46% of Democrats Would Oppose Mormon President

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by sisu

No he can't. Do your research it is only a google away. While the power to declare war is constitutionally vested in Congress, the president commands and directs the military and is responsible for planning military strategy. So war must be approved by congress?

Yes, he can. Congress hasn't formally declared war on anyone since 1941, but Presidents have ordered military action of one sort or another pretty much every year since.

The USA, he is only one man and must have the support of a huge political machine to get anything done. We have seen presidents not get their way, I always wonder why they spend so much on electing themselves, is it for personal gain or ego?

Shocking though this revelation may be to you, all men are just one man.

[gamerunknown]

I think it's acceptable to say this is an example of discrimination, if not bigotry, if a Republican's refusal to vote for an atheist counts. Most Republicans probably think atheists have positions they fundamentally disagree with, such as enforced abortions and sterilisation (because atheist = evilutionist = eugenicist = Social Darwinist), promiscuous sex, preferably in public and a slippery slope leading to their unemployed children smoking weed and marrying their dogs while Muslims take over America due to the lack of people willing to defend their country.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Blank Slate

It's nonsensical to equate gender or race to religious affilliation. Religious beliefs are a choice. I wouldn't vote for a devout Mormon or an evangelical Christian if they espoused right-wing views. I would consider a liberal Mormon, though. I wouldn't vote for a furry, because they are silly. Is that bigotry? If so, I can live with that.

No except that the poll asked for any Mormon.

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

As much as the OP might like his thesis of "Neener neener neener, the Democrats are the real bigots!" to be borne out, I believe the truth is a lot less damning of the left. Mormons are a very conservative lot (when you get past the polygamy tradition)- no drinking, no profanity, anti-abortion, etc. Since their well-known views on social issues are at odds with what liberals believe, it's only natural that we cannot support a Mormon candidate. It isn't that we begrudge them their faith, we just don't want them in positions of power to force their faith on the rest of us. Look at the silly liquor laws the people of Utah have to put up with. If liberals wanted the US to go back to 19th century morality, maybe we'd consider a Mormon. But we don't and we won't.

Except there are a lot of Mormons who are not politically conservative. Similarly there are Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists who despite their denomination's views often advocated socially liberal politics.

Originally Posted by zut

4. Would you vote for a U.S. presidential candidate who had a history of marital infidelity? Democrats: 29.5% yes, 51.8% no | Republicans: 23.1% yes, 55.1% no

How many of these Democrats who said "no" would be willing to vote for JFK or Bill Clinton? How many of these Republicans who said "no" would be willing to vote for Newt Gingrich?

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Yes. Here's a good source for the topic:

http://20truths.info/mormon/blood.html


You are free to vote as you please. If you choose not to vote for the Obama-Biden ticket because it has two Christians, you are free to do so.

As for the question of whether the same logic that I use to rule out supporting a Mormon candidate would also apply a Jewish candidate, it would not, because there is no abundant evidence of the falsehood of Judaism, as there is for the LDS Church. In the case of Mormonism, for part of the Mormon scriptures (the Book of Abraham), we have part of the original manuscript, and thus can see factually that it isn't what Joseph Smith said it was, or in other words it's a fraud. The entire Book of Mormon deals with vast civilizations whose existence is fully ruled out by archaeology. From the Mark Hofmann affair, we know that the LDS Church has paid hush money to silence what it thought was genuine history. Mitt Romney, not being entirely ignorant, is surely aware of these facts and many others that cast doubt on his church's claims, yet he remains a member and self-proclaimed believer. There are no comparable issues that a Jewish candidate would have to face about his or her religion.

A lot of these people may take the Book of Mormon non-literally and symbolically as many Jews or liberal Christians do. Plus we are not voting for the President of the Archeologist Association we are voting for President of the United States.

Originally Posted by rogerbox

Even if being a mormon (or any religion) disqualified someone from someone's vote, that doesn't make that person a bigot for doing so, but it's a nice attempt at accusing progressives of what conservatives are actually guilty of.

The difference is religion is a BELIEF, and a CHOICE, and you are voting for someone ostensibly based on their BELIEFS, and a religion's beliefs can be contrary to a voter's belief system. Personally since I belive Mormonism is a white supremacist religion, I wouldn't vote for a mormon since I think anyone who remains a member of that church at least, is not so turned off by their recent past racialism that they would remain. Unless they come out and say "My church is flat out wrong about blackness being the mark of Cain's sin and it was WRONG for black people to not be allowed to be clergy until the embarrassingly late date of 1978", they either are sympathetic to those stances or too pathetically weak to stand against something so disgusting. I have a low tolerance for racists and those who don't oppose racism, sorry.

And what about the Catholic Church with its history of religious persecutions such as the Albigensian Crusade or the Inquisition? And Governor Romney's father had a strong record on civil rights. Would you then oppose Harry Reid's candidacy?

Originally Posted by rogerbox

Are these people freaking insane? Do they think we can control and go to war with the entire planet? Or even if we could, that we SHOULD???

While this is a bit OT, I'm not sure how "stopping Iran from getting nukes" is comparable to "let's conquer the whole planet!". And I don't support an Iranian war BTW.

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

"Religious bigotry" makes it sound like something inherently wrong, like racist or homophobic biggotry. But is it? If someone sincerely believed that murder should be legal, would you be a bigot against the murder legalization movement by not voting for him? Sure, but is "bigot" the right term here?

There's a difference between discriminating someone's belief and actions and discriminating against them for some inherent, irrelevant property. If a person's religion informs their judgement on issues that may affect how they govern, how in the world could it not be relevant?

If they decide to be the old aztec religion and promise they're going to bring back ritualistic sacrifice and cannibalism, and you discard them because of that religion, you're being a religious bigot, but if they just decide hey cannibalism is awesome with no religious reasons, then it's okay to hold it against them?

Except most religions in America and elsewhere do not advocate that or something else like that. Isn't it bigotry for example to oppose a Muslim candidate because its founder was arguably a pedophile (one of his brides was a child) and almost certainly was a military conqueror. And would it be bigotry if someone was willing to vote for someone who was homosexual but not for someone who engaged in homosexual sex?

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

I think it's acceptable to say this is an example of discrimination, if not bigotry, if a Republican's refusal to vote for an atheist counts. Most Republicans probably think atheists have positions they fundamentally disagree with, such as enforced abortions and sterilisation (because atheist = evilutionist = eugenicist = Social Darwinist), promiscuous sex, preferably in public and a slippery slope leading to their unemployed children smoking weed and marrying their dogs while Muslims take over America due to the lack of people willing to defend their country.

I'm not particularly proud of that. But if in people's minds a Mormon is identified with Romney than even more people seem to identify an atheist with Jacobinism or Communism. I suspect a lot of conservatives would vote for someone like Ayn Rand (even if they thought he or she was too socially liberal).

[Elendil's Heir]

You've probably already seen this: http://truthsite.org/images/AynRandVersusJesus.jpg

[Wendell Wagner]

Qin Shi Huangdi, there aren't actually that all-fired many Mormons who aren't distinctly conservative. The proportion of people who call themselves Evangelicals whose political positions are liberal is distinctly larger than the proportion of people who call themselves Mormons whose political positions are liberal. The term "Evangelical" has quite a different use than the term "Mormon." It's not necessary to be a member of a particular denomination to call oneself an Evangelical. One can be a member of a mainstream Protestant church, for instance. There are political/religious organizations made up entirely of people who call themselves Evangelicals and who on economic matters are very liberal. Yes, most Americans who call themselves Evangelicals are political conservatives, but quite a few aren't.

On the other hand, nearly everyone who calls themself a Mormon is a member of the Latter Day Saints church (or, in a small proportion of cases, an off-shoot which is equally conservative), although they may not often attend church. To publicly take a liberal position would at least get some disapproval from most other Mormons. The hierachy of the church is very conservative on most political issues.

In the U.S. at least, most people who call themselves Roman Catholics are not conservatives at all. They are no more conservative on most political issues than the average mainstream Protestant and only slightly more conservative than most people who don't belong to or identify with any church. They aren't even particularly conservative on issues that the Catholic hierarchy makes a big deal about. (And, let me note, papal statements tend to be more liberal on economic issues than the average American is.) On typical political polls in the U.S., people who call themselves Catholic are no more conservative on birth control and only a little more conservative on abortion than the average American.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Except there are a lot of Mormons who are not politically conservative. Similarly there are Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists who despite their denomination's views often advocated socially liberal politics.

Apparently there aren't enough non-conservative Mormons to have any influence on the laws of Utah. Sure there may be some liberal Mormons, but they know enough to remain silent.

[Elendil's Heir]

Or are just vastly outvoted. Democrat Harry Reid was elected from sinful Nevada, not straitlaced Utah.

[Wendell Wagner]

An article about why Mormons are so consistently conservative these days:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/f...n_culture.html