Mitt Romney and Mormonism

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I've never understood this in terms of the "religious" issue.

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.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

What exactly does "govern for all citizens" mean?
...
I've never understood this in terms of the "religious" issue.

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.

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

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.

I'd be with you there.

[Kevy Baby]

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

Ron Paul earns support of Nevada brothel owner

Campaigning through Northern Nevada today, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul picked up the enthusiastic support of Nevada brothel owner Dennis Hof.

After sitting through a 20-minute press conference with Paul, Hof vowed to put up a collection box outside the door of his Moonlight Bunny Ranch brothel to take up contributions for the candidate who he says, "Makes a lot of sense, doesn't he?"

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

[JWBear]

Then there is Ima Hogg...

[Prudence]

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

[Not Afraid]

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

[DreadPirateRoberts]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

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.

[Not Afraid]

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).

[scaeagles]

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.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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?

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.