thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Feb 8, 2008 16:20:24 GMT -5
You will not hear many people say out loud what is well known. Romney was unelectable because he is a Mormon, sad as that may be. I know there are other Christian ministers that have openly taken on the Mormon religion, branding it as a cult and saying Mormons are not Christians. I've even had someone tell me they could never vote for a Mormon but could vote for an atheist. And, this is not confined to Evangelicals nor to Republicans. It's widespread. Kinda wierd the country seems to be willing to elect a female or a black person President but have not gotten over the hump on Mormons. Do you know anything about Mormonism? My god its a weird cult. I grew up with mormon friends in San Diego and I'll say this- they are generally very nice family people. But.....BUT....someone who truly believes in that garbage...you have every right to question their intelligence and rationality for the presidency. (To be fair I could never have voted for say Huckabee- some of his beliefs (evolution) are just beyond the pale of reasonable to me.) So that said... I would MUCH sooner elect an atheist than a Mormon or anyone else who is convinced a convicted con artist received gold plates from God in Missouri 175 years ago. It is also a religion that was OFFCIALLY racist in Romney's lifetime, and he is a church elder, no mere member. I think all religions are crap, but this one is really whacked. The way you sound surprised that people would vote for an atheist over a member of a weird religion indicates to me you are prejudiced against atheists... Why? Skepticism it seems to me is a FAR better quality than faith for a chief executive. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 8, 2008 16:30:05 GMT -5
thebin - I think you backed up my point that some people would not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. And, no, I'm not prejudiced against atheists. I would vote for an atheist for President, just as I would vote for a Mormon - providing I considered the atheist or the Mormon to be the better of the candidates for President.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,234
|
Post by hoya9797 on Feb 8, 2008 16:32:13 GMT -5
Joe Smith actually got the plates in New York. Mormons think that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and that the second coming will happen in Missouri. Now doesn't it all make sense?
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,374
|
Post by SDHoya on Feb 8, 2008 16:45:49 GMT -5
And Moses talked to a bush that was on fire. Eve was made out of one of Adam's ribs. Muhammed rose from a Rock up into heaven. Vishnu is some dude with lots of arms. Christianity has a long history of racism in the name of religion, and even Atheism has a bloody history (see USSR; China, People's Republic of).
Why is Mormonism somehow different? If they were cultish like Heavens Gate or the Branch Davidians, then sure, I can see why maybe there would be distrust for them, but they aren't, save for the Warren Jeffs Mormons. I grew up in San Diego as well, also around quite a few Mormons, and they were all nice people who had the same goals in life that any other American has. Its pretty riduculous that people from other faiths look down on Mormonism as being less authentic, just because their religion is older.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 8, 2008 16:55:45 GMT -5
Mormons think that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and that the second coming will happen in Missouri. Now doesn't it all make sense? Having made several trips to East St. Louis, I believe the Mormons are right (about the Garden of Eden part anyway, don't know about the second coming -- does DJ Jesus work the ESL strip clubs?). OK so, technically, East St. Louis may not actually be in Missouri, but it's close enough. EDIT: not that it means anything, but there were several reasons for me, personally, why Romney wasn't my preferred candidate. His Mormonism wasn't even on the list. Similarly, there are about a million reasons why I dislike Harry Reid, but I never thought twice about him being a Mormon. If a Mormon can be governor of Massachusetts or Senate Majority Leader, a Mormon can be President. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 8, 2008 17:17:20 GMT -5
Mormons think that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and that the second coming will happen in Missouri. Now doesn't it all make sense? Having made several trips to East St. Louis, I believe the Mormons are right (about the Garden of Eden part anyway, don't know about the second coming -- does DJ Jesus work the ESL strip clubs?). OK so, technically, East St. Louis may not actually be in Missouri, but it's close enough. EDIT: not that it means anything, but there were several reasons for me, personally, why Romney wasn't my preferred candidate. His Mormonism wasn't even on the list. Similarly, there are about a million reasons why I dislike Harry Reid, but I never thought twice about him being a Mormon. If a Mormon can be governor of Massachusetts or Senate Majority Leader, a Mormon can be President. Stop the Presses! Boz, I agree with you -- in part at least. I agree that a Mormon "should" be able to be President. In practice, I do think that that one factor alone probably would have prevented Romney from a successful bid regardless, but at least in sentiment I agree with you. Someone somewhere pointed out that it says a lot that we have a Mormon, a Black man and a woman in prominent spots getting down to the end, and the hispanic vote is very important. We have come a long way. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Feb 9, 2008 17:01:28 GMT -5
I certainly think a mormon should be able to be president, I'm not proposing legislation people. But everyone has a right to use whatever criteria they choose in selecting their candidates or eliminating some...including their religion. I am fairly conservative but I have eliminated both Huckabee and Romney as they hold religious views I find quacky.
Moses and the Burning Bush..... Of course Judaism and Christianity and Islam are full of bs too. I take that for granted. They have aquired a patina that lends their myths a status that mormonism (born well after the Enlightenment) will never attain. So buying into that religion requires actually belief, not just being born into a Catholic or Jewish or Anglican tradition. Anyone who takes any of these religions very seriously...I would eliminate them too. But most Catholics and Jews I know don't believe Moses actually conversed with a bush. Hell the dipEdited that is the Archbishop of Cantebury is calling for sharia law in Britain...he obviously doesn't really believe Christ literally rose from the dead I am guessing. I hate being on his side...I think he is a total jerkoff, but I don't actually think the guy believes in Christianity in a literal sense....
Where as Mormons....the church elders anyway...from what I know they literally believe in it all, the ones I know were real believers and I find that somewhat troubling.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 12, 2008 16:12:06 GMT -5
If you are going to run on "values" be prepared for us all to be very, very skeptical about the source of your values. You can not run on your faith and then be shocked when we want to see what you believe.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Feb 12, 2008 17:07:33 GMT -5
I think Cambridge hits the nail right on the head.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 12, 2008 17:21:11 GMT -5
To follow up. As a fiscal conservative, I would have been drawn to Romney if he had run on his business credentials and management experience. Instead, he focused the spotlight on his faith. Big mistake. His faith does not line up with my social values and if that is what he is stressing in his run for president there are only two reasons:
1) Those values (which I disagree with) are the center point of his campaign and his future administration
2) He is merely pandering to the religious right to get elected
In either case, he loses my vote. Really poor strategy.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 14, 2008 14:05:08 GMT -5
Romney to officially endorse McCain tomorrow. He implicitly endorsed him at CPAC, but that didn't get much attention.
That just about sinks Huckabee (well, he was sunk already, just didn't know it yet).
Who McCain chooses for veep will be interesting.
On the Dem side, still wondering who Edwards will endorse - or if he will endorse anyone. He could give a shot in the arm to a Clinton campaign that sorely needs one, but honestly, I couldn't guess as to where he's leaning. Or maybe he's just going to continue to wait and increase his leverage.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 14, 2008 14:32:02 GMT -5
I agree on Edwards, but with the way its going, if he waits a little too long he could become completely insignificant.
|
|
HealyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Victory!!!
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by HealyHoya on Feb 15, 2008 14:44:34 GMT -5
Random thoughts based on above posts:
1. Romney's decision to drop out at this point is not selfless. It is 1) utterly predictable (what major party candidate doesn't drop out and endorse the nominee at this point?) and 2) it is an absolutely necessary prerequisite for a relatively young, independently wealthy, ambitious politician who wants to remain viable within the GOP for 2012 and beyond.
2. McCain has never - and will never - claim he's only interested in one term. To do so would be to concede that his age is a factor. The D's would slaughter him on this.
3. Huckabee will not be McCain's VP. Should McCain feel the need to bolster his arch-con bona fides via his VP selection there are many, many candidates from which he can select who are not hampered with Huck's ridiculous (especially for arch-cons) tax-and-spend, progressive fiscal and monetary track record.
4. Obama is unstoppable. Stop writing about Hillary. Everything (money, polls - TX, demographics, earned media, McCain's rise in the GOP) points to this. Book it. Obama v McCain. Both bring their respective bases, the election hinges on who carries independents/moderates. The system works.
|
|
