I have noticed that extremes on both ends of conservatives and liberals tend to
be ignorant on what the Constitution actually says. The more extreme the more
ignorant.You have to read and accept the whole thing, you cannot
pick and chose the parts you like. If there are parts that you want to change
then there is.riverbed for it. Don't stop recognizing an amendment just because
Compare how Anderson Cooper treated this "Mormonism is a cult" guy
compared to how Fox News did. Cooper attacked him; Fox News enabled him. The
liberal media is treating Mormons a lot better than the conservative media
here.Of course Jon Huntsman gave the best response, calling this guy
point-blank "a moron." "The fact that some moron can stand up
and make a comment like that first of all, its outrageous."If
only the media (and especially the conservative media) were that upfront and
"If you were a Mormon, which would you consider the real threat to your
liberty: what some Dallas Baptist says about your faith or organized attacks
intended to intimidate and drive you off the public square?"As
a Mormon, what I consider a real threat to my liberties are things like
insurance mandates, taxpayer funded bailouts going to big banks, the Patriot
Act, a "kill" list of Americans that the president decides can be
targeted without due process, the possibility that I could be drafted to fight
in a war that Congress never declares, the secret workings of the Federal
Reserve, national ID cards, my voice being drowned out by corporations and
billionaires, and higher taxes to pay for it all.It's great that we
have just discovered the Constitution to defend Mitt Romney's right to run for
office, but a look at Romney's positions on the things I mentioned doesn't
exactly reveal a Constitutional devotee.
"At the heart of the First Amendment is the freedom to participate in the
political process regardless of faith. ""...the attacks on
the property and livelihoods of LDS Church members during the 2008 campaign over
California's Proposition 8 as examples of similar intolerance from the
left."---Isn't this just a bit hypocritical?
First, that you CAN participate in the political process regardless of your
faith, but you CAN'T participate in the political process if you are anti-Prop-8
and LDS involvement?Boycotts (attacks on the livelihood) are part of
the Political Process. They are every bit as valid as Faith.And -
please provide EVIDENCE that any "attacks on church property" were the
work of the anti-Prop-8 crowd? (Note to writer: Protests in front of LDS
temples are not "attacks").
Nice in theory, but there is in fact a de facto religious test, particularly
within the GOP. The Republicans make religion an issue. Candidates purport to
represent that they know God's will (Mitt Romney just did it). In Utah, the
underlying theme for 40 years has been that you can't be a good member of the
Church and be a Democrat. So, if Republicans play with fire, then get burned by
that same fire, well, too bad. You reap what you sow.
I encourage all LDS to ask this question, with sincerity and real intent:Would yuou vote for a candidate who is openly an atheist?If
not, then you are hypocritically applying a religious test for public office.
Mitt Romney will never win California or the south. His only base is other
Mormons and the Eastern Establishment Money. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is the
only GOP who could give a serious challenge to Obama. Think about it. Romney has
the same political agenda as Obama, so it would be more of the same disaster.
I'm convinced many "devout" politicians are really athiests anyway. We
have no proof that these people are doing anything but taking advantage of truly
religious people in with group identity.It's each americans
reponsibility to uphold the constitution. If you are voting for someone simply
because they say they are of your religion or voting against someone because
they arn't then you are failing the constitution.
If ones Religion shouldn't matter, why was there such a push to paint Obama as a
Muslim? Obviously, many, probably MOST people consider religion
before voting. Of course it matters.It's Human nature. And Religion
does, in part, define a person.Seriously, would you vote for an
Atheist, Jehovahs Witness, Muslim or a Scientologist?Be honest now.
als Atheist,Great question. As your question concerns the
appointment to a political office, it all depends on the person's political
positions. I'm not opposed to voting for an atheist who represents my political
views. If someone doesn't represent my political views, then I'm not inclined
to vote for them, regardless of their religious preference.I find it
interesting that people would ever look beyond political qualifications when
making political decisions.
It's a good thing all the haters and radicals are in the middle east...not in
our America, where we have objective, thoughtful political discourse and where
character, as well as ideology, elects our leaders.
'Wall Street Journal columnist reminds readers: 'No religious test' - Title Excuse me? Not 7 months ago... *'Trump on
Obama's Birth Certificate: 'Maybe It Says He's a Muslim' - Fox Nation -
03/30/11 People were making an issue of President Obama, who was
born in Hawaii and Christian... being a Muslim. And now,
suddenly, making an issue of Romney's faith is now 'bad?' *'Fox News
host: Romney not Christian' - By Hal Boyd, Deseret News - 07/17/11
To be clear, I agree that making the faith of a presidental canidate is a shame.
I just find the Double Standard to conservative thinking offensive.
As: *'President Obama's purported 'weird'-Mormon strategy against
Mitt Romney will backfire, pundits say' - By Hal Boyd, Deseret News -
08/10/11 *'Michele Bachmann's pastor on Mormonism' - By Jamshid
Ghazi Askar - DSNews - 09/06/11 Michelle Bachmann and President
Obama have said ZERO about Mitt Romney's religion. But the DSNews
posted artcicles claiming they were 'going too.' Then, when Rick
Perry's pastor makes an issue of it, suddenly, it is? I've said this
before, and I'll say it again. The Deseret News has made more of an
issue about Romney's faith than ANY of his opponents.
I'm quite shocked at the level of constitutional ignorance among experienced
politicos and journalists, such as the Chief Editorial Writer of the Wall Street
Journal who authored this piece.According to the Constitution, there
can be no religious test for legal entry into the field of Presidential
candidates. Such a test has not been made, and not a single person has
suggested that anyone be legally excluded from running based on religion. Not
even Jeffress, despite an incredibly bizarre belief that 1st Amendment rights
only apply those he deems as "true Christians."After
entering the field, every candidate must compete with their experience, ideas,
and values. Every voter certainly has full constitutional rights to give ANY
proportion of weight to ANY aspect of a candidate, including economic
philosophy, foreign affairs expertise, height, good looks, athletic loyalties,
right or left-handedness, or RELIGION. I'd never vote for an
atheist, even if politically aligned, because to me it's tremendously important
that our President invokes the blessings of divine providence for our country.
Still, I believe atheists should be legally allowed to run for the office,
because it's clearly unconstitutional to exclude them.Some voting
motivations are ridiculous, but not unconstitutional.
And yet many mormons really know nothing about Romney; they will vote for him
simply because he is a mormon. That is all they need to know when it comes to
making voting decisions. Just look at how they vote in Utah State and local
elections! Mormon good; anything else not so good.
@ Ranch Hand:According to DN rules, I cannot give you links, but you
asked for evidence. Google this headline. Plenty of Evidence for you in this
article and the associated reads at the bottom."Unhinged
losers: Prop. 8 opponents threaten Mormons and Catholics"
What the Constitution says is largely irrelevant, because the Constitution
places limits on what GOVERNMENT can do, not what people actually do. Obama was
slammed for his beliefs, Kennedy for his. It remains for the candidate to
convince the electorate that his/her religious beliefs, religiosity or lack
thereof should or should not be a factor in each voter's decision. And if religion isn't a factor, please explain why so many conservatives in
Utah support Romney, who is actually quite moderate.
als Atheistmaybe we have. there is no test.
'Google this headline. Plenty of Evidence for you in this article and the
associated reads at the bottom.' - J-TX | 10:00 a.m. Oct. 11, 2011
Then you should be able to present some of them. Names Dates
Titles Sources If you have to rely on a Google
search to make your argument... you don't have one.
People on all sides need to be informed about their candidates' political views,
regardless of faith, ethnicity, gender, or any other reason. To vote AGAINST a
candidate based solely on faith, is the equivalent of voting FOR a candidate
based solely on the basis of gender or ethnicity.The reason why
government is such a mess today is because of this one reason-- people have
voted on appearances and associations for years, not on the hard facts of what
those individuals represent.Get informed people! and vote for or
against Mitt (or any other individual) based on their ideology, not the group
they belong to.
The article mentioned research showing that liberals are not likely to vote for
an LDS Presidential candidate.Gee, like that would never happen,
So, it is okay to vote issues based on your religious beliefs, but it is not
okay to vote for a candidate based on your - or their - religious beliefs?And this is supposed to make sense?As other posters have
pointed out, the Constitution is about what the Government can or cannot do - it
in no way prohibits citizens from voting for or against someone based on
religious beliefs.As for Liberals not voting for a Mormon -
supposedly Conservatives won't vote for Mormons because they are "not
Christian," but what is it that Liberals take issue with? Is it a general
"their Mormon so they're bad" thing like the Conservatives, or is it a
more specific thing like, "Utah has really wacky liquor laws and if the
President is Mormon the entire country will have wacky liquor laws"? In
other words, is it a general "They're Mormon" or a specific
"They're Mormon so ..." type of thing?I realize expecting
full details from the Wall Street Journal may be a stretch, but in this case I
really think the vague mention and lack of details is hiding something....
@ J-TX: Your "proof" consists of a blog mentioning a blog that
mentions a blog where a poster made a comment about taking violent action - no
context, no indication what the responses to the comment were, just a string of
she said he said they said....I find it very interesting that there
are all these claims of attacks and violence but there is not a single primary
(i.e. direct news) source that has any information about such an event taking
place - just 3rd and 4th and 5th hand accounts.Provide
information about a news source - even one that is only semi-reputable -
otherwise, it is all just fear-mongering and upsupported hearsay.
A Guy With A Brain | 12:02 p.m. Oct. 11, 2011 Enid, OK The article
mentioned research showing that liberals are not likely to vote for an LDS
Presidential candidate.Gee, like that would never happen, would
it?.... ================ Senator Harry Reid is the
highest and most politically powerful Mormon is America.Liberals and
Democrats voted into office.Conservatives, Republicans and fellow
Mormons have threated his very life.BTW - If a Mormon is ever
elected President of the United States, he would most likely be a Democrat.
[ala, JFK the Catholic or almost Joe Lieberman the Jew. - Democrats don't make
religion a litmus test for President, that stictly a GOP thing, and watching the
Republicans rip Mitt Romney apart is seriously breaking my bleeding heart.]
Evengelicals who can't vote for someone because of their religion should recluse
themselves from voting. The constitution forbids a religious test for the
holding of public office.
I agree with those posters who advocate that a candidate's religious beliefs and
views are every bit as relevant to an individual's decision as whether or not to
vote for that candidate as any other qualification or personal attribute. What bothers me is that evangelical leaders consistently and
systematically misrepresent the LDS church's beliefs. The true test of whether
one is Christian rests on whether they accept Jesus Christ as their savior and
redeemer, and the extent to which they follow his teachings of "Love thy
neighbor as thyself;" "Do unto others as you would have others do unto
you;" and "Come, follow me." I see no distinction between how a
devout Southern Baptist or a devout LDS person would put these beliefs
effectively into practice.Regarding the "cult" allegation,
it's ridiculous on its face. Members of the LDS church are found in every
aspect of public life in America, from sports to academia to business to
politics, from conservative to liberal, from BYU to Harvard. Our involvement in
the public square belies a "cult" label.We've come a long
way from the days of BH Roberts, Reed Smoot and Frank Cannon.
als Atheist | 7:14 a.m. Oct. 11, 2011 Provo, UT "I encourage
all LDS to ask this question, with sincerity and real intent: Would yuou vote
for a candidate who is openly an atheist? If not, then you are hypocritically
applying a religious test for public office."I don't have a
religious test for office. My rational for supporting any candidate is the
following: First, does the candidate have a history of supporting
something higher than oneself, and how do they demonstrate it? It can be
religious action, community service, or some other way of serving others. If the
individual shows no desire to serve or is out for themselves, they don't make
the cut. Second, is the individual fairly close to my political
views or at least closer than the competition? Third, If all things
are created equal and there is an imbalance of political power (Republicans vs
Democrats), I vote for the political entity that is not in power. If one
political party holds all power, we get stupid legislation. There is no
counter-balance for stupidity. I like the political process to
involve fighting like cats-and-dogs. It is the sound of democracy.