Here we go again
Romney Talks Polygamy on 60 Minutes
By Tracy Medley, 5-14-07
This is one of those stories that falls in the “Just in case you weren’t sick of talking about Mitt Romney’s religion” category - (psssst! He’s Mormon!) According to The Salt Lake Tribune Romney, who lets face it, is probably pretty sick of talking about his LDS-ocity himself had to jockey questions about the LDS Church’s polygamous history during an appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes” this weekend.
“I have a great-great grandfather. They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert. And so he took additional wives as he was told to do. And I must admit, I can’t imagine anything more awful than polygamy,” Romney said during the interview.
While, “Ew, gross” might not seem like the best answer, it certainly is strategically sound. By saying he “can’t imagine anything more awful” he gets to avoid really engaging in the complex crossroads where Mormon history and Mormon doctrine and “eternal principles” collide.
Funny about being mormon.
Mormons teach that Jesus and Satan are brothers...
That means their saviour Jesus is Satans brother...
I will pass on that theology...!!!!
Bob
If you were open to new ideas and information .. and if you took the Gospels by the text .. instead of by Gnostic symbolism .. then you just might suspect .. that Christ could have meant what exactly what He said .. over and over .. and it is not what the Nicene council said ..
Comment By karin, 5-15-07It seems to be a pretty good pro-LDS propaganda machine. At the least, there will be a lot of national press distancing practicing mormons from the legacies of the church. At the most, the church will be wrongly portrayed as an innocuous christian denomination. While I am, after 6 years living as a minority member of a community dominated by a single religious organization, SICK of talking about mormonism, I am not opposed to exposing a reality of where the loyalty lies in a religious leader. Isn't that a great concern in middle-east politics? Are we able to so casually discuss our objection to or concerns over religious affiliation of the distanced "other" half-way across the world and pretend that we aren't affected by questions of religious affiliation as a central issue in this country?
How can we state so clearly that religious affiliation is a political concern in other countries but then out of the same mouth say it doesn't or shouldn't matter here?
If we hold our leaders accountable to their marriage vows, their stance on their homosexual children, their relationship to astrology, then why not their religion? It is all a question of public ethical concerns and it is equally valid to ask where a leader's values and loyalties lie. It's not like we can count on our political leaders voting by the majority of the population's view. We elect people to match or approximate our own value systems and then hope their exercise of power will reflect those values.
So, yes, let's talk about religion and affairs and Jesus and Satan being brother's and the Olympics and secret meetings and all of it. Leaving it at "Mitt Romney is a mormon" without any qualifications of what that religious affiliation means in to how he will affect policy means he is NOT my candidate. I'm left to fill in the gaps with less than complete information. My bias is equally no way to assess a leader.
Shouldn't we ask Romney about the fact that he willfully is part of a religion that institutionalized racism for a century? I mean, he's not going to get the black vote anyway, but, to paraphrase an episode of The Office, it's not only black people that are upset by racism. Also, the Mormon Church was strangely silent about the Holocaust (there is evidence that wards in Germany were actually supportive of it). Shouldn't we ask those kinds of questions? The church has clearly had a destructive past and shouldn't it be held to account for it? And we don't have to go as far back as the Crusades - some of this stuff has been since Romney's been alive. I wonder sometimes how anyone can be a part of that religion, with all that we know of its sordid, not-too-distant past. I suppose some are trying to change it from the inside (I have no idea why). Religion, generally speaking, has been one of the most dangerous forces in history. I agree with Sam Harris that perhaps we should be putting more "conversational pressure" on religion and its adherents by pushing religious people to justify things like "why aren't slavery and child abuse and rape part of the Ten Commandments but working on Sunday is?" Perhaps we can start with Romney and ask questions, not about polygamy (cuz who gives a shit) but questions about the Mormon Church's stance on why it took God a century to reveal to the leaders of the Church that blacks could be an equal part of the Church. What was the hold up?
Comment By Carl Loeber, 5-15-07You folks are out or reach of all reason, experience, and evidence .... If you were not anti-religious you might have some desire at understanding .. but you only want to attack it apears .. The history of the LDS Church is that it never supported slavery or any form of force on body or spirit .. As for Mormons today .. your words appear very silly to most anyone with any personal contact or experience .... and there are very few people who do not have this experience ..
Comment By Jimi, 5-15-07Thank you for your reply Carl. It's true that I'm out of touch with much of America on this and I don't deny it. But, as we learned in Orwell's 1984, just because a whole lot of people say that 2 plus 2 doesn't equal 4 don't make it so.
Oh yeah, and I lived in Utah for six years and had near-constant, daily contact with LDS folks. Many were extraordinarily kind, compassionate, and loving people. This doesn't, however, change the legacy of mean-spiritedness of the LDS CHurch toward women and people of color.
Yes Carl,
I am out of touch, I believe I stated that when I said my underinformed bias is no way for me to make a decision about a political leader. That is why conversation that is frank and asks, quite specifically, if a potential leader supports or lives religious beliefs that are in opposition to the majority of United States citizens is absolutely necessary. The religious issue is really a matter of taste and preference. When it comes to a religion like catholocism, mormonism, islam, etc. where the mandate of the religion is that a man on earth (pope/prophet) stands between God(god) and country as the supreme influence on the life of an individual member of that church, you're damned right I want to know everything about how that person is informed by their relationship to that religion. I don't want their preference and their taste to generate laws that infringe upon mine.
I don't believe I have stated anything in my posts about my religious beliefs, because I don't happen to think they are fodder for a productive conversation, and I don't begrudge anyone theirs but I am not seeking to be a representative of the people... I have no power except for the power to question. However, I want clarity from the people who seek public office and swear to represent my interests on what role their religion, both past and present, plays in influencing their decision making. Do they swear first to uphold the law(?) or to their God and prophet/pope?
Inform me of these issues and I will make an informed choice. Refuse to discuss these things and I am left to only what knowledge I can gain on my own. The sketchy handling of these matters leaves me only with a sense that the individual who is dodging the question is not forthright and I have a doubt about the moral fibre of that individual i.e. they just lost my vote.
No political leader should be preaching their particular religion from the oval office. None, not one. To do so is to condone a religion and to dismiss others. This is unacceptable. it must be stopped. If the religious people of this country want to be free to practice their faith then they should demand that this stop as well. It is only luck that a political leader preaches for your particular denomination for the 4 - 8 years of their turn, but how will it feel when we have a muslim or a jewish leader in office? How would all allah bless america sound to christians in this country? It would be no more offensive to me than to hear "God bless America" but I don't want to hear any of it in my government and I want to practice my own faith without infringement or alienation. It is that simple. it is in all of our best interests to keep religion out of politics. That is not hatred of religion, that is the only reasonable stance for someone who genuinely supports the right of each individual to practice whatever religion they choose without oppression.
It is the religious people who think they've found the one true path to God/god that are intolerant and who oppress.
The Pope, the Mormon prophet, or even the majority of Muslim mulas aren't running the minds of the people who adhere to these various faiths. And they certainly aren't advocating intolerance and oppression so that someone should shun a person based on their faith alone... to do so is probably more intolerant than anything these religions are doing.
Even on the Mormon issue of race (since it was brought up as an example of intolerance)... there was this thing called the Civil Rights movement during the 60s and 70s (and it's still going on today) that attempted to change the "entire country's" attitude about race and color because our nation as a whole was still fairly racist in attitude and policy. Why then, if this was a national problem, is the Mormon church being showcased as a racist organization when its attitude was in reality no more segregated than the prevailing sentiment of the day? Let's not forget either that the Mormon's have changed their point of view about race and no longer endorse segregationism. Holding Mormons to account and attemptint to characterize them for a policy they don't even advocate anymore also sounds like a pretty intolerant thing to do.
It's curious to me how anti-religious people, complaining about the "intolerance and oppressiveness" of certain religious histories, believe they then get the right to categorically devalue the opinions of all the religious people who adhere to these faiths. Isn't this a form of "intolerance and oppressiveness" on the same level as the condemnation they hurl at oppressive religious histories? Why are anti-religious people exempt from criticism of intolerance when they categorically determine that the opinions of all religious people matter less than their own?
In fact, it seems that this determination to put religion in its place is less like educating the uneducated, and more like the mean-spirited competition that can often drive one group of religious people to combat and abuse people of differing persuasions in order to win converts to their faith... something I find out of character, but not exclusive to religion since the anti-religious are doing it too.
So, how about instead of trying to characterize a person's tolerance, open-mindedness, and intelligence based upon certain unappealing traits of the religious history of that person's faith, that we determine how the person themself feels about and expresses their faith in their own religion? Seems like that's getting somewhere productive... at least, it's not intolerant.
This is what the NEW west is all about huh? Kinda scary!
Alot of you just seem....angry. I grew up in Utah, but go to school in Oregon. One thing I've noticed is that Liberal folks are just not happy unless they can point to someone or something and somehow blame it for the worlds ill's or their own. I experineced alot of the same attitude in Utah, but I figured it was understandable, becuase of the tension that an overwhlemingly prevelant belief system creates. But even in a place dominated by liberal folks (Eugene) I cant get over the fact that they are just angry people, its just a personality type, perhaps people with an undertone of "angry" are just more inclined to be ardent liberals. I dont understand it.
I think my perspective is pretty understandable if you consider someone taking my beleif system, for which I credit most of the good things that are happening in my life, and paints it as such a bad thing... its easy to think...hmmm, this person must be having a bad day, or year, or something. Or maybe I am just naieve, becuase they have read alot of books by angry people that I choose not to read.
Anyway, I think Eugene's got it right.
The OLD west had some good things, so lets remember who brought us here as we create the NEW west!
Jake
OK
Comment By Taci, 5-17-07It is interesting to me that in the same response people can talk about needing to know everything about a possible leader's religious beliefs, yet talk about the privacy they should have about their own religious beliefs and feelings. People should be judged on their actions and abilties, not on religious beliefs. If those religious beliefs, whatever they be (Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, etc.), have led that person to be responsible, upstanding, honest, then let it go at that and start looking for the other leadership qualitites that we need to have in the leader of our country. Intolerance and oppression come from looking at a person's race or religion instead of looking at the person.
Comment By Jimi, 5-17-07Eugene: doesn't it strike you as odd that Jesus/God/Moroni revealed themselves to the original prophet of the Mormons and didn't mention anything about racial equality? I mean, why would he have waited to reveal this nugget to the Church until almost a century and a half later? Wouldn't it have been nice if God had told the first prophet that the races should be equal and obviate that 140 years of segregation within the church? That's up there with Jesus exhorting slaves to be good to their masters (in the New Testament) instead of preaching against slavery. Seems like an all-knowing God would have said something about equality from the beginning. I know, I know, it's horribly hostile to ask questions about religion...
Comment By Tawnya, 5-22-07I really like the following paragraphs that were posted by Eugene Thompson a couple days ago. I don't have anything to add at the moment to this debate. I just want to post them again, I guess. Pretty strong stuff. He said:
"...it seems that this determination to put religion in its place is less like educating the uneducated, and more like the mean-spirited competition that can often drive one group of religious people to combat and abuse people of differing persuasions in order to win converts to their faith... something I find out of character, but not exclusive to religion since the anti-religious are doing it too.
So, how about instead of trying to characterize a person's tolerance, open-mindedness, and intelligence based upon certain unappealing traits of the religious history of that person's faith, that we determine how the person themself feels about and expresses their faith in their own religion? Seems like that's getting somewhere productive... at least, it's not intolerant."