Mormon Schmorman! Who cares? All I know is that the economy in Utah is booming
compared to most other states. We have construction everywhere you look.
Companies moving here in record numbers. The best Trax system, the only one I
know that is actually growing. This state is being run very well and much of
that was because of Jon Huntsman Jr, who really got Utah on track. It's obvious
there are Mormons all through the government in Utah and they are doing one heck
of a great job. And that is just what the rest of the country needs soon!!
a Mormon can't be elected in the US. Too much bigotry and mis-information which
translates to fear. Huntsman and Romney are wasting their time running.
Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan (with its requirement to buy insurance)
was the model for what the right-wing calls "Obamacare".Huntsman's association with the Obama administration, will be anathema to
right-wing voters.With "only" 21% saying they wouldn't
vote for a Mormon, that's still considerable odds.Put it all
together, guys, and you'd be well-served to wait until 2016.
Hunstman will never get elected, he's waaaay too moderate...by him entering the
race he will be splitting the Romney vote and may be helping Huckleberry or
Palin win the nomination, which automatically equals four more years of Obama.
August 2010:"I can't say I am overly religious," Huntsman tells
Fortune, according to the Deseret News. "I get satisfaction from many
different types of religions and philosophies."I would agree, he's
Mormon like many other Christians are Christians, when it is convenient and
Even is a Mormon could get elected president (which will never happen) Huntsman
has the added burden of proving to a new conservative - tea party based - GOP
that he is somehow returning to his conservative roots. Easier said than done.
Compare Mike Lee to Jon Hunstman and you see very quickly why the new GOP has
left the old liberal GOP behind. The Nov elections showed that conservatism is
back in full force and Huntsman is going to have to somehow distance himself
from his current boss (Obama) whom he as praised for 2 years now and suddenly go
on the attack. I think Jon has a credibility problem to overcome as well.
Senator Harry Reid has a better political chance of being the 1st U.S. President
who is a Mormon.Most Utah mromon's wouldn't vote for Reid, Romney or
Huntsman...they aren't right-wing extremeist enough for them.Oh, how
I remember the whining about LIBERAL Reid, Romney and Hunstman are....[snicker
snicker]For the recond - I'd vote for Jon Hunstman Jr. in about
1/10th of a Nano-Second.
Seems to me if you're bent on making "religion" a deciding factor, and
given all of the chaos we have to endure coming out of the Middle East on a
daily basis, then why would you vote for a Muslim for President??
The interesting thing about both Huntsman and Romney, is that neither of them
quite fit the right-wing stereotype that the left loves to hate and independents
shy away from. When it comes right down to it they're populists who would
probably govern from the center and could potentially wind up being popular
presidents once people got to know them. This would do wonders for Mormons'
image. And frankly, either one of them would have more relevant experience going
in than Obama did, and I think either one of them would do a much better, more
competent job than Obama. I'm not really an Obama hater, I just don't think he's
qualified to be president.
What is sad is that for ANY OTHER job in the U.S. to NOT hire someone because of
their religion is against the law and discriminatory. What a nation of
hypocrites who won't "hire" a president because of his religious
affiliation. Too bad presidential candidates can't sue the American public.
And, when did it become a "bad" thing in this country for a
"person of faith" to be a leader? What, so only athiests and agnostics
can run the country? Good grief. Shame on America - a nation of bigots.
ute alumni | 11:33 a.m. Feb. 1, 2011 Salt Lake, UT August 2010:"I can't say I am overly religious," Huntsman tells Fortune,
according to the Deseret News. "I get satisfaction from many different
types of religions and philosophies."============= Nice -- Black & White All-or-Nothing thinking there.I too find "Mormonism" in EVERY religion.From Shamanism to
Taoism.especially Judahism and Islam...maybe even more so than current
Christianity.He means he's not a religous zealot fanatic wack
job.Willing to start wars with others who pray different than he does.And in order to represent all of America, he needs to be tolerent
and inclusive of EVERYONE -- not just the tiny little 0.05% of those who live
and exist only in the Utah bubble.
"I get satisfaction from many different types of religions and
philosophies."Makes perfect sense to me. There is nothing in my
LDS faith that precludes me from appreciating wisdom and truth found in other
religions or philosophies. I think this statement just shows that Huntsman is a
smart, reasonable guy.
It doesn't matter what level of devout practice either candidate has, they will
be branded Mormon and even in 2011, it matters. In the South, you say Mormon,
you might as well say Muslim. Mitt had a terrible showing in the South,
So I have a question. Does Jon Hunstman run in 2012 just so he has a better
chance in 2016? I'm a young buck (in my 20's) and it seems to me that most
republican nominees usually have to fail in a couple of primaries before they
get their shot (Bob Dole, John McCain)@ute alumni- his dad is a
Seventy. I think he's pretty Mormon, but he might not let the public know that.
The fact that many conservatives are upset over Romney's Mass. health care plan
show that they do not understand what the real issues are. The real issue
threatening our republic is not big state government, it is big federal
government. The fact that Massachusets took the initiative to do something about
their own problems instead of relying on the federal government for a solution
is a huge plus, regardless of what solution Massachusets came up with. If we
stick to the federal system set up in the constitution, Massachusets can chose
their own solutions and Utah can chose theirs, with neither state having to fear
the federal government coming in and imposing their own solution that may or may
not serve their best interests. Romney understands this, and has absolutely no
intention of imposing a federal government solution to the problem, which shows
that he is intelligent enough to understand what the real issue is, which is the
right of states and individuals to govern themselves, without unecessary
intervention from the federal government. Perhaps you think Mass. went too far,
but that is the perogative of the people of Mass., who are more comfortable
giving up freedom than you.
I honestly don't know if a Mormon will be elected President for years and years.
There are too many other religions who would see to that. I was in a Baptist
church when Romney was running for President and the pastor made a special point
to tell his congregation not to vote for him because he was Mormon. Not because
of any of his politics, but because of his religion.
Mitt Romney IS a Conservative. Huckleberry is a moderate.
The issue here is not the general election- in that format either Romney or
Huntsman would probably do just fine and their religion would not be that big of
an issue- of course that assumes they can make a general election- it is the
republican primaries that is the issue- each one has its own flavor and so to
categorize them together is useless but at least consider Iowa, N.H. and South
Carolina and you can see why either has some problems but certainly not a closed
door at this point- the ground game in those primaries matters and Mitt is way
way ahead on that one- as the joke goes in Iowa- well I am not sure who I will
vote for yet- I have only met each candidate 4 times personally and so I am
still not sure what I think of them- ohhh that the rest of us had such power
Let's see...."Religion doesn't matter": Gee, why did
Romney have to give his Religion Speech? It matter or else he could have
skipped it"Mormons are accepted for office": State
offices do not have the same rigor as the primary and caucus process present.
WInning over portions of the country, particularly the South are mission
impossible. Look at Romney's numbers in 2008, so weak."Vote
for his politics": Romney is sunk, the Mass healthcare has his name on it,
the one that requires everyone have insurance. No backtracking there."Huntsman does't even practice": First of all, his level of worship
is his own business before God. Secondly, while it doesn't matter to me, it
matter to to many people unfortunately.
I don't think that the question is "Can a Mormon be elected
president?" The real question is "Can a Republican Mormon get
nominated to run for president?" I think that Huntsman is just breaking the
ice with this run for office, he's just giving the American people a little dose
of his charm, and waiting until 2016 to make a real run.By the way,
Huntsman said to a reporter that he is not "overly religious" does
that make him a Mino and a Rino?
By the way, any Mormon thinking religion is not an issue. Read some political
forums where no one suspects you are Mormon, have conversations. You will see
the same intolerance that Muslim evokes similar to Mormon. It is an issue on the
Republican and Conservatives because they tend to not be open to differences.
Mormons in politics are like broccoli, good for you (votes) but you don't love
them.My fellow Mormons needs to think twice about aligning
themselves with people who would have you believe every single Muslim out there
is a hateful terrorist because behind closed doors they have anti Mormons
At what point in the past 40 years did America start with advanced religious
Who cares what religion the president is. As long as he is a man of the
constitution he has got my vote. Ron Paul 2012.
If a BLT (Black Liberation Theologist) can be president of the United States,
most certainly an LDS (Latter-Day Saint) could be president of the United
States. In a country of twisted morals and values, however, it is not likely to
@TRB: I believe you have it just backwards: Most presidents have been
Christian, or at least have had to say that, to be elected. My question to you:
Why can't an agnostic or an athiest become president? Why does a person have
to believe in God to run this country?@Tom in CA: Can you please
explain your comment, as it's not clear as to whether you are Muslim, or just
believe - it's certainly not fact - that the President is.
It is the ungodly who prosper in the world. (Psalms 73)
It is not Romney's nor Huntsman's religious affiliation that should present a
real problem to their serving as president. Rather, it is their left wing
political views.Romney is a fine LDS and has served honorable in his
church. But he is not conservative. His version of socialized health care in
Massachusetts should be as much of a concern to real republicans as Obamacare.
He is not friendly to to the right to own and peacefully carry a firearm for
self defense. He spent a lifetime being pro-abortion in his public life and
converted to pro-life only shortly before his run for president last time. He
is soft on defending the real definition of marriage. He is soft on illegal
immigration. He is not particularly fiscally conservative.Huntsman
is similarly liberal. He is not overly friendly to RKBA. Is soft on illegal
immigration. He is soft on defending marriage. He is not very fiscally
conservative. And so on and so forth.I don't care if we ever have an
LDS as President. But I certainly hope our next president and both
houses of congress are solidly conservative; boht fiscally and socially.
Ironically, its mostly Mormons who are skeptical of another Latter-day Saint's
chance of being elected President. I think this inferiority complex is
misplaced and overblown. Many Republicans who might not vote for a Mormon in a
primary would come around quickly on Election Day. In Mitt Romney's case in
2008, his religion (while a hinderance in some quarters) was ultimately a plus
when it came to fundraising. Polls show that Romney is competitive now in the
GOP and in a general election. One good thing about Huntsman (an old McCain
ally) running is that it will show that Mormons don't represent a political
monolith in the GOP or in society.Part of coming of age as an ethnic
group and really taking one's seat at the table of society is being able to
handle defeat without blaming it on bigotry or unfairness. Mormons are real and
legitimate players in society, politics and culture.
What matters to me about a president (or someone running for president) is that
he loves liberty and this nation, is mindful of the military, knows a thing or
two (actually a lot more) about banking and monetary policy, is willing to TELL
THE TRUTH, is good to our true friends of state and firm with those who aren't
(you can't negotiate with bullies except from the "respect" position),
and has COMMON SENSE.
There are also Mormons all through the government at the federal level as well.
The nation could and has done a lot worse than the Romney or Huntsman.
Polls showing X% would not vote for a Mormon are misleading. They focus on one
aspect and can create a negative in the respondent's mind. It's like asking if
someone would vote for a divorced person. Some will say no, but if you call
back the same people a month later and ask if they would vote for Ronald Reagan,
many will switch their response even if they know that Reagan was previously
divorced. Mormons have been elected Senator in Oregon and Nevada and governor
in Michigan and Massachusetts, so I dont think its a big worry. Polls are
insightful, but you have to have all of the facts about what is being asked and
how it is being asked. When a pollster asks some dude watching TV if he would
vote for a "Mormon", many times the dude is thinking
"Muslim" (not that that should matter either). Or he presumes that
there must be something wrong with Mormons or why would they ask? Or a liberal
respondent from Nevada might be in a bad mood about Prop 8 and answer no but
then go to the polls and vote for Harry Reid.
That said, I think it is marginally easier for a Mormon to win the Democratic
nomination or the actual presidency (once having obtained either nomination)
than it is for a Mormon to obtain the GOP nomination itself...that's the main
hurdle for Romney and Huntsman).
When the question was asked whether a mormon could be President, it pointed out
that only 21% of the people in a poll said they would not vote for a mormon.
While that is good, the problem for both Romney and Huntsman is that the 21%
that said that are located mostly in the South and will be out in force in the
Republican primaries. Their Southern Baptist preachers regularly
preach anti-mormon sermons. The Southern Baptist Convention website has lots of
information showing how the Book of Mormon is wrong and how Mormons are in a
cult.This means that the best chance any Mormon will have to become
President is if they are a moderate Democrat that has a strong economic agenda
that says that the Federal Government does good things and has a legitimate role
in regulating businesses (like banks) but says the role of the government is not
in social issues.That Mormon Democrat could get elected President. A
Mormon Republican never will because they will not get past the primary in the
Just wait until the White Horse prophecy becomes part of the dialogue. That
will be the end of any Presidential aspirations for these guys.
Huntsman could win. Even a lefty like me would have to give him fair
consideration unless he does a Romney like aboutface. In my view he is a
stronger potential candidate than Mit Romney or any other Republican. But the
party has moved so far to the right that I doubt they have the political will or
intelligence to nominate any moderate no matter how competent, Mormon or
Please...NO!Utah is horribly mismanaged, and most of our legislature is
It is sad but true, the GOP will never tolerate a Mormon at the head of the
Party. If you think your tent is big enough for a Mormon Presidential candidate
you are sadly mistaken. Harry Reid can lead those crazy liberals, I suppose
they are more tolerant!The GOP will continue to toss Utah and Mormon
politicians scraps from the table of the Defense Budget to keep you voting in
line but if you raise your head from the gopher hole be ready to be hit with a
Huntsman has one major thing going for him that none of the other conservative
contenders have: Glenn Beck's seal of approval. Have you ever heard how much
Beck talks up both Huntsman Sr. and Jr. on his radio show? I've heard him praise
them quite a bit, in the past couple of years.And seeing that Glenn
Beck is the (unofficial) leader of the Tea Party movement...that is a HECK of a
lot of the conservative American base that will follow what Mr. Beck says.
Beck's followers feel they can trust him. Now, Beck would never come
out and say "Vote for Mr. ________ for president - that's who I'm voting
for!" but he sure can still use his love for the Huntsmans to heavily
influence the Tea Partiers' votes.
so is Huntsman going to run as a Democrat or Republican ?
Personally, I don't believe this is as big an issue as some (mainly staunch
evangelicals) might think it is. The LDS church and it's members are generally
portrayed in a very favorable light today, especially when stories and articles
touting the tremendous assistance they provide to many developing countries and
at times of natural disasters around the globe. Many made similar arguments
that JFK was unelectable due to his Catholic religion, and don't forget about
Richard Nixon who was a Quaker.
No LDS person that stays true to the teachings of Jesus Christ will be effective
in Washinton or in the state. There are far too many compromises required to
remain true LDS. And a true Christain would find the same thing as referring to
members of Christain churches other than LDS. With all the corruption going on
all over a true christain would not be a part of those activities.
Romney has a natural base of Mormon donors and volunteers because he is a
moderately conservative former bishop and stake president. I don't think
Huntsman has a natural base. Huntsman says he is not "overly
religious." How many liberal, secular, rich Mormons are out there?
MT and P, If the best you have to attack Huntsman is that he served as US
Ambassador to China than you have nothing. If he had been a cabinet or
sub-cabinet appointee in Washington that would be one thing. However
Ambassadors are much less directly beholden to the administration, especially on
the domestic issues that are the bread and butter of the matter.Also, it boils down to the fact that Obama appointed Huntsman because he
recognized he needed someone truly qualified, and Huntsman filled the bill. It is far too soon to say what will happen, but saying that Huntsman and
Romney do not have a chance does not work. We really have no clue who will be
running. Santorum, Palenty, Hutchinson and several others may or may not run,
it is all pretty much up in the air. It is still a whole year until the first
of the primaries.
Ure alumni, Would anyone say they are overly religious? OK, maybe a few,
but most people would not self-describe as overly religious. Your comment
strikes me as part of a truly under-handed attack. To try to claim that
Huntsman is a lukewarm or insincere believer is just not justified and even more
than that it has no relevance to political discussions.Your comment
is part of the disturbing trend of low-blows and mean-spiritedness we too often
see in politics.
Mormon or not, I wouldn't vote for Huntsman for Dog Catcher of Peoa. I would
however vote for Romney in a heart beat. You hold Romney's resume up against
Huntsman's and Romney has actually been his own man, in business and in
politics. George Romney hasn't helped him much (since he's dead). Huntsman
wouldn't be where he is today without Dad's money and connections. Huntsman is a RINO. He ran as a conservative but governed to the left. Utah
runs well because we have a legislature that has the guts to sometimes stand up
to a governor and make them toe the line. Huntsman grew the state government at
a faster rate than Leavitt did.
As a Liberal I believe and affirm the separation between curch and state.
Therefore, if a candidate is Mormon or atheist is irrelevant to my decision in
the polls. Is the candidate educated?, intelligent?, non-sectarian in any way,
shape or form?, knows about the issues and present him/herself as capable of
dealing with them?. Then, if he/she is the best candidate he/she would have my
vote. Mr. Hunstman at this moment would make a respectable candidate in my
opinion. I would advice LDS's not to playing victims and do not make an issue of
religion, chances are that few other people will.
JFFR, You provide two examples to prove a point. I can prove a
conter-example. George W. Bush first made a serious run for the presidential
nomination in 2000. Gerald Ford was only ever a contender in 1976 and he got
the nomination that year. Goldwater was only a serious contender in 1964, the
year he got the nomination, and Dwight Eisenhower got it on his first try in
1952. Nixon also got the nomination on his first real try, although he lost the
presidency. That means 5 of the last nine Republican candidates for presidency
got the nomination on their first try.
I don't focus on religion when voting. I focus on the issues. Whoever agrees
with my most important issues has my vote. I insist on researching the issues. I
wish more people would research the issues before they go out and vote.
my earlier comment was mis-understood - of course an athiest or agnostic could
run the country. What I'm saying is that the second a candidate is labeled as
someone who goes to church and identifies themselves with a religious body it
suddenly makes them inadequate in some way? Why are we so afraid of having a
person who is actively religious to be our leader? And don't mention
"separation of church and state". Not even close. If that were the
case, then no one in public office could be a member of a religion. A mormon
leader does not mean that suddenly the mormon church will run the government -
again "good grief".
What does having to be a member of the Church have to do with anything? After
all is not the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS the only American church anyway in
Perhaps the (R)'s will realize that electing a Mormon who might know something
about leadership, getting things done and the economy might be a good thing. Or
else they can go into the predictable evangelical frenzy and make sure the (D)
Johnny Triumph asks: "At what point in the past 40 years did America start
with advanced religious bigotry?" I'd say it was somewhere just a while
before the last top 40 song was heard on an AM station in this country.
We Will have a woman POTUS long before we ever have a Mormon. Why? Despite the
high minded claims that religion does not matter, it really does in 18 important
states. Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, and Protestants will all make sure
that a Mormon is never elected. Remember people are open minded until that
voting booth curtain is closed then all bets are off. Huck and McCain ran
specifically to sabotage Romney, and the media was complicit because there was
no personal dirt on Romney or his family that they could use. Religious bigotry
lives folks, thats just life.
Huntsman is not a viable candidate. Quitting after just 2 years as an
Ambassador will greatly harm his chances. Huntsman has a name and some clout
along the Wasatch front, but beyond this geography he is a complete unknown...
I hope he invites the entire country to listen to the missionary lessons. :)
That'd be terrific!
As a Mormon I have minimal interest in Romney and far less appreciation for
Huntsman. Just like I don't appreciate people voting against someone for their
religion, I think it would be just as bad to vote for someone just because they
are of the same faith.
YES to ROMNEYNO to Huntsman
Article Six, Third Clause of the Constitution of the United States reads [in
part]: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
any Office or public Trust under the United States."That means
that discussion of this issue should be irrelevant. However, members of the
media, as well as political candidates, regularly ignore the law (as clearly
stated above) and use religion to attack, deride and demean the good name of
individual candidates.In a poll issued during the last Presidential
campaign (don't ask me which poll...I don't remember), voters were asked if they
would vote for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, an
overwhelming number said 'yes.' When asked if they would vote for 'a Mormon,'
the majority said 'no.' (I don't know if the pollsters then pointed out that
Mormons ARE of the LDS faith. However, this clearly illustrates public
perceptions.)So long as candidates ignore Constitutional law, and
media highlight and attack a candidates' religion (or non religion), the odds of
a 'Mormon' becoming President are low...even if that candidate is far and above
the best individual to be elected.
Who Cares.....GOP is done with RINO's ....Huntsman should consider running as a
Liberal....He could beat Obama in the primary?
Handicapping a race is different from picking the one you'd like to see win. I
don't think a Mormon can win because of religious bigotry. I think either
Huntsman or Romney would do a far better job than Obama. It would be better for
the country if either of them were elected. I like Palin, but not as president
or even vice president. She's too much of a lightning rod. Charming and a great
attention getter, but not presidential material, sadly.
"Despite the high minded claims that religion does not matter, it really
does in 18 important states. "If the person with the atypical
religion is a Democrat, this is less of a problem (who cares if a hypothetical
Harry Reid loses virtually every southern and midwestern state, it's not like
democrats win those anyway). New England is Catholic but they aren't intense
enough in their religious fervor to block someone over religion (particularly if
it's a democrat).
Yes. This time around the Evangelicals who refuse to vote for a Mormon, will be
vastly outnumbered by the entire country's Independent voters. And a significant
majority of those voters want Mitt.That's a fact.Mark my words.
This is a well written article. Short, insightful, informative and interesting.
I'm happy to see Huntsman and Romney join the race. I may not be swayed by
their political rhetoric and doubt I could vote for either of them, but I did
feel like Romney was a fairly good example of LDS family values last go round.
When I imagine a Mormon actually becoming president, it's not a pleasant
picture. You think the "birthers" are bad? Just wait until political
opposition, PAC money, and anti-Mormonism combine against a Mormon in the White
House. Every week will bring some new anti-Mormon slam with the clout of the
mainstream media behind it. We won't be able to go to a temple
without having to walk through a mob carrying political signs intermixed with
anti-Mormon placards. Our meetinghouses will get vandalized. Our missionaries
will get harassed in foreign lands because of a president's unpopular
policies.Let these political partisans quarrel over the corrupt,
decaying carcass of this fallen world. Latter-day saints should be focused on
building the Zion that will ultimately replace it.
Who cares if a Mormon is elected or not other presidents of the past have also
been elected even though they were from a different denomination of
Christianity, JFK comes to mind, if a Mormon is elected I doubt it would be much
different than in the past just another good christian fellow elected. Heck in
this country anyone can be elected at least in theory shouldn't matter if your
christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist Etc. Vote not on the faith but on if the
person in question is qualified for the job.
amst ,Who cares if a Mormon is elected or not other presidents of the past have
also been elected even though they were from a different denomination of
Christianity. First,you have a false premise. The pale of
Christianity(Orthodox, Protestant, RCC)does not consider the Mormon religion a
Christian faith.Second the conservative Catholic vote is pro-life and
Romney care flip-flops on state funding for abortion.
personally, I would never vote for a mormon because his (your) entire life
revolves around religion. I am not saying that is a bad thing for an individual
or family, but I think it would be terrible for a country. it would be
impossible for him to separate his religious beliefs from the job.I
don't think anyone that is "super-religious" should be president, and
from what I see on these boards, mormons are extremely religious. certainly I
don't need to cite examples. and I think any good mormon would be proud to be
looked at as "their life revolves around Jesus". It's not a bad thing
- it simply makes it so in my opinion you are not fit to running the country.
Any time an issue came up that concerned laws to impose morals, the extremely
religious person would side on his religious beliefs - even if that is not what
most of the country wants.I would be concerned that laws would be
implemented that would impose mormon beliefs onto everyone, especially in areas
such as abortion, SSM, divorce and cohabitation, gambling, etc. these things
are only "immoral" because of your religious beliefs.
The claim that Catholics will make sure that a Mormon is never elected is 100%
false. Due to the history of anti-Catholicsm in this country, Catholics are not
going to exclude a fellow Christian from office based on reigion, and many of
them would not exclude a Muslim or a Buddhist.Romney may have
trouble with Catholic voters, but that is because he is inconsistently pro-life
and has donated to Planned Parenthood. Huntsman, on the other hand, is
consistently pro-life and thus has an equal chance with other pro-lifers to get
Catholic votes. Catholics have been the most consistent allies of
Mormons on all sorts of fronts. It is the Evangelical Chritians who belong to
congregations with no loyalty beyond their pastor, who are the most likely to
oppose a Mormon candidate, not Catholics with a clear Church structure who will
see many of the attacks on Mormon candidates as repeats of attacks on Catholic
People wake up Catholics do not hate Mormons, evangelicals do! The GOP has been
captured by the Christian RIGHT and the Christian Right wont tolerate a Mormon
President! Go outside at conference look at those groups bashing the church
they are Republicans just like most of you. They call for religious freedom
when their children can not pray in school, but would vote to Mormonism if they
had the power! Those citizens bashing the door down in Carthage IL
on June 27th were good Christians too. Most probably showed up for services on
Sunday. Just remember next time you vote for the GOP you are giving power to a
party which is made up of radicals that hate your religion and would see you
Too many people erroneously believe the because Romney lost in 2008 its proof
that his religion killed him. Yes, religion was one of several factors, but
people also need to remember that who wins in Iowa and NH is a huge determiner
for the rest of the primary calendar in the way it impacts expectations. Romney
led polls in both states for months, so when Huckabee (who was never viable) won
in IA, it gave McCain the opportunity for an NH comeback (NH was a stronghold
& must win for both McCain and Romney). Romney will likely be competitive
in NH again and if the race were held today, he would win there. Also, Reagan
was the runner up in 76, main guy in 80; Dole runner up 80, main 96; McCain
runner up 2000, main 2008. Romney, for all intents and purposes was the runner
up to McCain in the early states (though not the 2nd most delegates at
convention because he did not hang on like Huckabee). The main thing going
against Romney is the tea-party wild card. In normal times, it would be his to
lose and that might still be the case.
I can understand it if people disagree with Romney because of his politics. But
to refuse to vote for him because of his Monrmonism reveals something about your
intellectual capacity. Anti Mormon materials generally appeal to bigoted,
John Pack Lambert of Michigan, Catholics will not exclude a fellow Christian
from office based on religion. Probably true with liberal Catholics, But
serious, conservative Catholics and Evangelical Catholics would exclude Romney.
Catholic Answers publishes a voters guide for the serious Catholic voter,
pro-life is not an option. No flip-flop on state assistance for abortion.
Catholic Answers considers Mormonism a Non- Christian religion and they are
not considered separated brethren fellow Christian as Protestants. The Catholic
Church is making an effort to respond to Mormonism through various methods.
JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidtb - your comments are completely without any basis
in fact. As someone born in Utah, who spent many years living in
"Cali", and now lives in the South, I can tell you from personal
experience that how you portray southern christians is completely out of
line.First of all, evangelical is a very over used term. Most
Baptist and other variants could care less about Mormons, and what Mormons
believe. They are just as active in their churches as we are, and don't see the
"missionaries" as any more threat than do we perceive JW missionaries.
They don't obsess about us, and most don't care.The stereo types
are way too far reaching, and only reflect a very small but vocal segment of
people,same as the raging conservatives in Utah. The vast majority in Utah
don't believe our country is on a head first nose dive into socialism... but you
wouldn't know it from the comments here.Just as portraying those
from Utah as white shirt wearing polygamist, southerns are not Mormon hating
"evangelicals". Get over the persecution complex...
please.... and the California is better mess.
I could care less if they are Mormon or not speaking as one. What concerns me
more are they principled and honest people who can demonstrate a vision of where
they want to take our country next. The "President" is the chief
administrator of our country, and what church they go to worship makes little to
no difference. There are people of character in all faiths, and I support them
equally without respect to their particular religious beliefs.There
is so little that actually divides the religions. I think many make far too
much of the miniscule differences between us.
Senator Reid already IS the Highest ranking memeber of the Federal Government,
and Utah "Mormons" can't ever seem to acknowledge that fact.Sad.
re - Penguin Inc. | 7:22 p.m"I hope he invites the entire
country to listen to the missionary lessons. :) That'd be terrific!"huh? see - that's exactly what we are afraid of. everything is about
religion to you mormon folks, and that's what will always keep a mormon from
being elected president.for a mormon, religion will always take
priority over everything else. and that's way too scary to most people.re - JSB | 2:39 p.m"I can understand it if people disagree
with Romney because of his politics. But to refuse to vote for him because of
his Monrmonism reveals something about your intellectual capacity. Anti Mormon
materials generally appeal to bigoted, uneducated, red-necks." no, JSB. It's not the bizarre beliefs. it's the fact that religion is the
MAIN focus in a mormon's life. we need leaders that focus on the country, not
their religion.i would never vote for anyone that is overtly
religious. to me it shows a lack of common sense. Religion and God is supposed
to be used to show children right and wrong. but like santa claus, it is
expected that you would outgrow it.
To Charlie: So what if Romney was to ask the whole country to take the
missionary discussions. You still have the choice to say not I.Being a Latter Day Saint isn't something you do on Sunday only. It isn't
something you out grow as you put it. It is totally a way of life. It is no
different than being a full Catholic. To me having someone believe like you has
no place in the White House or in Government at all. It isn't based on Common
Sense as you put it but completely and entirely hatefulness.I would
really have liked to have lived in a time where a President would wear their
religion on their sleeve and think to the betterment of all people, not just
their own party. The time will come when one is there whether he is Mormon or
not depends on a lot of things. When that happens our leadership will be great
and for once we would be the country we should be.Your hate really
does show through.
re - Bill in Nebraska | 12:27 p.mwell, Bill, you can read into it
whatever you want, but there is no hate involved whatsoever. I certainly don't
hate religious people - it's more of a "huh? really? you still believe
all that?". just the same as if I told you I still believed in santa claus
or vampires, you would find it somewhat disconcerting. would you vote for
someone that said they believed in vampires or any other far-fetched belief?we can have different beliefs. and we can have discussions about them.
that is not hate. it is simply different beliefs. just because
someone doesn't share your views and finds them incredulous doesn't mean they
hate you. I certainly don't hate you. I don't even know you. I
merely find your beliefs far-fetched and am not willing to vote for someone that
shares them, especially when their entire life revolves around those beliefs.
have a nice day.
To chuckie zip code of Sylmar - have you ever voted? I'm curious, because
nearly all public officials seem to express a sincere faith in a higher being,
clearly having not outgrown what you claim is a silly notion.Whether
what you really feel is hate I have no idea. I'll take you at your word that
it's not hate, but it's clearly an elitist mentality that holds in derision the
faith of believers. Just because you haven't personally felt a spiritual
experience that billions of others have felt, you conclude that God doesn't
exist at all and everyone who has experienced something very real to them is
deluded. And to everyone who thinks an Atheist President would be
perfectly acceptable: I'll concede to the voters, but personally I would not
vote for someone who did not hope for the hand of Providence in guiding our
nation, or who would not say or believe in the entire Pledge of Allegiance, or
who did not believe in the full intention and text of the Declaration of
Independence. I certainly hope I'm alone in my thinking.
Correction - I certainly hope I'm NOT alone in my thinking.
I would prefer an atheist for president which is as likely as Huntsman or Romney
getting the nomination.
re - DSB | 3:45 p.m"have you ever voted? I'm curious, because nearly
all public officials seem to express a sincere faith in a higher being, clearly
having not outgrown what you claim is a silly notion."there is
a BIG difference between someone believing in a higher being, karma, fate, souls
and an afterlife, etc versus someone that thinks all the bible stories are true,
evolution doesn't exist, God is always watching and is everywhere, etc.my point was simply that the bible stories, God always watching, etc are great
for teaching children right vs wrong, but one would hope as adults we would
understand that the stories are simply metaphors. and if there is in fact a
god-type creator, he is probably off at some distant planet doing his thing
there. and I don't mean creating a man and using his rib to make a woman...the problem with extreme religions is you think we are the center of the
universe. it's actually quite a self-centered opinion. and as Bill said, your
religion is a total way of life. so you cannot be impartial - your religion
will make your decisions.
To my friend chucky - well, if every religion that believes in those silly Bible
stories is an "extreme" religion, then you'll have a problem with
many, many organized religions that are followed by many, many of our nation's
leaders. By your definition, most of the common traditional religions are
"extreme."I don't profess to know everything about other
religions, but Mormon doctrine teaches that we are certainly not the center of
the universe, but rather one of the countless life creations of God throughout
the universe. Personally, I think it's far more egocentric to
conclude that if I haven't felt God's presence in my life, then he doesn't
exist. And if you believe in karma, fate, souls, afterlife, etc., then why is
your belief system legitimate, but mine is like believing in santa and
vampires?And please name one national LDS politician, Repub or Dem,
that has ever encouraged his constituency to take the discussions, or who has
allowed his religion to overshadow his political responsibilities, despite
Penguin's nonexistent dream candidate. To claim LDS politicians allow their
religion to make their decisions is truly the santa/vampire belief system.
Doesn't really matter if other Christians consider Mormons christian or not they
aren't the ones to say if we are christian or not nor is it any of my business
to decide if anyone else is. Christianity has no main governing council to make
such decisions it is made up of many different churches with many different
opinions the only one who can determine if you are is yourself so say we aren't
all you want it really won't change anything anyway. Christ lives and cares god
Why won't I vote for an LDS candidiate?The media and voters are not
the ones bringing up religion. It is Mormons themselves who push religion into
everybody's face and into everything they do. They wear their religion on their
sleeves.Socially, to a Mormon, you are either a fellow member or a
"non-member" (also known as a potential investigator). Trying to be
friends with a Mormon is like trying to be friends with a MLM-er. They are
always trying to get you to "join".Politically, they
believe they are supposed to prepare the world for the coming of Jesus, when
their theocracy will rule for a thousand years, when "every knee shall bow
and every tongue confess that [the Mormon] Jesus is the Christ"
(Philippians 2:10-11; Mosiah 27:31; D&C 76:110; D&C 88:104).They aspire to "put an end to all nations" (D&C87:6) that Zion
(the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent (in Missouri);
that Christ will reign personally upon the earth.Romney and Huntsman
believe this stuff. It sounds like Taliban or Hezbollah to me. We dont need
that. Nobody does.