We should judge their politics, not their religion

A person's beliefs are relevant to their candidacy as they reveal how they may act.

Romney (and other Mormon candidates) have made secret oaths and covenants in their Mormon Temples. These take priority above the oath of office of the POTUS, and puts all Mormon members under the strict authority of the Mormon church leaders.

Mormons' history demonstrates the following:

1) Mormon leaders will "lie for the Lord" (as demonstrated by their false report to congress that the practice of polygamy had ceased, whereas the reality was top LDS officials continued polygamous marriages for 10 years after)

2) Mormon leaders will violate their own sacred scriptures (D&C 134) to "mix religious influence with civil government" in a way that denies other citizens of their equal rights under the law (Proposition 8). It is well-documented that the LDS Church was the deciding factor in Prop 8.

3) Mormon leaders have such cultish power over the members of their Church that they can (and did for Prop8) "command" their followers (including a Mormon POTUS) to deprive others of civil rights

4) It is written clearly in their Temple oaths and covenants that members are expected to give all their possessions and use all their positions and opportunities ("everything with which the Lord has blessed you or may bless you") for the building up of the LDS Church.

This includes oaths to give one's life for the building up of the LDS Church. That is an explicit oath regarding a willingness to "give one's life" (suicide) for the Church.

The LDS Temple ceremonies at the time Mitt Romney was "endowed" included graphic depictions of cutting one's throat, disemboweling oneself, and other acts of suicide as a penalty for revealing the secret oaths and failing to be faithful to them.

These are not lies. These are facts. These are not taken out of context. They are true, accurate, and reliable.

They not only give valid reason to wonder about Romney's or Huntsman's loyalties, but also about their rationality. Do we want someone with their finger on "the button" who believes it is their religious duty to "hasten the coming of the day of the Lord?" Who believes their Church is "the one and only true and living Church on the face of the earth", and that Church is chosen by God to "put an end to all nations" and usher in a thousand years wherein THEIR "Jesus" will reign over a one-world government (or Mormons), and "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that [the Mormon] Jesus" is in charge? [a Mormon theocracy]

A Mormon in office is a dangerous thing. We do NOT need a religious fanatic from a CULT in the Whitehouse.

"For instance, the ultimate goal of a true-believing Mormon man, sorry ladies you're always second fiddle, is to become a god, make a planet and populate it with souls created with his wife/wives. He's a god, she's eternally pregnant - some fun.
I'd like to hear Romney explain if he really believes he'll be a god."
------------------------------------------

Why should I care if my candidate's afterlife superstition is being a god or having an immortal soul? That would be like arguing about angel-pin dances.

Now, if he wanted to base Native American policy on the belief they were descended from the Hebrews, THAT would be a problem.

I'm sorry, I was raised in the LDS faith and the stuff they believe as gospel, directly revealed from God mind you, is as crackpot as a Monty Python sketch.

For instance, the ultimate goal of a true-believing Mormon man, sorry ladies you're always second fiddle, is to become a god, make a planet and populate it with souls created with his wife/wives. He's a god, she's eternally pregnant - some fun.

I'd like to hear Romney explain if he really believes he'll be a god. And if so, how he'd like to be worshiped - we demand a sacrifice. What features has he in mind for his planet - fjords?

Tokyoglide said:

"A major issue that the writer, and everyone posting comments, seems to be missing is that, until 1978, the Mormon church held the belief that African-Americans were an inferior race. The color of their skin being the "mark of Cain", the first murderer. Doubtless Mitt Romney is aware of this fact.

I don't think anyone needs to be reminded that such a doctrine, adhered to by Mr. Romney well into his adult life, does not square with the 12th, 13th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This places into question his judgment, i.e., belonging to any body, political, religious or otherwise, that practices institutional racism."

In 2011, there are still a large number of people in many countries and of many faiths who still believe precisely that (and some are elected leaders). So what's your point?

"We should judge their politics, not their religion." I agree in principle, but it worries we when some religions, like Mormonism, require the individual to obtain a recommendation from his bishop before he can participate in the religious sacraments. I would have to wonder whether a Mormon politician would actually be free to dissent from his church's official stand on any issue without fear of retribution. I also recall an article in the newspaper here in the DC area a few years ago where a Catholic lady got a dressing-down from her clergy because her car had a bumper sticker supporting a candidate that the church opposed. She wasn't a politician. See, I think religion does matter. I must be confident that a candidate will not be bound to church doctrine and policy in carrying out the duties of his political office.

Whose spook is the one true spook? Morons...

I don't care if a political candidate is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, Santeria, Scientologist, Ec1ati, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, or worships a pimple named Doug.

I have one concern - will s/he uphold the Constitution, even if doing so does not agree with his/her religious beliefs?

A major issue that the writer, and everyone posting comments, seems to be missing is that, until 1978, the Mormon church held the belief that African-Americans were an inferior race. The color of their skin being the "mark of Cain", the first murderer. Doubtless Mitt Romney is aware of this fact.

I don't think anyone needs to be reminded that such a doctrine, adhered to by Mr. Romney well into his adult life, does not square with the 12th, 13th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This places into question his judgment, i.e., belonging to any body, political, religious or otherwise, that practices institutional racism.

Religious leaders like Ayatollah and non-religious leaders like Kim Jong-il are good examples that dictatorship thrives as long as there are illiterate and ignorant people. If we the people remain committed to the principles of human rights, any religious or non-religious dictator may seize power but won’t last long.

......\......|....../..........
............_..................
......-....(_).....-.........
............................. Sunshine On GOV'T!
....../......|......\.......
.
..
..
. . _________________
.. |VOTE: Mitt ROMNEY |
.. |YES YES! For: 2012+|
. .|_________________|
................. \../ ................... WORLD PEACE!
.. . . v. . . . . || . . . . . . . . . . .
v . . . . . . . . || . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . || . . . .V . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . || . . . . . . . HEALING OF NATIONS!
.. . . . , . . . . ||. . . V. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mitt (with) ROMNEY, Anything Is Possible!
.
FREE ad By The APOCALYPTARIAN-PARTY USA!
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .. . . . .
. . . . .

I agree!

That's why I'm hoping to support a Scientologist for president!

Professor Silverman took the words right out of my mouth. Mormons hold insane beliefs but so do adherents of every religion. What is more disturbing to me is the amount of money the LDS spent to get prop 8 passed in CA.

We certainly should look at the religious beliefs of a candidate. Would you vote for a person to insisted that the earth was flat? Would you vote for a candidate who insisted that a Jew who was executed by the Romans about 2,000 years ago created the universe? It all goes to the question of rationality and what kind of other screwball ideas a candidate has.

Recall James Watts in the Reagan administration in the 80s.
Posted by: jonesm2
---------------------------------------------

Yes, I'd definitely draw the line at a Jehovah's Witness holding any important political office. Fortunately, that sect is completely anti-political, and few people with the credentials to be a major politician even belong to it.

Not every religion is EQUALLY stupid. Mormonism is more so than most. But JW is both stupid and dangerous.

I agree with Professor Silverman that we should ask if the candidate's religious beliefs will affect their political decisions. If they are just pretending to believe, then probably things will be fine. However, if they believe that Jesus is going to return soon and whisk the true believers off to heaven, then they probably won't pay too much attention to issues like global warming and environmental destruction. Recall James Watts in the Reagan administration in the 80s.

USA History, Politics & International Policies an Outside View
1- It is recorded in American 1970’s encyclopedia History Sections (Sky Blue cover) that 150 million red indians were killed by new white settlers which is equal to half the population of today’s Europe and usa itself. Which was total extinction of complete race, even today red Indians are considered endangered spices.
2- A-bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki...
3- Millions killed children.../women Vietnam.
4-More than Million killed in Iraq completely destroyed, no clean water, food, sanitation, hygiene, electricity, roads, and US missionaries killing civilians playing security. It was not like that before. Can you live there now, as normal human being?
5-Worldwide CIA/Pentagon illegitimate jails for renditions and torture . Popular one is Abugraib jail in Iraq, newly built castles in Afghanistan. People like Afia Siddique prisoner no 650 ..her case is one example, a message to outside world about US Justice system, out of hundreds of thousand renditions by US authorities, today people are missing all over the world
6-Destroying (imploding….Just google) twin tower killing their own people and, blaming and then attacking another 3 countries, Iraq, afghan, Pakistan. Conspiring about weapon of mass destruction, Osama Laden who is dead long ago….just google, blatantly lying and ignoring UN advices while attacking weak targets…..for financial gains.
7- Google…USA Monopoly of biggest world business/industry of arms& ammunition. It is proven everywhere that USA creates artificial unrest throughout world after 2nd world war to earn profits on their arms business.eg. Iran Iraq war, Iraq Kuwait war and almost in every war & insurgency especially in the Africa and middle east in last 65-70 years. Causing millions getting killed in Africa, causing famine, child war abuse …..endless death cycle.
8- US forces deployed in more than 120 countries of world, to promote and protect their illegitimate interests.
9-USA Regulatory Monopoly and US single currency in world second largest black gold business, ie, oil
10- Supporting all illegitimate and corrupt governments of world to protect their illegitimate interests like manipulating and controlling the wealth of the world. e.g., When Corrupt allies get toppled or destroyed, US & allies seize their illegal wealth which mostly protected (before getting seized ) in USA, UK, France or Swiss Banks BUT belong to some poor nation, like King Iran trillions of dollars, Iraq Oil, Nigeria Oil and almost everywhere in the third world, present day Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq , Afghan etc etc ……A lesson for illegitimate dictators all over world….that in the end all their looting will go to their masters….and their atrocities will haunt them back…like Sadam, Shah King Iran and now history full of such examples….
What picture of USA it reflects to outside world and what message it gives?Do you ever asked to yourselves?THIS IS SOMETHING I LIKE SEEING HERE UNDER DISCUSSIO

Sorry, Herb...the notion that Mormonism is no sillier than older forms of Christiansanity (which is plenty silly) won't hold water. The preposterous claims of more mainstream Xhristers tend to avoid falsifiability (at least when viewed as allegory, a common claim of those who realize how preposterous a literal reading would be).

But the Mormons are all about very specific historical and archaeological claims that are not only falsifiable, but definitively falsified. We know little about the authors of the Wholly Babble, what drugs they were on, or what mental illnesses they suffered. But we know EXACTLY what sort of common criminal and carney huckster Joseph Smith was.

Believing in the Jesus Christ of the bible is like believing in Bertrand Russell's teapot--maybe it am, and maybe it amn't. But believing in Mormonism is like believing in homeopathy--there's nothing "maybe" about it--the premise is conclusively disproved.

Which brings me to the point--we have to put up with politicians who believe in silly things. It's quite another to suffer those who adhere to falsehoods as to which there can be no dispute.

Would you be so sanguine about electing a Holocaust denier?

Which brings us to the next point--one can reasonably argue that mainstream Christianity has retreated somewhat from the crazed bloodthirstiness with which it threatened the world centuries ago. Par contra, the crimes of Mormonism are a bit too recent for my comfort. I refer not only to the Mountain Meadows Massacre and Mormonisms's recent history of other mass murders, but to its official endorsement of mass child-rape. (Think that the main branch of Mormonism has renounced "celestial marriage," and that it's just the Fundamentalist crazies who maintain the tradition of baby-raping? Wrong. Check your facts on that.)

How would you feel about electing Fred Phelps? How about Pol Pot?

Mormonism is a violent mental illness.

Mitt Romney’s theology is based on First Century Christianity, not Fourth Century Creeds. For example, the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) views on Baptism, Lay Ministry, the Trinity, Theosis, Grace vs. Works, the Divinity of Jesus Christ comport more closely with Early Christianity than other denominations. And Mormons’ teenagers have been judged to “top the charts” in Christian Characteristics by a UNC-Chapel Hill study. Read about it here:

http://MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com

Those who would denigrate Mitt Romney's religion, usually are mis-informed.

Mormons have a better understanding of Christianity than any other denomination, according to a 2010 Pew Forum poll:

http://www.pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

11 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were non-Trinitarian Christians. Those who insist on their narrow definition of Christianity are doing our Republic an injustice. Would they deny these Founding Fathers public office because they didn't believe in a Trinitarian Jesus Christ?

But, given a choice between a sincere atheist who nonetheless bases her or his decisions on what's best for the country vs. a complete religionist (like Bush for instance)who thinks it's cool to invade other nations based on rumors of WMDs, give me the one grounded in reality every time!

When folk believe in invisible flying thingies and other paranormal oddities and like the world will end soon in the long awaited rapture, don't give them too much power or we'll ALL get killed.

While I admire Professor Silverman's notion of judging a candidate's politics and not their religion, I unfortunately find that the two have become inextricably entwined in the period since Mo Udall's heyday. This is especially so when a political position is informed by religious doctrine, or is held in order to appeal to the sensibilities of a voting religious constituency. When this constituency consists of evangelical Christians, Mormons, or other religious groups, the line between politics and religion becomes blurred. The impulse by religiously motivated politicians to legislate morality in conformity with traditional or religious practice demands that a responsible and concerned citizen investigate not only the political but religious positions of each candidate.

Despite political diatribe by the uneducated…

Romney has successfully and profitably managed large businesses, created more private sector jobs and saved more private sector businesses (Domino’s Pizza & Staples, a few of many) than any other candidate. He knows and understands world economics.

He has succeeded at every job he has had. Yes, that’s right, he is not a “Career” Politician.

Funny. Half of MA loves what Romney did, the other half hate him, maybe because he left after completing only one term. Again, he has not been a “Career” Politician.

Yes, he worked as the MA governor for his entire term for FREE!!! Who would do that!?

MA had a huge deficit when he started, and he left MA with a surplus and balanced budget without raising taxes at the end of his term. Who has done that? He can't help it if they screwed up after he left.

Since states have their own rights as to how they operate, “Romneycare” never has been the same as “Obamacare”! MA’s super Democrat controlled legislature wanted desperately some kind of Universal Health care program. Romney, a republican, worked with them to create one that would work, similar to mandated auto insurance (what state allows you to legally drive without insurance?). It is estimated that 98% of the residents are now covered. Romney wanted the requirement that everyone should pay something towards it with no exceptions, and it was within projected budget, until Romney left and the state super Democrat controlled government made changes to the program and now it is costing them.

He compromised on some things in order to keep the state government working together and moving forward.

He turned around a struggling 2002 Winter Olympics and made it into one of the most profitable Olympics in history. And only took a $1 dollar salary. Who would do that!?

He is against federalization & big government. Believes in state’s rights.

He lives the example and believes in the importance of family.

He is for a strong military and believes the borders should be better protected.

The list of real positives is far greater than the supposed list of negatives.

It is the essential nature of ALL religions that they advocate a certain number of crazy ideas. That's practically their defining characteristic.

But, given a choice between a sincere Christian who nonetheless bases her or his decisions on what's best for the country vs. a complete atheist who thinks it's cool to invade other nations based on rumors of WMDs, give me the one grounded in reality every time!

"Ideally, whether someone is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, or atheist should not matter in a country that prides itself in having freedom of religion and conscience."

We don't really have freedom of religion. We have freedom for the majority religion. The rest must contend with all sorts of discrimination at some time or another.

There is no need to ask whether a religionist's beliefs will influence their votes on public policy. Of course they will.