've had to read aloud from class lists.

Akaka always made me laugh.
:D

I was bored one day at work and started typing naughty words into the global address book. There used to be a guy in another country with the last name, Fvck. And as I looked again just now, there's a guy in India with the last name Sh!t.

Seemed as good as a place an any to post this:

Ron Paul earns support of Nevada brothel owner

Yeah, it's old news (2-1/2 weeks), but it amused me.

Then there is Ima Hogg...

The weirdest family names I can think of are Ivol and Electa (no R).

I keep clicking on this thread and wondering why I keep ending up at the "Weird Family Names" thread. ;)

It's the only way some of us can contribute to a thread in the Daily Grind section.

What exactly does "govern for all citizens" mean?

I disagree with many stances of many politicians. Does this mean they don't govern for me? I don't share the influences that they have had in their lives. Does this mean they don't govern for me?

Elected officials govern for the United States of America. I do not know of one with whom I completely agree.

I've never understood this in terms of the "religious" issue. It would apply to anyone who thinks taxes should be raised for whatever reason, or supports socialized health care. If Hillary is elected, is it valid to say she doesn't govern for me because she will most likely push for both? Who the hell cares what the motivations are. The laws and policies effect us all equally.

For me the "religious issue" is someone who wants to ban abortion or gay marriage because their religion says it's wrong. I'm sure there are agnostic/atheist/spiritual people who also believe it's wrong but you don't see them running for office. In our faces are politicians who say they want to ban abortion because the bible says life begins at conception and that is what I believe. Or they want to ban gay marriage because the bible says it's wrong.

I don't want to see this turn into an abortion/anti-abortion gay marriage/anti-gay marriage debate/derail - I'm trying to explain how the "religious issue" plays out for me.

Do I care what religion people are in my daily life? Not a bit. Do I care if my friends are pro-choice or pro-life in my daily life? Not a bit. But when an elected official wants to ban things that don't effect anyone except the parties directly involved because of their religion, it's an issue to me.

If a candidate came out and said "I'm pro-life and my religion teaches that men and men or women and women should not lay together but I realize and respect that not everyone in this country has those beliefs and I will not try to change the laws to take away those choices" and their voting record showed that I'd totally vote for them.

If my mother and father were alive today they wouldn't vote for Mitt because he is Mormon and, to their belief, Mormonism is a cult. I'm not sure how prevalent that belief is within the fundamental world now, but it sure was common thinking when I was growing up (my best friend was a member of said cult when I was growing up).

Our current president is governing essentially only for businessmen, and religious conservatives. He pushes for laws and policies that reflect his particular religious doctrine, with no secular reasons for them (prohibiting US funding for foreign clinics who even think about abortion even though those abortions don't use US money). He has no interest in what anybody says in his citizenry. Biblical rules really don't have any meaning to those of us who don't follow the bible as a holy text. It's just stories to me, yet I am being asked to accept biblical teachings in public spheres. No.

My current elected US Congressman is the same way, for the same reason- religion. He's a rich white conservative Christian guy and anyone who isn't can just go fly a kite in a thunderstorm cuz he doesn't care. He phrases it a little more politely, but it's still a complete blow-off. Apparently people in this county agree with his social conservatism and sadly, I'm stuck with him. I write him letters, though. He knows his county is more diverse than he's willing to admit. He just doesn't seem to care.

It's true that this happens in non-religious ways, but it seems to be more prevalent in relation to religious laws and teachings.

Let religion guide your personal life but don't start making policy for the rest of us. It's like in Muslim countries, all women are required to wear the covering, Muslim or no. That's the kind of thing that scares me.

I'd be with you there.

We are all, however, simply a conglomeration of our experiences. I share the same fervor you that you, APG, and you, BTD have stated regarding religious influence in governing when it comes to raising my taxes or moving toward socialized health care. I reject the argument that someone who rejects (or pushes for) something because of religious faith is any different than someone who rejects (or pushes for) something for any other reason.

The Constitution says there shall be no religious test in order to hold office. This works both for those who profess a religious faith and those who do not. You cannot be excluded for either. You freely have a right not to vote for someone who has religious ideas that influence them, but they certainly have as much of a right to run and govern in a fashion that they see best for the country.

I don't care the reason for policy decisions. Saying someone who has faith as one guiding factor in their lives should not be elected without saying they will not allow that to influence them or guide them in decisions is bigotry.

I find it interesting that as long as someone agrees with a policy decision, they don't care if it is based on religion. I know many, many religious people who believe that medicine shjould be socialized. If someone says "Jesus was the great healer, and would want us all to be healed. For this reason, if elected, I will push for a national socialized health care system.", would that be OK because that is a policy you agree with?

It isn't the religious influence, it is the policy, and the religious influence is simply the rallying cry of those who dislike the policy, shouting from the mountain tops "separation of church and state", all the while ignoring what I mentioned previously, that there can be no religious test of any kind for someone to hold office. Clearly religious influence is not disallowed in the least - and dare I say religious influence certainly played a large role the founding of this country, and therefore I would argue it is encouraged.

I honestly don't think Bush is really helping businessmen all that much, or at least not for small- and mid-sized businesses. He is, certainly, helping the religious right.

Bleh.

And the big corporations.

Where does it say that religion has no place in politics? This is an opinion, just as saying that religion has a place in politics.

Religion in many builds a sense of right and wrong that is no different than the sense of right and wrong that you may have, though they are most likely different. Because my sense of right and wrong may include religious influences and yours does not does not mean mine is less valid.

You would be just as much against someone who says that because a fetus can experience pain at such and such a week in utero or that since a fetus is viable after such and such a week in utero that abortion should be outlawed after that point as you would to someone who used religious justification for the same desire to outlaw it. You may say you respect the reasons more, but you would still be against it. Those are non-religious reasons.

Not to bring up a sore subject, but there was a discussion about the horrible practice of aborting a baby in India simply because it is female. Why is the disgust at that reason any more valid than disgust at it for a religious reason?

Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, the founders of this country were religious individuals (overall) and without those religious individuals involved in politics with their religious viewpoints coming into play, this country would not exist.

Religion is tricky because it forms part of of an individuals evaluation and decision making processes. Policy decisions especially lend themselves to evaluation of "rightness" or "wrongness". I can't say that I would be able to make any policy decisions that were completely devoid of any influence from my religious beliefs. Mormonism, Catholicism, humanism - they all are systems of belief that, at their core, have something to say about what behavior is or isn't proper.

There can be a very fine line between "I am making this decision because, based on the totality of my influences and life experiences, it is the best decision for the entire country" and "I am making this decision because my church/not church has decreed that it is the proper decision." They can sound like such different approaches in the abstract, but in implementation - for some people those two concepts are synonymous.

And I guess that's where I draw the line with candidates - do I think that they're capable of seeing a distinction? Or is their faith/non-faith so dominant in their life that inevitably both they and their church will dictate the same decision?

Jesus' healing power has nothing to do with instituting socialized medicine and would be used to invoke feelings of referent power of those who hold the same beliefs.

If the same politician said "I think our health care system is messed up and I believe socialized medicine is the answer. Here's why..." I'd be more inclined to listen and consider giving them my vote. They can think that socialized medicine should be instituted because Jesus was a great healer all they want, but they better have reasons other than that if they want to implement a new medical system to get my attention/vote.

Jesus' healing power does have something to do with socialized medicine to some people. So does welfare because Jesus was charitable and encouraged giving to the poor. I'm not trying to get into a debate about whether I agree with those points of view or not (though I do disagree), I'm just trying to say that because some may want these things because of certain religious beliefs does not make them less valid than wanting them for any other reason. Disagreements in policy is fine.....I just don't see why the motivations for said policies have to be the focal point. Either something is good policy or it is bad policy.

With all of this being said, however, I fully and completely admit that I wouldn't vote for a Muslim for any office, not because of the potential of requiring women to wear Burkas (or whatever), but because of foreign policy issues. Am I bigoted? Perhaps. I make certain assumptions about what our Middle East policy would become, just as you make assumptions on what the policies of a devout Christian would be.

I fail to see, however, what Bush has done - with the possible exception of denial of funding to embryonic stem cell research (which had never been given before, btw) - that has been legislating for the religious right. His Supreme Court nominees? I guess an argument could be made from an abortion standpoint, but I see them as strict constructionists rather than religious zealots. His charitable partnerships with religious organizations? This has been cross faith and not only Christian.

Oh, I think it's fair to say the religious fundies of America are pretty disappointed with Bush.

But how do they feel about Romney? About Huckabee? Are they likely to be just as disappointed with either of them as they ended up being with Bush, or would either of those candidates govern more to their idiological liking?

I agree that to some people Jesus' healing power has something to do with socialized medicine (and I'll agree with your welfare statement as well). However, to say "I'm going to implement socialized medicine because Jesus was a great healer" or "I'm going to implement welfare because Jesus was charitable" is not enough reason to do so, IMO. The person stating those is invoking feelings of referent power and no other reason because "Jesus was [xyz]" as their reasoning. There better be some damn good reasoning (besides the current system is seriously broken) to go messing with the medical system, or the welfare system. I want to see plans, ideas, thought processes beyond "Jesus was...".

Back to Mitt - I wouldn't not vote for him because he is Mormon, though through I am more hesitant to vote for him because is. I will admit that nearly all my experiences with Mormons (besides Erica's g-ma and Mr. PirateBill) have been scary and cult-like. Nearly every conversation involved going to hell if you weren't Mormon, you need to convert now to save your soul - told to us by adults who were supposed to be helping us.

I wouldn't not vote for a Muslim because they are Muslim either. Not all Muslim's agree with what is going on in the Middle East. Like all candidates (and this would apply to Rommey too) I want to hear what they have to say. Not that I'll believe them, but I want to hear it.

The reasoning behind the policy is important. Yes, of course, I will complain less volubly if the reasoning produces the answer I prefer, but that is selfish weakness.

As you've rightly pointed out many times in the past, we do not live in a direct democracy but a representative democracy. As a citizen I do not generally get direct input into deciding issues of law and policy. If I did, then it would be easy to say "I don't care how you came to this conclusion, since you agree with me welcome aboard and maybe we'll split on the next one."

So, since single issue confrontation is not possible in our political system (and I don't necessarily think it should be possible, I've argued in defense of it repeatedly as well) it is important for me to know not only that the person I'm voting for agrees with me on key issues but that they have a framework and method for reaching decisions that I feel is reliable in producing future agreement.

I do not view "the bible is the literal word of god and all we need to know about life and behavior is in it" to be such a method. And, if in the end, the only reasons one can give for a policy decision is some form of "somebody wrote it in a book and I trust that person implicitly" then I do not think that sufficient reason to try and impose that decision universally. Great, it works for them, but every aspect of personal morality need not be legislated into a universal one just because you've been elected to office.