Talk Elections

I think so. With Obama in freefall in the polls, the Democrats have no choice

Troll. ::)

I know this is a troll thread, but whatever.

It would have been a better tactic to use during the primaries to get someone like Santorum and Gingrich nominated, making the general a cakewalk. It's too volatile to try that route in October. Now, if Obama were down by 5-7 points in Ohio...

I think there's a valid case within progressive politics to criticize Mormonism. It heavily involves itself with affecting the outcome in elections and policy, with a dedicated, effective group that actively attempts and has succeeded in some cases in implementing their agenda. Seeing as how their worldview is being brought into politics and seeing how it is pretty antithetical to progressive politics, I think it becomes a valid target. Mitt Romney, in turn, is definitely one of the biggest - if not the biggest - individual contributor to the Mormon Church, which then uses that money in part to fund their moral beliefs that just so happen to be shared in many aspect by Mitt Romney.

Shut up, BritishDixie.

Can we ban this moron yet?

I am disappointed that some one as reasonable as you could support attacking a man over his faith... I bet you would've been outraged has McCain gone after Rev Wright

This is a terrible idea.

Obama wanted the weaker challenger - Romney.

Even though they did it to Kerry and Obama, we should refrain.

How witty of you. Perhaps we should ban you for being a big fat whiny baby.

I'm not trying to be witty! I'm just suggesting you should be banned for being a useless troll who pollutes the forum with garbage posts. :)

And also that you're BritishDixie. That too. :)

Absolutely not. The only way in which Democrats can go after Mitt Romney on religious matters is by showing behaviors either irrelevant to or contradictory to Mormon teachings.

Samuel Butler notwithstanding, the last refuge of a political scoundrel is religious bigotry. As a liberal I have no use for Mormon-bashing. Sure, the religion has some cranky beliefs... but so do some others.

How do we know that the Democratic frontrunner and eventual nominee for President in 2016 won't be Jewish? I think we know where that is going. It is bad enough that Republicans smear the President as a crypto-Muslim -- but at least that is either falsehood or irrelevancy. 

Religious bigotry degrades life, and at worst... kills.

I see. This is an unfortunate development because I held you in such high regard. It looks like we aren't going to be friends then. Henceforth, you are an enemy of mine on this forum.

Pleeeease do. I would love to take this October off.

If we haven't banned the rest, then I don't think he'll be banned.

As for the actual topic of the thread, no, the Obama campaign won't do that, because it's a stupid strategy. It'll hurt them more than it hurts the Romney campaign, because even if voters are wary of Romney, nobody likes religious bigotry.

And though I'm a Mormon leftist myself, even I know that the Romney campaign will play it as it really is; an attack on Mormonism by the secular left. In my opinion, the religious right will still be the greater threat to my faith, but "playing the Mormon card" will rightfully be seen as a direct attack by the secular left.

Besides, you can more easily attack Romney on his defiance of leftist economic teachings in the Book of Mormon; there are at least 10 verses which specifically mention rich people who ignore the plight of the poor and how they're sinners for not helping the poor. There's even a positive example of higher taxation helping the poor in the BoM. So you can just use the LDS scriptures itself to attack Romney, rather than attacking his religion to attack him.

Definitely.  

And it's Romney who should be playing it.  Not without cause, but let someone mention that he's a Mormon and then let him say, "Yes, I'm a Mormon."  Get it out in the open, then dare the opponent to be a bigot about it.  Just like he did, successfully, in the primaries.

Remember at the Values Voters Summit, when the pastor who introduced Rick Perry to the assembly told reporters that “born-again followers of Christ should always prefer a competent Christian” for the presidency and dismissed Mormonism as a pseudo-Christian cult, the fallout was rougher for him than for Romney.  It turned out to be a blessing for Romney because it gave him a a chance to cry “bigotry” and it prompted many denunciations from prominent conservative politicians and activists.  It forced Perry’s campaign on the defensive, didn't it.

Also, it's good for the country to help us get over our prejudices.  At one time, folks were reluctant to elect women, Catholics, Jews, and black people.  For the most part, we're past that sort of prejudice, but for whatever reason, about 20% of voters have consistently over the past 40 years have a bias against voting for Mormons.  It's time to get over that, and Romney could prove helpful in that regard, even if he loses.
 

I agree; I'd love a Democratic Mormon president, and though that's unlikely, Romney's one good point in this election for me is that he could potentially pave the way for a future leftist Mormon president, ala some kind of Mo Udall type.

()

Great minds think alike. :D

There's where you first went wrong.

It's not that I personally support going after random religions, but rather I am addressing it from a strategic point of campaigning. If they were going to do such a thing, then it should have been done in primary season so as to avoid as much potential backlash as possible.

I do, however, think that if a church or religious group engages in overt and official political action, funneling their money and manpower into campaigns in order to affect the result (most notably, Proposition 8 in California), then that group could hypothetically be viewed as more of a political entity than a religious one. It is at that point - and particularly when you consider that the religious/moral elements are being woven into the political dialogue - that criticism of the values and actions of the Mormon Church can be legitimately discussed in political terms.

Santorum would not have been able to debate Obama - he'd be trailing by 5-6 points right now. Gingrich would have defeated Obama in debates, but I think his favorability numbers would be so low that it wouldn't be near enough for him to catch up.

Romney was the best candidate in the field - he was the only candidate who could at least somewhat please the base while also attract enough moderates. Huntsman would have been great with moderates, but the base would have been furious.

lol

Even though the Mormons aren't on your side at the moment, they may not be so antithetical to progressives in the long run. After all their church does believe in a constant revelation such that their beliefs could change dramatically at some point in the future with very little ramifications. It's much easier for Mormonism to adapt than most Christian sects with a less fluid concept of morality.

Would that really affect their voting behaviors, though?  I don't think a change in position on a social issue or two (assuming you were referring to that) would necessarily sway Mormons to the left politically in any significant way.

It depends on the issue. But what's your goal, to get Democrats elected or determine the course of future of the country? If it's the latter you would gladly take anyone in the opposite party who comes to agree with you on anything over someone who doesn't.

Absolutely stupid, stupid, stupid idea.

Clearly, if the Dems were so desperate as to play "The Mormon card," their campaign would have been beyond redemption by that point, and the desperate Dems would be seen for what they would be, religious bigots of the worst sort, and Obama as the biggest religious bigot of them all.

Obama would as well be seen as a liar, and for good reason , as he said early in the campaign, that Romney's faith would not be a campaign issue.  

By the way, it was not only the Mormon Church that supported Proposition 8, but also the Roman Catholic Church, Knights of Columbus, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and I believe as well some Muslim groups.

This could be true. While your point is made sincerely, I also noticed some parallels:


Perhaps he has been receiving constant revelations on the campaign trail?

---------------------------------------

First time ever I ever said this, but I agree completely with Winfield.  This would be a mistake of the highest magnitude.  Of course, the Obama campaign is highly unlikely to make such an error of judgment so I am not concerned about it happening.    

Oh please, Obama's positions have 'evolved' an awful lot over the years too. Anyone remember "most transparent president ever"? Someone clearly forgot to tell Rahm Emmanuel that before he goes into the congressional showers.

To be quite honest I have neither the time nor desire to get into a stupid hackfest against you for the remainder of the evening.

Certainly, the DNC would, but not to the extent that fundamental values of the party are radically changed in some way and it becomes barely distinguishable.  No one in Obama's campaign would be foolish enough to suggest attacking Romney for his religion even though this demographic is far out of reach, but Utah hasn't gone Democratic since 1964.  There is a very small fringe group of Mormons (i.e. Harry Reid) that vote that way.  I think Mormons are fairly fiscally conservative (albeit it's a generalization) as well as socially conservative, so there isn't much for the Democrats to gain in this respect unless more Jim Mathesons get elected.

I wasn't attempting to argue with you. Certainly you wouldn't try to compare the frequency of Romney's "pivots" to those of Obama's and expect them to be equal in this regard?

Well, more and more Mormons are lower-class minorities instead of middle-class suburban white people (The rise of the population of Latinos and native Africans in the church attests to that), and from what I understand, even minorities who are Mormon vote Democratic, so the LDS Church could possibly change to be somewhat progressive.

In fact, the Church has already gone specifically moderate on quite a few issues; in Utah they intervened to show their support for the moderate immigration proposal called the Utah Compact, and in Arizona, there's rumors that they quietly supported anti-immigrant Mormon Republican Russell Pearce's recall opponent (also a Mormon). They also supported an anti-discrimination law in Salt Lake City. Additionally, Orrin Hatch's political survival may be in part due to the LDS Church's specific admonition over the pulpit that Mormons should go out to vote (which also repeatedly pointed out that "there is truth in all political parties and the Church does not endorse any of them"). More moderate delegates turned out at the Utah GOP convention in 2012 than in 2010. Conversely, the LDS Dems went from being formed in mid-2011 to having over 2,000 members in 2012.

Heck, though they haven't said anything, the LDS Church's move to have more energy-efficient and environmentally-friendly buildings is an obvious move towards moderate environmentalism.

The LDS Church will become more politically moderate, just give it time.

That conclusion is contingent on the assumption that our definitions of "liberal", "moderate", and "conservative" do not change. Which may not necessarily be true. After all, I love the Utah Compact a lot, I dislike SB 1070, and I like Orrin Hatch, but half of this board probably considers me a fascist.

And plus, there's already plenty of Mormon Democrats. Harry Reid, for example. I don't think it's a new phenomenon.

I think LDS members will become more moderate. I have no doubt about that. But large and centralised religious institutions (and you can see this with the CofE and the RC) rarely moderate their views too much and certainly not if they are church building in parts of the world that seem to quite like the 'fire and brimstone' approach to things.

But the Catholic and Anglican churches are political institutions, and the Catholic Church, in particular, does moderate its views.  Frequently, even, relative to the long span of its existence.  It did so especially during the times of empire-building, but still does today.  For example, Latin American bishops are given wide latitude in dealing with the natives.  I have personally stumbled upon some very unorthodox Catholic masses.  Once, in the the department of Solola in central Guatemala, I was hiking through the forest and came upon a clearing where I saw fifty or more people around a fire.  There was a priest in proper seasonal vestments leading a folk mass in a local language, probably Quiche, Kakchikel, or Tsutujil.  Parishoners were throwing stuffed animals into the fires.  I don't speak Quiche, but when I inquired a local explained to me--in Spanish but with the lilting accent of those who grew up speaking the local language and learned Spanish in school--that they were making offerings for their ancestors, or to bless a new baby.  A few years later, in Peru, I found catholic priests overseeing the blessings to Pachamama.  Maybe they weren't overseeing, per se, but they certainly were not looking the other way.  Bottles of fermented grain beverages were poured upon the ground in front of buses about to embark upon hazardous mountain journeys over rough roads, and the idea was that the Great Mother goddess would protect them if she gets enough booze in her to put her in a good mood.  

Closer to home, we see the changes in the church as well.  Just now, I took down from the bookshelf my Handbook for Today's Catholic (Liguori Press, 1978), Baltemore Catechism No. 1 (Tan, 1977), and The New Saint Joseph Catechism (Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1969) and dusted them off.  I looked, but I could not find any reference to homosexuals or homosexuality in any of them.  Why would I look up such a thing in the index anyway?  Why, indeed?  Because nowadays the church has a strong position on homosexuality.  It took up that position probably--some might even argue smartly--as a political move.  For one thing, a number of Irish priests and American priests were suddenly being accused of child molestation.  Such things have probably happened for centuries, but only with a free press and a reasonably educated populace do such reports act as a catalyst for political change.  For another thing, the Episcopalians were beginning to ordain women and liberal men, many of whom had their own feelings about homosexuality which offended older Episcopalians, and the Catholic church found it a convenient time to stage a coup.  I forget the name of it.  It had a fancy-sounding name, like, "The Pastoral Reconciliation" or something, but in the 90s a number of Episcopalian priests, many of whom were married, suddenly became Catholic priests.  In 1969, you had to dig deep to find the church's position on "homosexuality" (if it had any).  In 2012, it's all over the place.  This was a calculated political move.  A moderation, in fact, by a "large and centralized institution."

Back in 1964, Johnny XXIII decided it was time to offer masses in the vulgar languages of the world.  That was pure political expedience.  And the college of cardinals that elected him knew he would push for such changes.  They simply saw the need for change in order to keep up with the world and stay relevant.  Similarly, it decided it needed a liberal pontiff when it elected Karol Wojtyla in 1978.  

Of course, by the time old Karol passed away, in 2005, times had again changed.  Suddenly we're in an age in which the US, the UK, the Europeans, and others are promoting some values which may destabilize "large and centralized institutions."  An age in which "radical Islam" encroaches upon Western values.  And an age in which a global economic recession was about to threaten grave destabilization.  You can be your last dollar that the college of cardinals won't stand by on the sidelines.   They knew it was time for a tougher act, so it elected that old Nazi Joseph Ratzinger as pontiff.  In short order, he had laid out the Church's position on Islamic terrorism, moral relativism, and consumerism.  In no uncertain terms!

Don't be so quick to dismiss the ability of "large and centralized institutions" to moderate their views.  The Catholic Church is a political organization, and it moderates itself as necessary--"pro re nata" if you will--in order to maintain some political power.  No, it will likely never have the political power it had in the good old days of the Templars and the Corps du Tiercelet.  King Henry VIII saw to that, didn't he, but the church knows how to keep itself afloat, precisely by moderating its politics.  

I know all this was a little off topic, but it struck me how demonstrably false the quoted statement was.  You're a smart guy, and you know we couldn't let such a glaring inaccuracy go unnoticed.  :O

As for the LDS, I'm not so sure that it's the sort of political body that the Anglican or Catholic churches are.  If anything, the LDS has often been on the wrong side of the law.  In that sense, it isn't unlike the early hippies of the Christian movement, long before they got mixed up with imperial politics.  They're doing their own thing in their own way.  True, the LDS has a hierarchy in a way that the Ephesians and the gnostics never had, but I don't see them as trying to run governments, at least not with the tour de force tactics that the Catholic church has employed.  Romney is just a guy trying to get elected.   You may think him a crook and a liar and a plutocrat.  That's fine, but don't drag the Mormon religion into it.

And in the Episcopal Church, I have received Communion from an openly gay priest. 

quote author=angus link=topic=161026.msg3457058#msg3457058 date=1349789077]

I know all this was a little off topic, but it struck me how demonstrably false the quoted statement was.  You're a smart guy, and you know we couldn't let such a glaring inaccuracy go unnoticed.  :O


[/quote]

You've sort of agreed with rather than countered the point that I was trying to make :) Firstly differing forms of mass (and I've attended many) and languages used in mass does not necessarily qualify as moderation or temperance of Catholic faith or teaching. It's still mass. It's culturally specific, particularly in emerging Catholic groups in Africa and South America (and China and Japan for that matter) to maximise adherance and faith. Reflecting and later enveloping local tribal customs over birth, death and everything in between has always been the Church's practice since it's own founding which is why Catholicism is still essentially 'Roman'.

You are correct in pointing out that the Church has taken a hardline stance on gays partly driven by Mr Ratzinger's office in his 'Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons' communique of 1986 and a stark divergance from the Church's indifferent to neutral position that it previously held on the matter. But that is not 'moderation' of a position. If anything that's actively taking a position to set itself apart from western social changes. Indeed at the time it was a rather 'wooly' stance as it appealed to psychology and the understanding of same sex attraction as a 'disorder' less than a decade after such ideas began to get shelved in the profession. As a result the Church is boxed in by it's own inertia. While it's position hasn't changed since the statement the 'evidence' it appealed to has as the focus has moved towards genetic markers and pre-natal brain development as potential indicators. It has led many in the Church to chase after faux scientific 'evidence' that was the invention of the evangelical right to aid their position. Which is a shame as the Church has gernally made it's peace with scientific theory.

Won't work, the race card trumps the Morman card profoundly.

Just get yourself banned already, opebo.

I think this is our central disagreement.  I'm not agreeing with what you said, but perhaps with what you meant to say.  Or maybe we need a definition of terms.

We both agree that the church has evolved, both in style as well as substance.  In many cases it was simply a politically expedient move to make it more palatable to the vanquished as it expanded globally.  I call that moderation.  To moderate a point of view means to change it.  The dictionary probably says something like "to moderate means to keep within reasonably limits, or to alter the severity of something..."  If I start with "have no other gods before me" but end up with "hey, lets put up a christmas tree in the chapel because the barbarians will think it's cool and they'll more likely come to Christmas mass" then you should call that a moderation.  Similarly, allowing English, German, and all the rest, to supplant Latin was a moderation.

I also agree that His Holiness Pope Benedict, before he was His Holiness Pope Benedict, had already had some pretty stark views on homosexuality long before anyone in the church started publicizing about it.  In fact, I'd made a point of it:  you have to remember that those cardinals who made him His Holiness knew about his rants before they elected him.  They wanted a hardliner--and not just on homosexuality, but on a host of other issues ranging from consumerism to the "War on Terror" to ecuminism and everything in between.  As for homosexuality, in particular, the Church needed a moderation of its formerly lax attitude that was garnering so much bad publicity.  (Now, we can quibble about the finer points of sociology here, but we needn't:  obviously one should not conflate "homosexuality" with "molestation of altar boys by priests."  You and I probably don't equate those two topics in our own minds, but you can bet that much of the Catholic public does.  This is of central importance here.)  The moderation sought by the Church comes in the form of a changing its seemingly tolerant dealings with "deviant" priests to one intolerant toward them.  This is a form of moderation, no matter how you slice it, because it projects a viewpoint to the public that is more palatable to them.  It is exactly the form of moderation (based on political realities) that the church has been rendering very successfully for about 1700 years.