Erm… he said he would ‘most likely not’ have Muslim cabinet members. Past administrations were the same if I am not mistaken.
We’ve already had at least one Mormon in a cabinet position: Ezra Taft Benson. He was Secretary of Agriculture in both terms of the Eisenhower administration. Can’t get much more Mormon than him: he was President of the LDS from 85-94.
Yes. Your point?
Interesting tidbit: South Korea has had one Mormon in a cabinet position. Dr. Kim Ho-Jik was Vice-Minister of Education in President Rhee’s cabinet.
Well, you might actually look at what he has done in real life instead of imagining terrible potential acts. Were Mormons unduly emplaced at the Olympics he managed. (Given the venue,there should have been ONLY Mormons in charge of the whole thing, et that did not happen. How many Mormons were appointed to high places in the Massachusetts government? (And if ANY actually were, were they less than qualified for their positions?)
The problem with thinking that people who do not think the way you do must necessarily behave in bad ways is that when they fail to live down to your expectations you have to run around madly finding reasons to explain why it was “an accident” they they got their jobs done.
It is really a silly perspective.
Boy they sure can sing and dance.
Well, arguably, the most famous family of Mormons in the world are famous for exactly that.
Speaking of famous Mormons.
Listen I have no problem knocking religion. Hell I’m not even a big fan of Romney as a human being or politician for that matter. This really does seem like nitpicking though. I mean listen of all the things you could pick about about how ridiculous Mormons are you picked those 5? I mean really? Those particular 5 things are what offend you? Not the Jesus coming to America part? or the Magic Underwear? Hell you were better off just sticking to the polygamy part and I don’t even have a problem with polygamy (I believe that marriage contracts should be written up independent of the government as contracts however you want to do it as long as everyone involved is fine with it have your kicks it’s not my cup of tea but que sera.)
I mean. I really just can’t wrap my head around what the OP is getting at. I mean listen Mitt Romney has faults. Lot’s of them. (Like telling a kid straight to his face that he shouldn’t be allowed to toke up once in a while even though it might help him deal with the pain of a terminal illness.) These are hardly the deal breaking ones.
This really just seems… petty.
A concrete example for Gonz re: the difference between Bush and Romney. Bush, as governor of Texas, got involved with the March for Jesus movement, signing proclamations that on a certain day all the religious nuts are to descend on the capitol, marching for Jesus, and demanding… I’m not sure. There is a distinct theocratic feel to it. Anyway, he went on to appoint Mike Johanns, another former March for Jesus governor, as Secretary of Agriculture. Now, even to this day, we spend billions on Corn Ethanol for Jesus instead of some sensible energy program.
Does Romney have anything like March for Jesus proclamations in his past?
I’m not sure Romney would specifically appoint Mormons. I am pretty sure he is just as intertwined with the religious right as most other republicans though. So they would definitely be of that ilk. And we can pretty much rule out appointing any atheists, agnostics, Muslim, and Buddhists. Probably at least one token minority (christian of course).
It’s a shame that the christian right has completely neutered the Republican party.
All that being said I still think Romney is a Tool. Just not for the reasons posted at the top of this thread.
I keep hearing here and other places about the Mormon Joseph Smith being a con man. My view of that type of person is someone who lies, cheats, steals, etc. for some type of gain, i.e. money, fortune, fame, adoration, property and the like.
I’m far from a Mormon expert, or a Joseph Smith expert but from what I do know about his life from a book someone gave to me… getting tarred and feathered, unjustly jailed, beaten, slandered, libeled, being driven from one location to another, remaining poor and finally being murdered while under state protection doesn’t fit any gain or advantage that I am aware of.
I’d appreciate a better understanding of how he was a con man from those who keep saying that he was if they can provide any evidence other than their own “verbal masterbation”* about the subject.
Thanks in advance!
*I coined this term for those people who talk a lot about any subject but actually have little to say. Feel free to help bring it into general usage.
Well, I too am not an expert. But i’d say for one, this presumes he should have been a successful con man (if he was one); he could just have been really bad at it. And beyond that, if he was one, and successful, there is an entire religion today based around ideals that he had a founding hand in. What was his barber’s name?
Well, there was the bit about him having at least 33 wives. And I don’t really think he remained poor. Plus he had a large group of people who believed he was a prophet and would do what he said.
The charges of dishonesty leveled against Joseph Smith generally relate to his activities prior to the time he founded his church. There are a lot of people who consider the church little more than an unsuccessful (for him) scam, but there are historical records of him having been arrested in upstate New York, accused of attempting a con. (I do not recall whether he was actually convicted.) The con he was accused of running involved using various devices to find hidden treasure–which bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the manner in which he claimed to have discovered the Golden Plates.
Drop “Joseph Smith con artist” or “Joseph Smith hidden treasure” into Google and you will get a number of hits. Many of the stories told about Smith have been challenged by advocates of the church. I am not going to wade into that controversy; there is ample information from both sides available on the internet.
Yes, the records show that he was apparently convicted and fined.
But the charges of dishonesty don’t just relate to the time BEFORE Mormonism was founded; they relate to things after Mormonism’s founding too, like the Kirtland Safety Society, or the whole polygamy thing.
There are, as you said, plenty of sources for both sides of the issue to argue over forever.
I still don’t get what it has to do with Romney’s performance in political office.
Would you vote for someone who claimed to believe in the tooth fairy? How about a person who claimed to be butt raped by space aliens? What if they claimed a Ouija board helped them to make decisions? Or tarot cards?
What people believe can affect how they make decisions. Now he may make perfectly fine choices as he may be just going through the motions as that was how he was brought up. But the thread is about ‘fair questions’. Is it fair to question someone on their beliefs in the tooth fairy, butt raping aliens, religious beliefs based upon the sayings of obvious con-men, what have you? Why isn’t it? Remember Mitt was a member of this church when they did actively prevent black people from being clergy. A fair question might be, “What did you do to facilitate black people being priests?”, or at the least, “Did you agree with this policy?”
How about believing they could be possesed by demons at any time?
When my choice is between a guy who believes in the tooth fairy and a guy who believes in the tooth pixie yes; I may well vote for the tooth fairy guy if his other less loony beliefs are more tolerable.
I’d vote against Romney because he’s a Republican. His Mormonism is irrelevant, because all of his plausible opponents have beliefs that are just as lunatic.