Mitt Romney and Mormonism

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Only if he's fervent. (And that would be the same disqualifier for any candidate who's fervent about any religious faith.)

Originally Posted by Moonliner

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

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

The less religion plays a part in a politicians life, the happier I am with that politician.

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

The more people talk about their religious beliefs the less likely I would vote for them

I didn't expect to like Mitt, but I thought I'd give it a moment and see how the game played out. I don't like many Republican candidates, mostly for their pro-business stance and inclination to benefit the wealthy instead of regular people, and definitely I oppose their social issues.

I initially said "hells yeah" to the thought of an atheist in the White House, but then came across the post talking about fervent anybody being disturbing, and that was even more right.

My big question is if you can step outside of your personal beliefs and do what is best for *all* citizens, many of whom will not be in your religious or spiritual camp. I was willing to gamble on John Kerry, though he's a Catholic ( a religion I can't get behind very well at all) but I thought he could keep religion and politics separate and govern for *all* citizens.

So will I vote for Mitt? Not likely.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

[but I thought he could keep religion and politics separate and govern for *all* citizens.

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.

[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.