Romney To Give 'Religion Speech'

Source: CBS News



Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/02/politics/main3564183.shtml

---

The irony is that Romney's prospective voters don't want a Kennedy-style speech that he'll keep religion and politics separate. They want religion to guide his decision -- just not the one he has...

being Mormon is probably one of his better character traits.

and you'll probably change your tune about Mormons. There's a big difference between the smiling Stepford faces you meet in your neighborhood, where they know they are only 2-4% of the population, and those in the place where they make up about 60-70% of the population (paradoxically, lower proportions in SLC.) You cannot show me another 1 million-plus size metropolitan area in the US that has even fifty percent of its people as members of one denomination. It definitely affects life for the 'infidels'.

You cannot show me another 1 million-plus size metropolitan area in the US that has even fifty percent of its people as members of one denomination. It definitely affects life for the 'infidels'.


I'm pretty sure San Antonio is majority Catholic. And I have it on good authority that Catholics hate me. Personally.

Unless they know you personally. Perhaps Catholicism is not the reason for their antipathy?

I'm not familiar with Texas, so I didn't think of San Antonio. I did figure there were lots of Catholics and Baptists in that state, but I figured they had less than majority shares in each Texan metropolitan area, with other denominations making up at least 10-20% in the said areas, keeping any single group from being a majority.

Still, there are some differences. Texas is not as controlled by the Roman Catholic Church in the same way that Utah is controlled by Mormons. And having been a recovered Catholic myself, I know that many people who identify as Catholic on a survey are often just nominal Catholics, who don't go to church for much more than Easter, Christmas, weddings, and funerals.

Mormons are much more tightly bound in their practice, generally. The city I lived in had Mormon ward bulletins just shoved under the doormats of every house in the neighborhood, assuming that everyone in the area was a practicing LDS church member. In the first ring of suburbs, you have way more than 70% church membership, the fact is, you cannot really aspire to the living standard necessary to live in the burbs unless you have 'connections', if you get my drift.

This does not surprise me. Mormons are responsible for the loss of several good factory jobs around these parts.

a character trait that we should know completely about if he is to serve as prez. I think every candidate should tell us exactly where their religion fits into their life and into there decision making. Do they honor the historic mixing of politics/government and religion or would they be different and actually subscribe to true separation of church and state? I think these are legitimate questions and should be asked and answered by EVERY candidate.

...anything more substantive than you talking out of your backside would be appreciated.

http://www.salamandersociety.com/blacks/

I don't know if that link covers the issue, but it does seem to indicate that there's been legitimate controversy about the Church of LDS and race relations.

any religion that hated blacks until 1978 (even after the civil rights movement) is kinda suspect to me...and so are their adherents.

After joseph smith ordained Elijah Abel an African-American man to be a high priest. this is 30 years pre slavery abolition and almost got Smith lynched. The LDS church's progressive views got a lot of them killed in the 1830s-1870s in fact it was still technically legal to kill mormons in missouri until the 1980's.

Of course then they did oppose civil rights in the 1960's along with dozens of other religions.

hated blacks is inaccurate - guilty of institionalized racism in the recent past is more to the point.

and not hate blacks.

Hating blacks or making them less than human is the first part of legitimizing ANY form of discrimination.

First you dehumanize, then you criminalize, and then you eliminate. Hitler wasn't the only form of expression of this equation, but it's the first that comes to mind.

There weren't mormons en masse out with the Klan or waking up thinking gosh I hate non white people. There were, however, as in most institutions, some cultural norms that were discriminatory. What was progressive in one era is downright evil by the standards of another and in large institutions norms and mores become formalized and change more slowly (especially in religions). This is not to say that individual beliefs don't vary or that folks inside a set of socialized norms even see those norms as existing let alone informing their feelings toward any group.

Wait am I defining institutionalized racism to explain why it is different from actively hating a person or group? really? I have to stop posting on this silly site so i don't get sucked into more of these pointless digresions. silly dave.

see had you asked in what ways the institutionalized racism played a role in the attitudes of mormons over the last 40 years or perhaps how those norms developed and became formalized or if you pointed out the heirarchal tendency toward reactionary and discriminatory practices as an inherent problem in the mormon religion or asked about the church's current discriminatory practices toward homosexuals - THOSE would all have been good questions.
Instead you just wrote ' I don't know what institutionalized racism means as a sociological phenomenom but will make it into an aggresive and oppositional stance so we can have a good argue about that for a bit'

I think that being on this site is making me dumber. this is rarely about dialogue and of course the nature of online discourse is that you never know your audience.

Sorry - no offense meant here - I think this is just not the place for me to be ..

tschuss

dave

I'll leave your internal debate to yourself. One of you is gonna win it, that's for sure. :)

I understand the nuances of outright racism vs. institutional racism, but they're the same thing. One if more sophisticated (and frankly, more effective) than the other, but they both part from the same fear or hatred of "the other". One confronts the fear or promotes the hatred by direct action and vocalization of that fear (and solutions) or hatred; the other confronts the fear or promotes the hatred by establishing institutions that control social interactions, norms, and resources and limits their access to people of the "hated" group.

Mormons just happened to take the institutional racism approach to hating black people. In fact, I'd say they were more insidious than that. Some institutional racists feign ignorance or have no idea that they were being racists because they view the racist consequences of their established institutions as not being racists. They don't intend them that (or so they think), or they don't target racial groups. They think it's just a "it's so happens it affect such and such group" outcome. Those that refuse to give needed resources to poor, minority community argue the issue on "class" or "taxes" grounds...while the consequences are clear: poor, minority communities continue to fester in their poverty, limiting progress by certain racial groups in those communities. And, of course, "it just so happens" that members of those racial groups fare more poorly than their white counterparts. It ALWAYS "just so happens". That's the magic of institutionalized racism.

As I said, the Mormons were more insidious than that. They had actual religious justifications for limiting access or contact with blacks. There was a direct causation and effect to their logic. There was a dehumanizing of blacks vis a vis whites...and justified religiously. For me, that takes them a step further than a simple economic, institutional racist.

if you're White then you are automatically protected from Systematic Destruction. :eyes:

Christians believe that the Old Testament is divine revelation, but that the New Testament, which is the revelation of Jesus, is the final revelation. Mormons believe in a new revelation from Christ in addition to a series of other extra-scriptural beliefs. However, the belief in a new revelation does separate them from all other claimants to Christianity.

means is subjective. Which books are in the Bible is subjective. Is the Bible complete is subjective. Is the Bible infallible is subjective.

I'm Mormon. I'm a Christian. People need to get over it.

Romney Used Conservation Money for Super Bowl Rally
Environment News Service, February, 2005

WASHINGTON, DC (ENS) — --> Shrugging off the objections of his department head, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney used approximately $45,000 in the state's parks and conservation money to stage a pre-Super Bowl send-off rally for the New England Patriots football team on January 30.

Romney then fired the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) chief Katherine Abbott who objected to spending that much money on the Patriots' send-off, as well as her top deputy.

On February 4, without warning, Romney terminated Abbott. On February 7, the number two official at DCR, Pam DiBona, was also forced to resign ...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmens/is_200502/ai_n13275215

tens-of-thousands of Iraqis who didn't need killing.

separation of Church and State (Huckabee needs to answer this one also)? 2. How does he see the role of the US in the end times prophesy (Also Huckabee)? 3. Since the Mormon church believes that they are to take over the US when the government falls, will he help it fall or protect it?

I wish you could ask him those questions.

who will probably pontificate on how religion has influenced his life & how relgion should be front & center in all our lives....

People like Mitt Romney & his ilk make me want to :puke:

If the good Reverend Huckabee wins, we have an uber-fundie Baptist preacher in the White House.

Neither of which is going to be ANY GOOD AT ALL for this country. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

My Junior High vice-principal was a local Mormon bishop (this being in 70s era non-SLC, UT). He really did NOT like me since I wore my skirts "too short" and thumbed my nose at his attempts at forcing conservatism upon me.

My mom REALLY hated him. She thought my skirts were just fine. She sewed most of my clothes and had personally decided where to hem them.

According to the corporate media and his PR team. If he gets elected, it will be just like Bush/Cheney 2000: a complete change from a moderate campaign to a corporate dictatorship when in power.

serving in his cabinet, that points out his bigotry. It is based on a recent article in The Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1127/p09s01-coop.html

Snip: I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that “jihadism” is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, “based on the numbers of American Muslims in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.”

The right answer, of course, is “Their being Muslim would neither be a positive nor negative factor, if I thought they were otherwise qualified or unqualified for the job”. But this isn’t that answer.

snip: However, what’s also bizarre about it is, for Romney, a person’s religion is apparently worthy of the same kind of consideration that he renounces where it entails his own Mormonism. That is to say, a person’s religion is a qualification or nonqualification for a political position, absent whatever else. He can say “I would not support a Muslim for a position for which he is otherwise qualified”, and apparently that’s just good political sense (his reasons for it are different, of course, from “…because Islam is bad”, and on that see the last paragraph), but to make that exact same calculation for a Mormon is bigotry.



http://thecrossedpond.com/?p=2036
There is rebuttal and the argument is continued in the comments. You might enjoy it.

kind of speech, as it would highlight the discomfort many of their followers find with Mormonism - whereas without highlighting that point, their followers could be lulled into "well he stands for the 'right values'"....

I seem to remember this being a bit of a news item a month or so ago when Mitt was trying to woo voters and leaders (religious right) in South Carolina.

Great idea!!

:eyes:

Source: Reuters

DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - Republican White House candidate Mitt Romney will give a speech this week directly addressing questions about his Mormon faith and the role it would play in his presidency, his campaign said on Sunday.

The long-awaited speech by Romney, who would be the first Mormon president, has drawn comparisons to an address given in Texas by John Kennedy confronting doubts about his Catholic faith during his successful 1960 run for the presidency.

Polls have shown some voters, particularly evangelicals, are less likely to vote for a Mormon. The former Massachusetts governor often gets questions related to his religion on the campaign trail.

The speech, titled "Faith In America," will be delivered at the library of former President George Bush in College Station, Texas, on Thursday.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0233724220071203?sp=true

I expect more questions to come out of this than answers.

Anything he is to say will just confuse the truth of the role religion plays in a mormon's life, that is to say to a mormon religion is life and life is religion.

tekisui

I am a member of that Faith and even that I try my best to live by my belief, I am not fanatical in my belif..The belief have been a hope, and freedom for my in my life.. And I found it interesting that Mitt have to "prove" the religion he have been born into, and shosed to be his belies for his life.. I find it interceding that it is better to have a Catholic President, as President Kennedy was, then to have a mormon candidate for the Presidency.. The current "evangelical cristian" haven't exactly doing th best for Christianity in the world have it?.. Maybe it is time for a rather peacefully Christianity to make it to the White House.. I don't believe that mr Mitt would be a bad president, not after Bush jr... Even a Mormon President would do it better than the nuttcase president US have had for 7 year now..

I don't know if I had voted for Mitt if he was to race for the Presidency in 2008. But he looks like a rather clean shaved man, if you look to the other republican President Candidate, they are both corrupt, they are NOT faithful to their wifes. And in one case the man is a cross-dresser (jyk)...
I believe that mr Mitt would be a "pretty good president" if US voted for a republican President.. But I do hope that US voted in a democratic president this time.. And I am not sure Who that is to be...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad engelish, not my native language

I'm happy you joined in the conversation. You make a good point about bush being a nuttcase!

If you don't mind, I have a couple of questions regarding Mormonism, and don't know where to ask them, but to ask you.

• My understanding is that ABSOLUTE OBEDIECE to the heirarchy of the church is required of Mormons. We cannot know which individual Mitt "answers to"... that is secret.
  
  Is his loyalty and obedience to the church heirachy or to the people of the United States?
  
  
• Also, Mormons refer to themselves as "Christians", but regard Jesus as merely another 'prophet' among many. Why do Mormons make such a point of calling themselves "Christians"?

It is NOT my intent to insult or challenge the Mormon church, but to understand.

troubleinwinter

Sir

I dont know that it is law that we do have to have absolute obedience to the heirachy oof the Church, as in the Mormon shurch, many outside belivet that we dosent except the law of the land we are living in. But as I know it, we are minded to axcept and live by the law of the land, and to try to help others who are not at our faith, whatever reason we have.. In our "priciples" the last prinsipel is to allways follow the law of the land, and to axcept what our goverment say.. And we do hope that our goverment in return, acspect our faith, and to acscept what we belive in.

It is up to eatch pepole if they want to be ruled by the Church, or by the law of the land. IN OLD times it may be that our Church have been mutch more "dictatorial" in the ruling, but as I know it is up to eatch member of the church to try to sort it out, as best they can itself.. I have never in my time as a member (5 year today infact;) ) been told to not follow the law in the land, and to do criminal things... Rather the opposite in fact;)

Wel we belive in jesus Christ as the most important Profet, but it was, and even today our Lord have given us a Profet to follow as best we can. Jesus Crist was, and wil allways be the most important Profet for us, as for all Christians I belive.. Without him, we would never be savet, never manage to live by our Lord, and would never be cabable of coming to heaven.. Even if we lived life that was sinfree, what we Never would manage to do anyway.. Christ is our brother, our friends and our savor when things are going bad..

Thats ok, better to ask, and never get a ansver, and then have to live in wrong things, then to ask, and maybee get a ansver you may not like;)

If just everyone want to ASK, rather to BELIVE what our Shurch is about, then everything would be diferent I belive:?

Diclotican

Sorry my bad engelish, not my native language

ps, sorry for the late replay, have been out of town, 4 days in the mointains, just mee, other friends and a lot of good food...

we don't need any more religious fanatics to do more damage in that regard ---

Being mormon does not define who I am and is certainly not all there is to my life.

try this website (just as an example of lefty mormons like me) http://www.gomakecontact.com/mesj/indexpage.htm

on edit - I am not a fan of Mitt, although he is at least competent (but then a small pie would be more competent than jr)

I go back and forth between Kucinich and Edwards at the moment.

Maybe you can help me with my questions in post #8.

in 8 - I don't know that Mitt would erode church and state (certainy not more than bush) - again i do not support Romney and would vote for ANY dem over him.

I wonder why he is a 'religious fanatic' though - because he has a religion? Obama talks God all the time - so do most candidates (I wish they wouldn't)

Mostly I am amazed that on DU there is so much villification of Romney over religion - see some of the factually inaccurate posts on here about mormon beliefs.
I mean - mormons only make up about 1% of the US - less even. yet 2 mormons responded to this post out of maybe a 100 or so people who may have looked at it. there are plenty of lefty mormons (although most in the US are republicans)

on edit OOOOPS - clicked the wrong one and was responding to 14 not 8...lemme see on 8

"My understanding is that ABSOLUTE OBEDIECE to the heirarchy of the church is required of Mormons. We cannot know which individual Mitt "answers to"... that is secret.

Is his loyalty and obedience to the church heirachy or to the people of the United States?"

that really is for Mitt to answer where his loyalty is. Speaking for myself as a mormon who has been to the temple (which I think is what you are referring to) If I were president my first loyalty would be to the constitution of the US. mormons are expected to 'support and sustain' church leaders - however mormons are also expected to think for themselves and are not expected to 'follow their leaders to hell when they are acting unrighteously' (Brigham young 2nd mormon president)

"Also, Mormons refer to themselves as "Christians", but regard Jesus as merely another 'prophet' among many. Why do Mormons make such a point of calling themselves "Christians"?"

mormons generally feel very strongly about this one - we believe in jesus as gods son (not just another prophet) and in his atonement and try to follow the teachings of Christ. in that regard we are christian. In a more modern theological sense we are, of course, not 'christian' since we do not believe in the trinity (we think they are three seperate beings not three-in-one-different-but-the-same-at-the-same-time). most mormons wil probably not make this distinction and will find it insulting being told that they do not believe in christ when they have very deep convictions about being 'christian'.

I don't mean to insult your religion of choice, but I know that religion played a first and foremost role in the lives of mormons I grew up with.

And, if it didn't, then they left the church.

To some degree or another.

There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone lives according to the set of values they choose.

And yes, Mitt will surely downplay it.

People tend to sick to the older, mainstream Christian faiths as you near east Texas.

I wonder if the fact that this is in GHW Bush's library means we can expect an endorsement sometime, or if the Bush government studies dept is just making their facilities available.

I wonder if the TAMU Corp of Cadets will have a problem with Mitt's family's lack of military service.

his speech will have him looking like a cathojewishpescipaliabaptist by the end of it.

it for them ---

Yep . . . Mormon women have to depend on "Mr. Wonderful" to call their name when they get to the Pearly gates --- otherwise they can't get in!!!

Women are just unworthy in Mormonism . . .

but let's face it --- it's just another PATRIARCHAL religion, folks --- !!!

for Mr Wonderful to show up?

And if he has many wives, does he call them all out, like Santa calling his reindeer?

Some of them wonder if the attachment to the second wife may preclude the "calling" of the first wife --- hmmmm.....

I think Mitt should spend some time explaining this Mormon concept of women as the spiritually weaker gender ---

IMO, we all need to more closely examine organized patriarchal religions, in general --
their doctrines of Manifest Destiny/Man's Dominion Over Nation which have led to the trashing of the planet --

and their underpinning of themes of male supremacy.

I hope he spills all those LDS secrets....:popcorn:

"Blah Blah Blah Faith Bla Bla Life Blah Blah Blah Real Americans Blah. ThankYou"

Because that's one thing we need more of, pandering to religious right-wingers. :sarcasm:

that nonsense is way too gullible to be POTUS.

People are entitled to believe whatever they want, that's fine with me.

But Mormonism is one step behind believing Rev. Moon is the messiah and kissing rattlesnakes before drinking poisoned kool-aid so you can die just in time to ride the tail of the comet into Nirvana.

lots of mormon democrats

http://www.gomakecontact.com/mesj/indexpage.htm

evangelical Christians view the Mormon Church, officially known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, critically." In fact, most evangelical Christians view the Mormon Church as little more than a cult. Look behind Huckabee's recent rise in Iowa polls and I have no doubt you'll find a not-so-subtle strain of anti-Mormonism playing out. I can't source that, so consider it just an informed opinion at this point.

It cuts both ways, though. As I understand it, a rigid interpretation of Romney's Mormon theology would have evangelicals like Dobson and Pat Robertson destined for hell also.

It's making my autumn watching two of the kookier strands of American theology go after each other's throats.

of course that alone might make the mormons wrong...if anyone should go to hell its evil uncle chuckles Pat robertson

"It's making my autumn watching two of the kookier strands of American theology go after each other's throats."

This is my new signature, man...

that someone who groups gay people with terrorists cannot be elected because of others' bigotry.

I think they have a real hard on for Romney. I think they like the used car salesman look. It amazes me that ANYONE could fall for Romney's schtick. I think he's more RW and crazy than people give him credit for.

He's a shifty two faced, unprincipled ass hole. That's the impression I get from him.

And seriously, unless he can actually forcefully advocate a separation of church and state, his RW Mormon backers AND the RW evangelicals that are in a tizzy over whether he's Christian on not can go fuck themselves. This speech will be nothing more than a "I love the same crazy Jesus that hates gays and taxes, but loves war" as you addressed to another bunch of loonies.

What makes me sick is that the media is comparing this to Kennedy.

It would go something like this: Ladies and Gentleman, please kiss my ass, my religion is no one's business but my own. Thank you and good night.

The best thing the Republicans can do for us at this point is nominate Romney. Not because he's Mormon, but because he's the grand daddy of all flip floppers. There's very well-known video of a Romney that's very, VERY different than the one before us today--the pro-choice, gay friendly Romney. It makes him look like an unprincipled opportunist.

Mormon. The pew jumpers down here in Texas would rather eat one of their children than vote for a godless Mormon. You have to wonder, do the repukes not have any Jehovahs Witnesses or Christian Scientists they can put in the race?

I want to be president of Utah!!! :eyes: