How can I be sure

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Come now. I never said that. Anyway, I doubt he's a believer in his heart of hearts.

Out comes that tired old assertion again ... we've discussed this before, you are projecting your personal ideology onto him in order to one: make him less palatable a candidate to the faithful and two: to hopefully make him more palatable to yourself as you wrestle with your desire to vote for him.

It is a similar angst you suffer in this epic WWEesque wrestling match with your Mormon heritage and faith that you are willing showcase on this site.

The coreography is supurb, the acting excellent and the athletic grace remarkable. Ultimately however it is merely great theatre, an illusion; as are your exagerated protestations. SU is the Hulk Hogan of aniti-Mormonism.

[myboynoah]

I don't know why everyone is so upset with SU. I long for and anticipate the very thing that he says he fears: Mormon political domination. Hence my decision to become one of them "gov'ment workers" (I prefer "civil servant").

I've been instructed to, I mean, I want to be well-placed when the LDS shadow government takes over. Don't worry, I'll take care of my friends.

[Cali Coug]

SU, your thesis has changed dramatically to now state that ALL religions are at odds with government and will ultimately destroy our civil liberties. If that is, indeed, your thesis you are going to stick to, why single out Romney? Virtually every single US president has professed an affiliation with some religion. Even those that didn't prior to election frequently became quite religious following election (Lincoln being an example).

Why would Romney be compared to Hitler (your actual first thesis here), but not Obama, Clinton, McCain, FDR, Bush, Washington, Madison, Lincoln, Adams, etc? In addition to being religious, Washington was also... gasp... a MASON!!!! Get the children and run for the hills! Republicanism is dead!

And now you indicate you don't even think Romney is a believer in his heart of hearts! If not, isn't he much less threatening to you than most of our other presidents?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

SU, your thesis has changed dramatically to now state that ALL religions are at odds with government and will ultimately destroy our civil liberties. If that is, indeed, your thesis you are going to stick to, why single out Romney? Virtually every single US president has professed an affiliation with some religion. Even those that didn't prior to election frequently became quite religious following election (Lincoln being an example).

Why would Romney be compared to Hitler (your actual first thesis here), but not Obama, Clinton, McCain, FDR, Bush, Washington, Madison, Lincoln, Adams, etc? In addition to being religious, Washington was also... gasp... a MASON!!!! Get the children and run for the hills! Republicanism is dead!

And now you indicate you don't even think Romney is a believer in his heart of hearts! If not, isn't he much less threatening to you than most of our other presidents?

This is a fair comment, though I didn't state any "thesis" as to Romney. I posed a rhetorical question. The tension within virtually all of our presidents that you identify is correct--the tension between fielty to father Moses and father Plato. This tension was crystalized, for example, in the debates over U.S. recognition of Israel. The great George Marshall--secretary of state and supreme general and architect of the allied victory over the Nazis--argued strenuously against recognition; seemingly, all reason was on his side. The Arabs were our friends; those now in power had helped against the Nazis, and they controlled all the oil. Marshall was a rational, secular man. At Truman's request White House counsel Clark Clifford and Marshall debated the issue before the president in the oval office. Clifford's text was almost exclusively the Old Testament, the Isiah prophesies about the gathering of Israel and the restoration of their promised land. Clifford carried the day, and Marshall was so angry he risigned as Secretary of State, a crushing blow to Truman's political standing and the country. Most of Truman's great achievements (e.g., the Marshall plan, NATO), were conceived and executed by Marshall. Truman begged him to rescind the resignation and finally he did. But Marshall never spoke to Clifford again.

I would go so far as to say the tension has served a useful purpose. On the other hand, I think many would agree with me in saying that George W. Bush's grievous mistakes as president including his transgressions against civil liberties are tracable to his dogmatic religious faith. Bush, perhaps our most religious president ever, may be our worst ever.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is a fair comment, though I didn't state any "thesis" as to Romney. I posed a rhetorical question. The tension within virtually all of our presidents that you identify is correct--the tension between fielty to father Moses and father Plato. This tension was crystalized, for example, in the debates over U.S. recognition of Israel. The great George Marshall--secretary of state and supreme general and architect of the allied victory over the Nazis--argued strenuously against recognition; seemingly, all reason was on his side. The Arabs were our friends; those now in power had helped against the Nazis, and they controlled all the oil. Marshall was a rational, secular man. At Truman's request White House counsel Clark Clifford and Marshall debated the issue before the president in the oval office. Clifford's text was almost exclusively the Old Testament, the Isiah prophesies about the gathering of Israel and the restoration of their promised land. Clifford carried the day, and Marshall was so angry he risigned as Secretary of State, a crushing blow to Truman's political standing and the country. Most of Truman's great achievements (e.g., the Marshall plan, NATO), were conceived and executed by Marshall. Truman begged him to rescind the resignation and finally he did. But Marshall never spoke to Clifford again.

I would go so far as to say the tension has served a useful purpose. On the other hand, I think many would agree with me in saying that George W. Bush's grievous mistakes as president including his transgressions against civil liberties are tracable to his dogmatic religious faith. Bush, perhaps our most religious president ever, may be our worst ever.

Which again begs the question: why are you singling out Romney now? Would you compare Truman to Hitler? I also wouldn't say that Bush is our most religious president ever, nor would I say you can draw a correlation between effective leadership as a president and religious fielty.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Which again begs the question: why are you singling out Romney now? Would you compare Truman to Hitler? I also wouldn't say that Bush is our most religious president ever, nor would I say you can draw a correlation between effective leadership as a president and religious fielty.

From my previous post you can see I'm not "singling Romney out." This is a recurring problem or issue with presidential candidates and presidents. Especially with our recent history of the debacle that is the GWB presidency and attendant religious rhetoric and religious constituency, and the intensity and missionary zeal of Mormon faith, it's fair to ask what would be the role of his religious faith in his decision-making as president. It's a fair question to ask about any president, and it doesn't make one a religious bigot to do so. I've given you a material example of how a president's religious faith had a lasting effect on the world's future.

I happen to believe recognition of Israel was a good thing, but it was undeniably a major event that catalyzed radical Islam, and raised a host of complicated and insoluble problens for the United States in the Middle East, and someone could still argue not unreasonably against Truman's decision. What would the world look like sans recognition of Israel? I don't actually see apocalypse in that alternate universe.

My rhetorical question posed the extreme end of the contuum of religious faith influencing a president's actions, for purposes of discussion. Obviously it incited some discussion.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I would go so far as to say the tension has served a useful purpose. On the other hand, I think many would agree with me in saying that George W. Bush's grievous mistakes as president including his transgressions against civil liberties are tracable to his dogmatic religious faith. Bush, perhaps our most religious president ever, may be our worst ever.

Your thesis is interesting until you make the quantum unsubstantiable leap of faith that the religiosity is the source of a president's failures.

Bush may or may not be our worst president, I would beg to differ and identify Carter as the all time worst president of the 20th and young 21st century, but I don't see his failure tied to his religiosity, if indeed he is religious. He was a good Texas governor, but no special manager of the Texas Rangers. He really doesn't have a long list of accomplishments predicting success as a president. To me, it's the failure to act in many administrative capacities, the failure to understand political ramifications, not his religious leanings, if they are anything more than perceived good PR.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Your thesis is interesting until you make the quantum unsubstantiable leap of faith that the religiosity is the source of a president's failures.

Bush may or may not be our worst president, I would beg to differ and identify Carter as the all time worst president of the 20th and young 21st century, but I don't see his failure tied to his religiosity, if indeed he is religious. He was a good Texas governor, but no special manager of the Texas Rangers. He really doesn't have a long list of accomplishments predicting success as a president. To me, it's the failure to act in many administrative capacities, the failure to understand political ramifications, not his religious leanings, if they are anything more than perceived good PR.

I didn't make the quantum leap you identify. I said I agree with Truman's decision on Israel, made becaues of his religious faith. I do blame Bush's religious faith for his mistakes, however, including his transgressions against civil libeties. I do think a president guided unduly by religious faith is a menace.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I didn't make the quantum leap you identify. I said I agree with Truman's decision on Israel, made becaues of his religious faith. I do blame Bush's religious faith for his mistakes, however, including his transgressions against civil libeties. I do think a president guided unduly by religious faith is a menace.

You blame the mistakes on Bush's alleged religious faith. I blame it on his lack of serious training for the job and his lack of success along the road. He's not a very accomplished person.

There is enough written about Bush; how can you possibly make that as the one on one causation.

And we would have been better off if Israel was not given Palestine back. Truman made a tremendous mistake.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I do think a president guided unduly by religious faith is a menace.

This is what I think you really mean: A president guided unduly by something I disagree with is a menace.