Mitt Romney and Mormonism

[blueerica]

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.

[JWBear]

And the big corporations.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Small business is run by the middle class- Bush cares about the *big* moneymen. Not the little guy, even though the little guy is what keeps this country *afloat*.

I disagree with religious justifications for public policy, whether I agree with the policy or not. Religion has no place in politics. If there are secular reasons for a law, then there are reasons. If there are no secular reasons, only religious reasons, it's not good.

[scaeagles]

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.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

Ok, so it's an opinion. Fine. The thing is, that in using religious justifications, how do you tell someone of a different religion that they have to live under the rules of your god? Saying a fetus is viable at a particular point or can feel pain are reasons that all people can discuss, arguments that I could accept, regardless of my agreement or disagreement, where "my god says it's wrong" is countered by "your god is not my god and my god says it's fine". When making laws, we need rational reasons, to be accepted by all people, not just people of a given religion.

For you personally, yes, your religious values systems hold value. But if you wish to convince me, of a competing religious system, you will need more than just religion.

I'm not sure how religious our founders really were; they lived in a time of essentially compulsory religion, though it had eased somewhat. Belief did not matter much. Yes, our founding documents call on god, but I have a feeling it was more form than substance. Maybe it had to appeal to the broad spectrum of citizens, none of whom would have found it easy to stand up and object. I think it was kind of like the rounds a while ago of "why do you hate America" if one objected to current administration policy.

[Prudence]

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?

[Alex]

The thing is, that in using religious justifications, how do you tell someone of a different religion that they have to live under the rules of your god? Saying a fetus is viable at a particular point or can feel pain are reasons that all people can discuss, arguments that I could accept, regardless of my agreement or disagreement, where "my god says it's wrong" is countered by "your god is not my god and my god says it's fine". When making laws, we need rational reasons, to be accepted by all people, not just people of a given religion.

Here's something you won't see me do very often when I could just bloviate some more:

Me too, well said.

If the politician can't provide support for a policy decision without resorting to religious doctrine or dogma, then in my opinion they don't have any good reasons for making it policy. And politicians that can't see that distinction scare me.

[scaeagles]

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.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

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.

[innerSpaceman]

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?