Posted on 04/18/2012 6:23:36 AM PDT by Wolf13
It's often taken for granted that Christian conservatives' uneasiness with Mormonism best explains why Mitt Romney has struggled to win-over those voters.
In Inside the Circus, a new e-book about the 2012 campaign by Politico's Mike Allen and Evan Thomas, the Romney campaign is depicted as so consumed with worry that the candidate's faith would hurt him with the evangelicals that dominated the Iowa caucuses that it failed to anticipate Rick Santorum's rise. "Part of the reason for the ceiling [of support], quite frankly, is the Mormon thing," a Romney aide told the authors. "If he was even an Episcopalian, he'd be better off today."
Negative perceptions of Mormonism so worried Romney's 2008 presidential team that, according to Politico, "the dilemma had its own acronym in campaign power point presentations: TMT (That Mormon Thing)."
Of course, Romney's ideologically malleability and political opportunism -- not his faith -- has always been his biggest liability with conservatives. But the Mormon angle allowed the media to portray conservatives as bigoted theocrats.
The media's preoccupation with anti-Mormon sentiment on the right has distracted from what is arguably a much more pervasive anti-Mormonism on the secular left.
Reams of polling data make clear that anti-Mormonism is not exclusively, or even predominantly, a problem on the right. A 2011 Gallup poll found that 27% of Democrats said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon of their own party for president, 50% more than the 18% of Republicans who felt that way. In a Quinnipiac survey, 46% of Democrats said they wouldn't be comfortable with a Mormon president, while 29% of Republican respondents felt similarly.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
If Romney believed in whatever aspect of Mormonism you find offensive but also believed in a constitutionally limited federal government bound by the enumerated powers that do not extend to ObamaCare/RomneyCare, in the legal and moral authority of the Second Amendment, in a balanced budget with government staying within its means, and in other conservative practices, would you still object to his religious quirks enough that you could not vote for him?
My objection to Romney is exactly the same as my objection to Obama - both are big government liberals who will inflict exceptionally grave damage on a country that I love. Obama claims to be Christian, although I have grave doubts. Romney claims to be LDS, although I find little in common between the tenets of his alleged faith and the actual decisions he makes when in power. I’ll vote based on their governmental actions, not their claimed religious beliefs. The bottom line though is that we reach the same final decision - Romney is unacceptable (in my case because of how he will govern, and in your case because of how he prays???).
LOL
Good point.
One word answer to that, “no.” Do I believe there are members of the church who are more liberal than I think is acceptable? Absolutely. Would I feel comfortable saying I am a member of the LDS Church if I supported homosexual rights and abortion? Absolutely not. Is Romney my first choice for president, or even my second or third? Nope! But you better believe that that if he wins the nomination (or ANYONE else) I will be working to get him elected, because if Obama is a lame duck president for the next four years this country is done.
Sounds like you're intolerant about this.
Which, btw, makes you a "bigot" (by your own standards) about those who express that they take issue with multi-gods, necro-baptism, and baptizing holocaust victims.
Anti-LDS bigotry is the opposite of valuing individualism, a trait that characterizes real conservatism.
Well, you've managed to refute yourself on this thread. Because if you truly valued the "individual" religious expressions that highlighted concerns about Mormonism -- and if you truly valued those people who made those expressions, then you wouldn't go around engaging in liberal progressive tactics like calling people "bigots."
You would be more tolerant of them. You're obviously not.
Which makes you -- by your own standard -- less appreciative of their individualism...which, again, by your own measure, makes you less of a "conservative" as you define a "conservative."
If Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, George Bush -- or, when he was running, Ronald Reagan -- if ANY of them announced that they were "a god in embryo" (a fave Mormon "prophet" term to describe Lds)...
...who were eternally progressing toward godhood...
...and would one day receive worship, glory, adulation, adoration, appeal prayers from people, and have the Same creative abilities as God...
...you would 100% ignore that?
Seems to me that if any non-Mormon candidates claimed the above, it'd raise quite a rucus on FR & most media venues...for months on end...
But because a Mormon believes it, ho-hum.
Sorry...but the belief that somebody is god-bound on his way to running his own world raises some key questions for voters...
#1: If this wannabe leader of the free world is so readily vulnerable to deception in the supposed most important area of his life, how can we trust him with other highly important matters? Gullibility is a character & POTUS "job description" issue!
#2: If Hillary Clinton declared she was a goddess and would one day receive worship & glory as a goddess, I would call it out for what it is: A glory-hound whose pride knows no boundaries. That kind of arrogance is a severe character issue. And character is a key thing upon which to measure a candidate.
You? Sounds like you become an apologist for Mormonism...because you give their worldviews...their character...their gullibility...a pass...a pass that you likely wouldn't give others (especially Democrats) if they adhered to them.
In addition to serving as bishop and stake president, Romney has been: Mitt…held…offices of…Missionary, Missionary Zone Leader, assistant to…Mission President…,…Bishop and Stake President…
Source: Tricia Erickson: 'An indoctrinated Mormon should never be elected as President'
The cousin of Mitt's father, Marion Romney, served as one of three highest-ranking Mormons in their hierarchy.
Mitt is a direct descendent of two Pratt brothers who were both "apostles."
The Romneys are deemed as one of those "hierarchical" Mormon legacy families.
What part of his religious beliefs do you feel is relevant to a discussion about selecting a politician to be President?
That’s the point. It makes FR look foolish to have people on here “exposing” Mormon beliefs.
You’re a bigot if someone’s religion is a deciding factor in whether you support them.
You're not one of those "hermetically sealed" people who think you can parcel out within a candidate character, worldviews, core values, etc. as being "religious" vs. "non-religious" are you? [What? Inside of us is there "Door #1" ... "Door #2"... "Door #3" and none of the above interacts???]
Please explain where you would even try to start and where you end with character, worldviews, core values, eect???
You see, the majority of the American populace doesn't think the way you do...In fact, with your comment, "You’re a bigot if someone’s religion is a deciding factor in whether you support them." -- you think & act more culturally like a liberal...Not only in the labeling tactics, but you (& Pollster1) wind up calling the majority of Americans "bigots!"
On what basis do I make this claim?
A Late 2006 Rasmussen poll revealed:
The Rasmussen Reports survey found that 35% say that a candidate's faith and religious beliefs are very important in their voting decision. Another 27% say faith and religious beliefs are somewhat important. Ninety-two percent (92%) of Evangelical Christian voters consider a candidate's faith and beliefs important. On the partisan front, 78% of Republicans say that a candidate's faith is an important consideration, a view shared by 55% of Democrats. However, there is also a significant divide on this topic within the Democratic Party. Among minority Democrats, 71% consider faith and religious beliefs an important consideration for voting. Just 44% of white Democrats agree.
So…what percent of the following groups found that a candidate’s faith and religious beliefs are an important consideration for voting?
(1) Americans: 62%
(2) Evangelical Christians: 92%
(3) Republicans: 78%
(4) Minority Democrats 71%
(5) Democrats: 55% [still a majority]
Obviously, I think those % have dropped in the past 5+ years...Still...most voters now were also represented in those same 2006 polls...
If the other-worldly worldviews of a POTUS candidate doesn't phase your trust in their character, gullibility, level of discernment, etc...So be it. (It's a Free Republic)
But for those voters who do integrate such considerations amongst other criteria such as social issues' stances, candidate viability, scandal-free past, economic policies, and the like, this included dimension of religious evaluation describes a majority of voters!
So stop labeling a majority of us Americans as "bigots!"
It shows that you quite the intolerant lot that has to impose your worldview by crass progressive tactics...and worse, acting like liberals (who while preaching "tolerance" are quite intolerant of a lot about us conservatives!)
My post #1 at this thread (read the thread excerpt also) provides a good summation: Does Romney's Mormonism Matter?
There, I mention
(1) how a candidate's soteriology does intersect with leadership skills & character
and (2) How discernment is a VERY important character trait that people usually fail to think of when it comes to their incomplete A-B-C list within a POTUS job description.
I don't question Mitt Romney's intelligence. I question his level of discernment.
Another area of exploration -- one in which Romney will need to answer questions on -- is how his "prophet" can manipulate him as a POTUS.
At the same link I just gave you, I posted a chart @ post #32 which explains disturbing Mormon leader comments (in detail)...which DO pertain to the socio-political realm of an Lds leader potentially puppeteering Mormons in the political arena.
Romney needs to address those questions. (He won't; which just ups the degree of suspicion we should all have of Mormon "prophets." A Mormon "prophet" carries 100x more authority than a given Pope these days...that wasn't always true in Roman Catholicism)
I think you missed Sunday School teacher.
Since Newt and Rick are Catholics, should we bring up their religion in every post about them as well?
How far does it go?
I’m not a Mitt backer at all, but I don’t see the purpose of bashing his religion every time his name is mentioned.
Mormons, by and large, are good people with solid character. Yes, they have some wacky beliefs, but so do Baptists.
From my perspective.
I don’t let that poison my mind.
It’s sad what you do and it makes all of FR look kookish and bigoted.
Your claim to represent the vast majority of Americans is silly, too.
Well, if were talking about Harry Reid, I'd mention Harry's official Mormon church role as a visiting home teacher...
Isn't it great that Harry is "teaching the faith" in Mormon homes??? (He's a bonafide Mormon)
Yes, much better to have a Muslim as president...
“whatever aspect of Mormonism you find offensive”
The problem with your statement is that this is not about me being offended. Foul language offends me, but I wouldn’t disqualify a president based on that. There’d be no one left to choose from.
No, what motivates my concern is that there is a connection between one’s religious views and one’s policy views. For example, JFK was Catholic, yet he was supported by many Protestants. Arguably this is because he had no obvious conflict of interest being both Catholic and President. But would the people of that time have elected JFK if he were a top Catholic cardinal, in line to possibly become Pope one day? There is no constitutional barrier to such a scenario, but I have no doubt that voters in their wisdom would have sensed the potential for a serious conflict of interest and rightly rejected him. And they would be constitutionally free and morally right to express those misgivings at the polls.
But Mormonism takes that problem to a whole new level. In the history of religion there has always been a profound conflict between those who see God as the one, original Creator, as eternally distinguishable from his creation, and those who see deity as something more heterogeneous and evolutionary. This is really the great divide between traditional monotheistic religions and what is popularly called paganism. The belief in self-deification is expressly rejected as fundamental evil by example in the Genesis story. What was Lucifer’s temptation to Eve? “You will be as gods.” What is Lucifer’s temptation to Marxists? Same thing. What is the core principle of “magic” as understood by Anton Levey (of Church of Satan fame)? Self-deification.
So while you may or may not see such things with alarm, you may understand from the above why many simple, humble Christians just intuitively cringe at the idea of actually supporting for public office a high-ranking officer of a religion that is, at it’s core, the sworn and bitter enemy of almost all that traditional Christians hold dear.
There are other considerations, too. Many Christians see us at a crossroads in this country, where because we have culturally abandoned God (and we have), that God has every right to abandon us and surrender us to our enemies (and may well have done so in the person of Obama). But now, given a chance to repent of our national evils, instead we elect a President whose religion is a formal embodiment of that rejection of the God of traditional Christianity. Do you think God will bless that presidency? Or will it become the last straw for the Christian God? Do you get why some Christians just cannot pull the lever for Romney no matter what the political fallout?
And speaking of our bitter enemies, have you considered how the marketing of Jihad will be affected by the election of a polytheistic American President? I promise you, to our Islamofascist enemies, it would be seen and trumpeted as a clear sign from Allah himself that he has washed his hands of America, that it is now time to pull out all the stops. It would clear the conscience of many a young, more moderate Muslim worried about going against “the People of the Book,” (Christians and Jews), especially if the Americans freely chose by vote a polytheist to rule over them. Would that not mean they have all formally rejected the God of Abraham? I’d love to be a fly on the wall of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership, because they must be in deep conflict over whether a Romney presidency would help them even more than Obama has.
As for your core argument, that religion is irrelevant as long as some set of key conservative principles is observed, I don’t buy it, for two reasons. People are who they are. You don’t get to be a high bishop in a religion without that affecting your decision-making apparatus. Or if your religion has no effect on your policy, that’s even worse, because you’re religious life is all fraud and hypocrisy. Your religion *should* influence your thinking. Your beliefs about the great issues *should* define you.
But even if you disregard the role of religion in forming and informing Romney, please reconsider your premise: IF all these key conservatives principles could be maintained, then all these religious concerned could at least be diminished. Well, maybe. But with Romney we have better information that that. We KNOW how he governs, and it is NOT conservative. Therefore he is either lying or prevaricating. Take your pick. And I know this personally about him. I was a legal intern at a constitutional law firm during his governorship in MA, and I know for a fact his regime was working hard against Christian hospital workers trying honor the sanctity of life. They came to us crying out for help, but we declined, probably because the case was not desirable from a PR point of view. Yes, I know that’s bad. I didn’t like it either. But that’s how it went down. And that’s who Romney is. Like my dad used to say, you want know what someone will do, look at what they’ve done. It’s a good rule, and it applies here.
Helping you out here, the role is “home teacher.” And it is a role that every attending male over 12 years old has (the women’s role is “visiting teacher”).
Alternatively, Muslims may see this as the election of a member of the distinctly American version of Christianity.
Either way, they'll hate us.
I don't think the "moderate Muslim" on the street is too worried about subtle details of Christian dogma.
They hate us all. Left and right. Because we aren't under Islam.
I'm going to give you 3 answers in 3 quick successive posts...
#1 I don't bring up Mitt's Mormonism in every post about him...
Some, I'm talking about his pro-abortion record...
...or his socialistic healthcare track record...
...or his appointment of liberal judges...
...or his three distinct stances on treating homosexual employees as "minorities..."
In MANY of the posts where I do discuss Mitt's Mormonism, I'm really addressing the implications of those beliefs & convictions: That he...
...lacks discernment to become THE leader of the Free world...
...is vulnerable to deception because of his life-long major gullibility bents...
...is arrogant & prideful to the max -- that he thinks he is a "god in embryo" on his way to running his own world as a future grown-up "god"...
...is racist for not objecting the first 13 years of his adult life the open racist doctrines & policies of his church, which he gave 10% of his income to...
...disses his very base of his party by embracing the "faith of his fathers" -- a "faith" that labels us Christians as "corrupt" "apostates" who embrace 100% abominable (putrid) creeds [Note: If the Republicans nominated a Muslim, I'd call out the Muslim in this same way for his faith calling us Christians "infidels"]
#2 If Newt & Rick belonged to ANY church which engaged in open racism during these men's adult membership, then they are relevant issues to be discussed...they are on the table...
ESPECIALLY since -- and this is key -- if the candidate won't even discuss the matter!!!
What? Are you in favor of a candidate "tabling" his racist ties??? Is that what you're advocating?
If he won't discuss them, then, yes...we need to raise the issue over & over again until he begins to address them!!!
No, because the left hates Christians and Catholics with the same passion they hate Mormons.
Muslims are okay though.
This attack isn’t to turn off liberals. They are appealing to Mormon haters on our side and they could be successful.
There is plenty people don’t like about Romney. But the left covers all the bases. Shame we don’t do that as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.