General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy is it off limits to say that Romney is a Mormon??
What is so negative or suspicious about Mormonism that makes it "off limits"?
Is it sort of like someone that doesn't want to talk about their criminal record because they did time for pornography or child abuse? I don't think of Mormonism like that. I think of it as a religion just like Southern Baptist or Prebsbyterian or Catholic?
So why is it taboo to talk about? We did not refrain from saying that Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist. In fact, he was rather proud of the fact.
So why are we hiding from the Mormon religion??
BuckIA
(76 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)That is a definite DUzy!!!!
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)JI7
(89,283 posts)silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Oh, wait....
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Perhaps he knows his religion is a farce and is ashamed of it?
kentuck
(111,110 posts)We couldn't talk about it?
But Mormonism is an established religion, right? So why can't it be talked about? We should protect him from his religious-right base in the South? Why should we protect him? He is our political opponent? Don't we have a responsibility to point out his religion, without making a judgement about it one way or the other? Otherwise, it seems we are sweeping something under the rug for political reasons only?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)to light. But Rmoney doesn't want to talk about it. That's why he repudiated publicly what his strategists wanted to do in regards to the Pres and Rev Wright. I think he is ashamed and embarassed of his silly religion and I do think it is sillier than other religions. What with magic underwear, inheiriting and populating planets, plural marriage in the sky.. praying till it burns in your breasts, baptising by proxy, secret plot to overthrow US Government- all of it.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)And they fled to Mexico so they could continue practicing polygamy.
Romney would prefer not to talk about polygamy.
I can see why, as public knowledge of polygamy in his family could cost him votes.
Polygamy.
C_U_L8R
(45,031 posts)But a Mormon Bishop.
I'd bet there would be a lot of talk and suspicion if a Catholic Bishop or any other sort of Bishop was running for President. Do we really want to be governed by some wackadoo church official ??
demosincebirth
(12,550 posts)Initech
(100,129 posts)Spike89
(1,569 posts)I think there is a very blurry line where it is appropriate to examine a candidate's faith because after all it does (the candidate's themselves claim) inform how they make decisions. The blurry part is "a candidate's faith" which can be parsed in two different ways; his/her personal interpretation and implementation of the religion or the religion itself.
It is fair to look at the first and discuss, for example, "Romney's faith has lead him to take a stand on issue X, and therefore he's likely to..." It isn't fair to say "Mormonism is a cult and magic underwear is silly so Romney, as a Mormon, is unqualified to be President."
Simply put, it is one thing to attack a candidate for "being" a member of a religion (wrong) and another thing to attack that candidate for "acting" on the religion. Not every Catholic is anti-choice, not even every anti-choice Catholic would impose that view on their legislative agenda. Likewise, not every Mormon will govern as an officer of the church.
Obama obviously isn't muslim, but it doesn't matter to me. He once (still does?) belonged to Rev. Wright's congregation, but again, I don't care. What matters is how those associations inform and influence his behavior and policies that matter.
I'd rather have a member of some crazed cult who can legislate sanely than a member of the most "sane" established religion who legislates on ideology over practicality.
trof
(54,256 posts)It just a fact.
When did facts become 'off limits'?
ctaylors6
(693 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)Nor do I see any problem talking about Obama going to Rev Wright's church?
If the two Parties decide that they don't want to talk about it, then they can compromise and negotiate a cease fire on talking about religion.
Sound fair?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)just that here at DU, if serving on jury duty and reading some of the alerts are pointing to a trend here.
jp11
(2,104 posts)JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Mitt's campaign and those who like to parade how righteous they are....You want to mention Mittens is a Mormon? Bigot!1! *puke*
Julie
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)and because Romney refuses to talk about it.
There is a double standard in operation.
Democrats are portrayed as defenders of "the secular", so no matter how religious they personally are, they are always tagged as "unbelievers" and must constantly prove their beliefs
Republicans are portrayed as Christians FIRST and foremost, and since Christianity is the default position of the US, they rarely have to prove anything.
Odd-duck republican candidate who is NOT a Christian, always wants to be seen as part of the flock, so they never want to be singled out for scrutiny.
The media obliges republicans whenever they can.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)I was raised Mormon and I don't want one as President of the United States.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Can you explain?
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)and an authoritarian mindset. Granted not all Mormons are like that but it's difficult to fit in (and it's a very social-oriented religion...it encompasses almost all aspects of your life) if you have unorthodox ideas or points of view...more so than other mainstream religions. They believe that their prophet and church leaders speak directly for God... most religions rely on scriptures. They believe that their "prophet" still receives revelation from God to this very day.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Some posters here have indirectly attempted to chastise me for one of my previous posts. And I thought maybe I should attempt to provide some information that has led me to the opionon I have of the Mormon religion.
This link asks the question: How will view his Presidency (if elected) and how will he be influenced by the LDS church.
http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/Mitt-Romney-Mormon-Secrets
The link I am providing is a site by ex mormons and has a plethora of information if you begin at the home page.
http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I owe a
(50 posts)in 1826, four years before the publication of the Book of Mormon, Joseph was arrested, jailed, and examined in court in Bainbridge, New York on the charge of being "a disorderly person and an impostor" in connection with his use of a peep stone to search for buried treasure. While the evidence indicates he was found guilty of this charge, the young Joseph was apparently released on the condition that he leave the area
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no68.htm
chowder66
(9,098 posts)He is a mormon. He says he is. No one is saying he is a Scientologist or a Catholic, or any other religion.
It's interesting that many require religious presidential candidates but we are not supposed to discuss it.
Democrats are more tolerant but is there such a thing as being too tolerant - to the point that it becomes un pc to discuss topics that might offend others no matter how considerate the discussion may be??
Confusing.
underpants
(182,988 posts)Maybe I Missed soMething
Mister Lane
(7 posts)Have you not heard of the prejudices that Mormons had to overcome in this Country, bro? It's pretty known and if the mainstream media wants President Obama to be reelected, it'll be best to not make Romney look like a Kennedy.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Zax2me
(2,515 posts)I don't think it is off limits at all.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)It's a fact. Where the problem comes in is when that membership leads to ridicule of the religion. Then, it can create a backlash effect. For example, attacking Romney for wearing "magic underwear" does nothing to help keep him from being elected. The Mormon garment is part of that church's doctrine, and faithful Mormons wear the stuff, at least some of the time. That has nothing to do with anything relating to whether someone should be elected to high office.
Similarly, the whole "planet" think is equally silly to use as a campaign feature. It is no more bizarre than regular Christian churches' concept of some "Heaven" and "Hell." It's just different. Ridiculing that serves no purpose.
The fact that Romney's great-grandfather or grandfather lived in Mexico and practiced polygamy is also a non-starter and won't affect anyone's vote. Polygamy isn't part of LDS doctrine today, and hasn't been for a long time. There are splinter groups that still practice it, but Romney's not a member of any of those.
Calling the Mormon church a "cult" is also a non-starter. It's a well-established religion, with members all across the country. It's no more a cult than any other large religious group, and no less a cult, either. The word "cult" makes no sense in this case, and does no good in bringing votes to Obama. Let the Right Wing do this, not us.
Romney is a Mormon. That is a fact. Current Mormon doctrines are fodder for discussion, certainly, but ridiculing what seems odd just doesn't do much, except to make those doing the ridiculing look petty. Romney has stated positions that can be attacked on any grounds we like, but making fun of his underwear, or calling him a polygamist for something his great-grandfather did is just foolish and will affect nobody's vote.
The reality is that the fundamentalist right is attacking Romney's Mormonism plenty often. It may well cost him votes from the far right, and that's a good thing. Our participation in that isn't needed. Independents, who we do want to vote for Obama, aren't going to be influenced by ridicule of the man's religion. They simply aren't. We'll do much better to attack Romney's stated positions in getting Independent voters to vote for Obama.
The bottom line is that ridicule or other outlandish attacks based on Romney's religion aren't going to benefit our side at all. So, they're a waste of time.
That the LDS Church opposes marriage equality very strongly is something worth using. The LDS Church's past refusal to allow black members to become members of the church hierarchy is a valid argument, especially when tied to Romney's failure to include black members in high positions on his staff. Those are things we can use that may have a good effect.
Underwear and planets? Not so much. Leave that to the Religious Right to bring up. They're doing it already.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)because the GOP has been playing a game here for a long long time.
Here is how the game works.
The GOP wants to keep all "Christians" as a voting block. Now, much of the right wing Fundy base thinks that Mormonism and Catholicism are cults. But they don;t really want to discuss that openly because doing so might divide the "Christian" voting block. So the GOP, and the media, might mention that a candidate is a Mormon, or a Catholic, but they avoid digging into the "who is a real Christian" question.
Of course the GOP loves to try to paint Democrats as "not true Christians". Anti "family values". No morals. So on.
And so they call Obama a Muslim, say he's "the wrong kind of Christian. All in an attempt to get the Christian voting block to vote against Obama and the Dems.
With a Mormon as the GOP candidate, the GOP is going to struggle here ... they can't be attacking Obama's religion, because it opens the door to the question "Are Mormons true Christians".
So, the GOP and the media will try to walk a tight-rope here. Its ok to say Mitt is a Mormon, but don't bring up the "Are Mormons true Christians" question, because it might cost the GOP part of its base.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)But a Bishop. Has a Bishop ever been elected President? A clergyman that can run a church?
Also, he spoke regularly with the late Gordon Hinckley, the "prophet" who runs the church, in other words, the Mormon "pope."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1707753,00.html
It's one thing for JFK to be a Catholic, enitrely different if the Pope had a hand in his rise.