Mitt Romney

[NoHall]

I really have to go with that. I don't really care what religion a president is, but I'd rather not hear about it every two seconds. I'm so over our current president who has "talks with god" (see hearing voices) and then translates said talks into policy.

We all do that in some way or another, though. We're a basically religious country. Even our atheists go about it religiously.

We go with our guts and justify it whichever way we can. Bush has just been niave enough to admit his process. Another president would have done the same thing his own way. Clinton found a way to do absolutely nothing, which is dangerous in its own special way. Jimmy Carter is one of those Southern Baptists, and he is scary in a completely unpredictable way. Recently, Time ran a story about the religious statements coming from Her Royal Hillary, Edwards, and Obama.

I could go on and on. It all boils down to which one of them can reconcile what they believe with the best decisions for the country. As was stated in an earlier thread, we're left choosing the lesser of evils.

But isn't that how it has always been? The biggest difference between this election and the 1908 election is that Taft and Bryan didn't have the media in their faces 24/7. The country had to wait more than 20 minutes to hear every syllable they've ever uttered.

 

[Smiling JOe]

...his religion had nothing to do with what he would do in the White House. Part of me said, "Yeah, right," another part said, "I hope that's not true," and the another part of me wondered what he would say when his church really put the screws down.

He is in a bind in that respect. His, not to distant, relative, helped start the Church, so he has to at least have a little belief. If he is like most Americans, he believes in God, but doesn't live with the religion as a daily focus, even if it does set the moral values for our society. If he says that he is not very religious, he will lose more votes than he would by saying he was Mormon. Notice that he tends to use the Church of Latter Day Saints, so it doesn't sound so removed from Christianity. Some of the Mormon beliefs align with most of the other worldly religions. Most people, including myself, don't know much about it, other than they send people out on bicycles wearing black slacks and black ties, in the heat of the summer to spread the Word.

All candidates have similar problems with different issues. Sen Obama is 1/2 black. (surprise.) He has strong beliefs in programs such as Affirmative Action, which would ordinarily win him much of the black vote. (feels weird saying, "black vote," but that is how they the politicians think of it.) The problem for Sen Obama is that if he pushes issues like Affirmative Action onto the table, he will lose much of the "white vote," and he knows that he will need more than the "black vote" to win. So, he has to appear to be more white than black regarding his stance on social issues. When he does speak to the black voters, you can bet money that he will push his "blackness" to the forefront. He has the unique characteristic of being a true politician as his father was "black [SIZE=-1]as pitch, my (Obama) mother white as milk," this coming from his autobiography. The difference between him and Sen Clinton is that he looks smoother pulling off the white/black thing. [/SIZE]

 

[Mango]

I could go on and on. It all boils down to which one of them can reconcile what they believe with the best decisions for the country. As was stated in an earlier thread, we're left choosing the lesser of evils.

Ironic you should mention this because MANgo and I were discussing this right before dinner tonight. Huckabee wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Where do you draw the line between your religious beliefs and what is the best choice for this countrys' citizens?

 

[Smiling JOe]

Plus, Romney carried the family dog in the car's roof top carrier while traveling on cross country family vacations! How bizarre is that?!

(Oops, sorry, not a political view)

Discussing personal characteristics of the candidate is fine by me. I will just add that only in an extreme case will you see my dogs in a carrier on the roof of my car, but I would do that before I would throw them into the belly of a commercial jet, or leaving them with a crappy kennel. The top of the car isn't much different from the back of the pickup truck.

 

[NoHall]

Ironic you should mention this because MANgo and I were discussing this right before dinner tonight. Huckabee wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Where do you draw the line between your religious beliefs and what is the best choice for this countrys' citizens?

We're never going to figure that one out, are we?

I heard an interview with one of Guiliani's people about abortion. I thought it was interesting--the interviewer was a local conservative who is against abortion. (I steer clear of the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life," since the pro-lifers like to kill adults, and I've chosen to not be pregnant ever since puberty without ever having an abortion.)

The aide said that even though Guiliani is considered pro-choice, the abortion rate dropped in New York City when he was there because he was vocal about his pro-adoption beliefs.

Overturning Roe v. Wade isn't going to do anyone any good. It eliminates an option, but only on the surface. Deal with the problem, not the symptom.

It's like the stem-cell debate--it has become an abortion issue, when it shouldn't be. Most of the beneficial research has nothing to do with fetal stem cells...but that's too boring and won't benefit the pro-choice crowd at all.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Ironic you should mention this because MANgo and I were discussing this right before dinner tonight. Huckabee wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Where do you draw the line between your religious beliefs and what is the best choice for this countrys' citizens?

Good question. I don't have the answer. If you feel that abortion is more important than other issues, and that the next President will be able to set the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, the answer is easy. If you feel that there are numerous important issues, your decision becomes more difficult.

Some people put God before Country and family, while others put money (work) before everything. Some might even put family first. Then, there are the people who put Country first. Is there any right answer to the order? Other than the exception of money, any could be right, depending on the people answer the question and the person running.

 

[Camp Creek Kid]

He is in a bind in that respect. His, not to distant, relative, helped start the Church, so he has to at least have a little belief. If he is like most Americans, he believes in God, but doesn't live with the religion as a daily focus, even if it does set the moral values for our society. If he says that he is not very religious, he will lose more votes than he would by saying he was Mormon. Notice that he tends to use the Church of Latter Day Saints, so it doesn't sound so removed from Christianity. Some of the Mormon beliefs align with most of the other worldly religions. Most people, including myself, don't know much about it, other than they send people out on bicycles wearing black slacks and black ties, in the heat of the summer to spread the Word.
[/SIZE]

Where to begin . . .

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That has always been the name of the church. The term "Mormon" began as a derogatory name that the angry mobs in Missouri gave to church members. We prefer the full name of the church or shorten it to Latter-day Saints. Sometimes people have no clue what "LDS" means, but know "Mormon" and so we do use that term. Using the full name of the church has nothing to do with wanting to be identified as Christian, which we undoubtedly know that we are. That is just simply the name of the church.

I happen to know that Mitt Romney lives his religion daily and is a faithful member in every way. Latter-day Saints have a strong belief and appreciation for the separation of church and state. When he said his religion would not influence him as president, he meant that the church establishment would not influence him i.e., he wouldn't be receiving phone calls from Salt Lake on his "bat phone."

As for his speech on religion, that fact that he had to give it at all is sad. However, I have noticed that the religion issue has calmed down since he gave his speech. It was not the time nor the place to explain specific doctrines, etc., but its purpose was to ask people to remember the great freedoms that we have in this country--one of which is the freedom of religion. All religions should be respected and valued by a free society. If somebody really wants to know doctrine, there are plenty of ways to find out.
There was no way he could have explained anything in the short amount of time that he had.

I just have to say how disappointed I've been by some of the cruel and hateful things that have been said about my church in the last several months (not on this forum). I've always known that other people thought Mormons were odd, etc. but I've been stunned by the ignorance and and maliciousness that has been spewed by other Christians. My question is, why do they care so much and what are they afraid of? You will never hear in a Latter-day Saint Sunday School class or worship service anything negative about any other religion, whatsoever. We are too busy learning and studying about our own to waste our time picking apart someone else's religion. One of our core beliefs is that everyone should have the right to worship how, when, and who they want.

I support Mitt, not because of his religion, but because he is a good leader with good values, he has solid policies, and he has an optimistic view of the future of our country.

 

[NoHall]

You gave us a history of the use of the term "Mormon." Is it offensive to you to be called Mormon? I've always used that term because it was simpler to use than Latter Day Saints. (And because I get confused with the long names!) But until you said that, I didn't realize that there was a derogatory association with the term Mormon.

 

[Bob]

You're absolutely right--that is the best way to handle it.

But no one is really going to buy it because when it really counts human beings do not separate their core values from their business/politics. Romney stood up there and said (I'm paraphrasing because I'm too lazy/busy to look it up right now) that his religion had nothing to do with what he would do in the White House. Part of me said, "Yeah, right," another part said, "I hope that's not true," and the another part of me wondered what he would say when his church really put the screws down.

Separation of church and state is a concept most on this board, I'm including everyone now, like to dance around but do not subscribe to. All this considering of a human being based on his religion is a worthless waste of time. The genius of our government is that we have been able to rid our governing branches of the bickering an animosity that comes from judging one's private religious or non-religious beliefs. You can easily judge the character and history of accomplishment of a potential candidate without the mindless comments about someone's manner in with they may or may not worship a deity. Clinton carried a Bible for the cameras every chance he had, but was a moral scumbag. Judge a man or woman on the life they've led, and you'll have more than enough info to decide who may be a good pick.

 

[Camp Creek Kid]

You gave us a history of the use of the term "Mormon." Is it offensive to you to be called Mormon? I've always used that term because it was simpler to use than Latter Day Saints. (And because I get confused with the long names!) But until you said that, I didn't realize that there was a derogatory association with the term Mormon.

No, it is not offensive. I just wanted to explain to SJ why he doesn't hear Mitt use it a lot. After all, we still have the "Mormon Tabernacle Choir." It is simpler to say "I am a Mormon" than "I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."