Meh. I don’ t have any problem voting for a Mormon (I’m pretty much the last person in America that likes poor Harry Reid). But I can understand not doing so, and I hardly think thats equivalent of not voting on race. Black is the color of Obama’s skin, Mormonism is, at least in theory, the basis of Romney’s moral beliefs and view of the world. One of these are a lot more relevant to how someone will govern then the other.
There’s nothing progressive about ignoring someone’s self-identified, deep-seated belief systems in deciding whether to vote for them.
Skin color, of course, is nothing like either political or religious creed.
Actually, it’s not that much different.
Barack Obama is a secret Muslim.
Barack Obama is a Black Panther.
JFK will take orders from the Pope.
JFK worships idols.
*Mitt Romney will conduct witch hunts. *
Joe Lieberman can’t work on Saturday mornings.
Hillary Clinton could have her period during a national crisis!
Cites please.
And that means there are at least 64 bigots on SDMB…
Religious bigotry is always far more tolerated in progressive circles than racial bigotry.
Everybody believes in universal morality of some sort or at least believes there needs to be laws reflecting a version of universal morality for social order. For example that is why murder and theft is illegal, it is just the details and extent of morality that politicians and people disagree on,
[QUOTE]
That has nothing to do with persecuting witches.
The Antichrist or an Antichrist? Because if Catholics are not Christians (as some argue) that logically anybody Catholic would be an Antichrist because all nonbelievers are Antichrists (NOTE: I do not believe this myself).
Which is exactly what the Bible says. Indeed a lot of politicians probably believed this including (randomly selecting) William Gladstone or James K Polk and which never impacted their leadership.
The first has little to do with religion. Creationism in schools will probably get struck down in the Courts and saying homosexuality is evil is no different from believing adultery is evil in terms of effects.
I said that Romney’s religion didn’t bother me, but just for the record, youi can’t compare opinions about beliefs with racial bigotry.
Social order and “morality” are two different things. A lot of religious morality has nothing to do with practical social order, but with notions of ritual/sexual purity.
Palin’s pastor persecuted witches in Kenya. At least he claims he did. He might be full of shit (his version of the story is pretty silly).
There is zero distinction in stupidity or bigotry between these positions, but for the record what her church specifically says is that the “Papacy is the Antichrist.”
Her church is the Wisconsin Lutheran Evangelical Synod. This is from their Statement on the Antichrist fgrom their own website:
Seeing as how Barack Obama was barbecued for some mildly hyperbolic statements made by his own pastor, I don’t think Republican candidates should get a pass on the inflammatory positions taken by some of their own churches (especially if they’re going to call Romney a “heretic”).
The Bible does not say that, actually, and it’s still a stupid and disturbing thing for a POTUS candidate to say he believes in the 21st century. Would it affect Perry’s ability to lead? Perhaps not, but I didn’t cite it as a problem with Perry’s ability to lead, but to show that Romney’s beliefs are no more worrisome than anyone else in the GOP field, and I would argue are less so than a lot of them.
It’s still nutty and irrational.
It already has been. That doesn’t mean it’s not a stupid, irrational thing for a politician to believe.
It’s not in the same ball park. Adultery (and I’m defining adultery only to mean marital infidelity which involves deception) causes emotional harm. Homosexuality does not. Can you explain what “evil” is done to anyone or anything by two consenting adults of the same gender having sex with each other? Is there anything “evil” about loving, committed same-sex relationships.
More to the point, though, I was only pointing out that Romaney does not exactly have a stranglehold on irrational beliefs, but at least (as far as I know) he isn’t trying to codify his beliefs into law like a lot of these clowns.
I know however I was responding to others and if someone said “I wouldn’t vote for x just because he’s religion y” that is bigotry. Even if a politician was a Scientologist it wouldn’t be a matter of great concern unless he tried to implement something.
Of course that depends on the person…
Hmm…
Rev. Wright’s statements were political while the statements mentioned above are theological. It merely posits that the views of the Vatican are not in accordance with that of the Bible.
[/QUOTE]
I misunderstood, my apologies.
It says a lot more than that, Qin. This is the final paragraph of the statement (on page 9):
You can’t really spin that as just a theological disagreement. It’s a statement that the Pope is the literal personification of evil. Do you really think Obama would get a pass if he belonged to a church that taught this?
On the SDMB? Of course he would.
If Romney were a liberal Democrat, his faith would be treated exactly the same way Obama’s Christianity is treated.
Feel free to deny it; nobody with any pretensions to perspicacity will believe it for an instant.
Regards,
Shodan
This is firstly a crock, and secondly an irrelevant evasion.
I am treating them the same already, dude. I don’t care about either.
It is neither a crock nor an evasion. What I said is the exact and literal truth.
It’s like An Arky’s allegations that he would never vote for a Catholic. What he meant, and what you mean, and what a good 70% of the Dope means, is that they would never vote for a Republican. The stuff about religion is just a rationalization.
Regards,
Shodan
The thing is, Romney isn’t exactly a blank slate. He has a record, and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t include turning the government of Massachusetts over to the LDS church.
I won’t be voting for him unless Randall Terry wins the Democratic nomination, but seriously, the idea that he’s going to turn the White House over to the First Presidency makes as much sense as the allegations that Obama was some kind of Muslim trojan horse.
ETA: He wants to privatize Social Security and repeal PPACA, but let’s focus on the magic underwearz!
Qin, is it bigotry to rule out the possibility of voting for a Communist?
It’s nothing but your own fantasy.
What do you mean, what I mean? I clearly said that Romney’s religion was irrelevant to me, and that I would be upset to see Obama or the Democrats make an issue of it.
Does Romney’s religion bother YOU?
Not the article I originally found out from, here’s your citation.
Look, if you wanted to not vote for me because I might turn your kids into tree-huggers, that’s fine. It’s not so much his religion as what he might do because of his religion.
Of course if the church instead called the Papacy the personification of evil because of the Inquisition, Galileo, and so on the reaction would be different. In addition similar language regarding the Vatican appears on the founding documents of most Protestant churches although nowadays most churches pay lipservice to them.
Depends. If someone calls himself a Communist but actually advocates moderate conservative policies that it would be illogical to vote against him just because he’s calling himself a Communist.
Has Romney at all associated with the people above?
Not that I’ve heard, but I said witch hunts were happening, not that Romney hunts witches.
Romney’s socialist bent bothers me way more than his Mormonism ever would.
Really? Can we have a cite for that claim? Thus far all you’ve linked to is articles about Thomas Muthee and his stance on witchcraft, and Muthee is not Palin’s pastor now, nor has he ever been.
While we’re at, how about some cites for your other claims in this thread as well.
His whole campaign against a woman he claimed wa a witch is cited in the articvle. Read the fucking thing.
What specific claims do you want cites for? If I produce the cites, what are you going to say?
not if he can break into song