More on Romney's Mormonism

[Indy Coug]

The whole point really should be that Romney has a sufficiently large enough body of work as a public servant in positions of leadership that people don't need to resort to moronic and juvenile barbs about his religion and using that as a basis for why he isn't a suitable presidential candidate.

The fact that Weisberg resorts to this just shows either he's a complete moron or he's deliberately doing a misdirection to get people to look at something other than his public record.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

How many here would vote for a Scientologist for president? How about a Branch Davidian? How about someone who claimed to be an adherent of the Heavens Gate sect? If we acknowledge that we wouldn't vote for such a person, is it because of religious bigotry or because we question the rationality of a person who would believe in something that we recognize as an obvious fraud?

I don't believe David Koresh was a man of God, and I don't believe Moses literally parted the Red Sea, but I would be much more willing to vote for someone who believed Moses parted the Red Sea than I would for someone who believed that David Koresh was a modern day prophet. For whatever reason, it is less rational to cling to a new lie than it is to an old, established lie. I believe that is the point Weisberg is making when he speaks of "recent, transparent frauds".

Personally I wouldn't really care what their religious beliefs were, I vote for the set of policies that they represent.

I understood what Weisberg was trying to say about new and old religious founding stories, and how that impacts the mind of the public. However, what he is in essence saying is that religious bigotry based upon ethnicity (read to exclude Jews) is bad but religious bigotry based upon how palatable one's beliefs are is good.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

How many here would vote for a Scientologist for president? How about a Branch Davidian? How about someone who claimed to be an adherent of the Heavens Gate sect? If we acknowledge that we wouldn't vote for such a person, is it because of religious bigotry or because we question the rationality of a person who would believe in something that we recognize as an obvious fraud?

I don't believe David Koresh was a man of God, and I don't believe Moses literally parted the Red Sea, but I would be much more willing to vote for someone who believed Moses parted the Red Sea than I would for someone who believed that David Koresh was a modern day prophet. For whatever reason, it is less rational to cling to a new lie than it is to an old, established lie. I believe that is the point Weisberg is making when he speaks of "recent, transparent frauds".

You are portraying the distinction as being based solely on old versus new (as did the author of the article, at least overtly). It isn't that at all. The distinction I see is benign versus dangerous. I may view scientology as being quirky, but I wouldn't have a problem in voting for a scientologist if their political views came across to me as being reasonable. A Branch Davidian, on the other hand, would be dangerous for the country and, absent extraordinary circumstances, I couldn't vote for such a person.

I think the poor distinction between old versus new in the article was really a weak attempt to gloss over his real concern: that Mormonism IS a dangerous cult (like the Branch Davidians). Such a concern is nonsensical and is based on either misinformation or ignorance (both of which are common sources of bigotry). This is why, I think, he cast his arguments in terms of the old having the opportunity to branch off and have opposing views within the religion. Such branching off frequently leads to moderation of positions within organizations. Of course, he fails to recognize that clearly Mormonism harbors many different viewpoints as well, given that, if Romney were elected, Mormons would be the top officials in both of America's largest (opposed) political parties.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

You are portraying the distinction as being based solely on old versus new (as did the author of the article, at least overtly). It isn't that at all. The distinction I see is benign versus dangerous. I may view scientology as being quirky, but I wouldn't have a problem in voting for a scientologist if their political views came across to me as being reasonable. A Branch Davidian, on the other hand, would be dangerous for the country and, absent extraordinary circumstances, I couldn't vote for such a person.

I think the poor distinction between old versus new in the article was really a weak attempt to gloss over his real concern: that Mormonism IS a dangerous cult (like the Branch Davidians). Such a concern is nonsensical and is based on either misinformation or ignorance (both of which are common sources of bigotry). This is why, I think, he cast his arguments in terms of the old having the opportunity to branch off and have opposing views within the religion. Such branching off frequently leads to moderation of positions within organizations. Of course, he fails to recognize that clearly Mormonism harbors many different viewpoints as well, given that, if Romney were elected, Mormons would be the top officials in both of America's largest (opposed) political parties.

Personally I would have no problem voting for a mormon for President, but I can easily see why many people are uneasy about such a prospect. First of all, mormons claim to receive personal revelation from God, revelation that might influence their decisions while in office. For someone who doesn't believe in personal revelation from God, that's a scary prospect.

Mormons also believe that God set apart this country -- that this is God's country, that God will protect us as long as we are righteous. To many people, that is a dangerous proposition.

Mormons also have an apocalyptic view of the world. Many people don't like the prospect of being led by a person who feels that a cataclysmic war in the Middle East is a pre-destined eventuality. People are wary when they think foreign policy might be determined by biblical interpretations.

I understand why you don't see the danger of having a president who shares your religious beliefs, but to many the prospect of a mormon president is a dangerous thing. I think you overestimate the distinction between mormonism and other modern cults. It is not quite so clear cut which are really benign and which are really dangerous.

[MikeWaters]

Yup, I don't think Americans could tolerate those view. Except for Ronald Reagan, there is no evidence of it.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

How is SU bagging on Waters? Did I miss something. Just because someone doesn't believe in Mormonism doesn't mean they are belittling Mormonism. Are you belittling Catholicism when you refuse to believe it is divinely inspired? Do you belittle Hinduism? Islam? Buddhism? I just don't understand why it's a breach of civility to acknowledge that you don't share the same beliefs as someone else. What am I missing?

Are you saying that calling a religion a "blatant fraud" and its founder a "con man" isn't belittling?

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Are you saying that calling a religion a "blatant fraud" and its founder a "con man" isn't belittling?

I've perused this thread and I don't see where SU has called anyone a con man, and the only reference to the phrase "blatant fraud" was from All American, putting words into SU's mouth.

I don't understand where all the victimization comes from. When people around here start talking about political correctness, all I hear is how people are too easily offended and how they should just nut up and not whine so much. Perhaps SU should be a little bit more politically correct, but I'm sure he just realizes where most people on this board come down on political correctness and he's just trying to be accommodating.

[MikeWaters]

Weaselberg called Joseph Smith a con man. He also calls Mormonism "a transparent and recent fraud."

You probably won't get what people are talking about if you don't read the article.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

How many here would vote for a Scientologist for president? How about a Branch Davidian? How about someone who claimed to be an adherent of the Heavens Gate sect? If we acknowledge that we wouldn't vote for such a person, is it because of religious bigotry or because we question the rationality of a person who would believe in something that we recognize as an obvious fraud?

I don't believe David Koresh was a man of God, and I don't believe Moses literally parted the Red Sea, but I would be much more willing to vote for someone who believed Moses parted the Red Sea than I would for someone who believed that David Koresh was a modern day prophet. For whatever reason, it is less rational to cling to a new lie than it is to an old, established lie. I believe that is the point Weisberg is making when he speaks of "recent, transparent frauds".

That's the point of all this uproar ... it's bigotry! And nothing is more irrational than bigotry.

One cannot compare the supposed irrationality of Branch Davidians faith etc. to blatant, willful bigotry. It's worse than comparing apples to oranges -more like apples to baseballs.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Weaselberg called Joseph Smith a con man. He also calls Mormonism "a transparent and recent fraud."

You probably won't get what people are talking about if you don't read the article.

I still don't see how Weisberg saying those things equates to SU belittling anyone. Is it because SU didn't disagree with Weisberg? I think for the most part SU is respectful of other people's beliefs; sometimes he likes to push buttons, but he usually plays nice.

Why is it so shocking that someone would call Joseph Smith a con man or that they would mormonism a fraud? If you don't believe in mormonism, then you don't believe that God really appeared to Joseph Smith. So basically anyone who does not believe in Mormonism must either conclude that Joseph Smith was a liar or that he was delusional. There's not a lot of middle ground. Most people don't come out and say that they think JS was a fraud because they are sensitive to the feelings of others and choose to be politically correct. It sounds like what I'm hearing is that people on this site would just like other people to be more politically correct.