MR

And no, I'm not talking about Queen! How shocking that a Mormon from Massachusetts couldn't win The White House!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/ ... index.html


John from Boston

Enigma869 wrote:And no, I'm not talking about Queen! How shocking that a Mormon from Massachusetts couldn't win The White House!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/ ... index.html


John from Boston

How sickening that the fact that he is a Mormon even matters. Talk about bigotry.

Barb wrote:

Enigma869 wrote:And no, I'm not talking about Queen! How shocking that a Mormon from Massachusetts couldn't win The White House!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/ ... index.html


John from Boston

How sickening that the fact that he is a Mormon even matters. Talk about bigotry.

Anyone who's in consideration for the most important leadership position on this planet (today) should be scrutinized. Humans are tribal by nature. Group affiliations are reasonable issues to raise because the president dictates policy and those policies affect our lives. If I don't belong to his group or share in his beliefs or the way he chooses to live, I sure as hell don't want him introducing laws based on his group's belief system.

This country needs to stop choosing it's leaders based on their religious affiliations. Religion is used too often as an excuse to exercise power and control over the masses and all too often it's "Do as I say, not as I do".

I'm glad both Romney and Huckabee are no longer serious contenders. We already had an idiot in the white house. We don't need a Moron... Ooops, I mean Mormon, nor do we need ANY kind of preacher.

Mark my words. Religion is going to be the downfall of humanity.

Barb wrote:

Enigma869 wrote:And no, I'm not talking about Queen! How shocking that a Mormon from Massachusetts couldn't win The White House!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/ ... index.html


John from Boston

How sickening that the fact that he is a Mormon even matters. Talk about bigotry.

Great line Barb. I agree 100%.

STORY_TELLER wrote: nor do we need ANY kind of preacher.

Mark my words. Religion is going to be the downfall of humanity.

And you have an even better point. Definitely leave the religion home and keep it the fuck out of politics and policy.

STORY_TELLER wrote:

Barb wrote:

Enigma869 wrote:And no, I'm not talking about Queen! How shocking that a Mormon from Massachusetts couldn't win The White House!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/ ... index.html


John from Boston

How sickening that the fact that he is a Mormon even matters. Talk about bigotry.

Anyone who's in consideration for the most important leadership position on this planet (today) should be scrutinized. Humans are tribal by nature. Group affiliations are reasonable issues to raise because the president dictates policy and those policies affect our lives. If I don't belong to his group or share in his beliefs or the way he chooses to live, I sure as hell don't want him introducing laws based on his group's belief system.

This country needs to stop choosing it's leaders based on their religious affiliations. Religion is used too often as an excuse to exercise power and control over the masses and all too often it's "Do as I say, not as I do".

I'm glad both Romney and Huckabee are no longer serious contenders. We already had an idiot in the white house. We don't need a Moron... Ooops, I mean Mormon, nor do we need ANY kind of preacher.

Mark my words. Religion is going to be the downfall of humanity.

Well, I disagree strongly. There are people on the far right trying to make hay out of the fact that Obama was a Muslim. Unless the man intends to implement Sharia law, then it's nobody's business. I believe Mr. Romney governed Massachussetts without his Mormon beliefs ever coming into play.

Substitute Mormon for "Black" or "Woman" and watch this country burn to the ground.

Barb wrote:Well, I disagree strongly. There are people on the far right trying to make hay out of the fact that Obama was a Muslim. Unless the man intends to implement Sharia law, then it's nobody's business. I believe Mr. Romney governed Massachussetts without his Mormon beliefs ever coming into play.

Substitute Mormon for "Black" or "Woman" and watch this country burn to the ground.

There's a vast difference between being a part of a religious group and being a particular race or gender.

You can choose your religion (or lack thereof) but you can't choose your race or gender (although with today's surgical procedures, that's up for debate, )

I can tomorrow decide that I'm going to be a devout Muslim and as such, in embracing my new found beliefs, decide the way everyone else is living is wrong and try and convert others to my way of thinking. THAT is fucking DANGEROUS and THAT should never be allowed in the white house.

There's a reason why there's a separation of church and state. I just illustrated why.

[quote="Barb"]Well, I disagree strongly. There are people on the far right trying to make hay out of the fact that Obama was a Muslim. Unless the man intends to implement Sharia law, then it's nobody's business.[quote]

It never starts out that extreme, Barb. It's usually subtle changes which creep in slowly, but those changes do come from an influence of the way one was brought up. Very few people go against the grain of what their parents or their community taught them. Tribalism. The curse of humanity.

STORY_TELLER wrote:

Barb wrote:Well, I disagree strongly. There are people on the far right trying to make hay out of the fact that Obama was a Muslim. Unless the man intends to implement Sharia law, then it's nobody's business. I believe Mr. Romney governed Massachussetts without his Mormon beliefs ever coming into play.

Substitute Mormon for "Black" or "Woman" and watch this country burn to the ground.

There's a vast difference between being a part of a religious group and being a particular race or gender.

You can choose your religion (or lack thereof) but you can't choose your race or gender (although with today's surgical procedures, that's up for debate, )

I can tomorrow decide that I'm going to be a devout Muslim and as such, in embracing my new found beliefs, decide the way everyone else is living is wrong and try and convert others to my way of thinking. THAT is fucking DANGEROUS and THAT should never be allowed in the white house.

There's a reason why there's a separation of church and state. I just illustrated why.

You base this on the assumption that a person will lead accordinig to their religious beliefs and that is unfair, IMO. Do you think we shouldn't have any Muslims in our government? Romney governed the state of Massachussetts pretty well without injecting his religious beliefs on anyone. I trust he would do the same as President. Harry Reid is also a Mormon. Does that bother you at all? or is it just Republican Mormons that are bad?

STORY_TELLER wrote:

Barb wrote:

Enigma869 wrote:And no, I'm not talking about Queen! How shocking that a Mormon from Massachusetts couldn't win The White House!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/ ... index.html


John from Boston

How sickening that the fact that he is a Mormon even matters. Talk about bigotry.

Anyone who's in consideration for the most important leadership position on this planet (today) should be scrutinized. Humans are tribal by nature. Group affiliations are reasonable issues to raise because the president dictates policy and those policies affect our lives. If I don't belong to his group or share in his beliefs or the way he chooses to live, I sure as hell don't want him introducing laws based on his group's belief system.

This country needs to stop choosing it's leaders based on their religious affiliations. Religion is used too often as an excuse to exercise power and control over the masses and all too often it's "Do as I say, not as I do".

I'm glad both Romney and Huckabee are no longer serious contenders. We already had an idiot in the white house. We don't need a Moron... Ooops, I mean Mormon, nor do we need ANY kind of preacher.

Mark my words. Religion is going to be the downfall of humanity.

You say we should not choose based on religious affiliation, but then you say we should not chose leaders who have a specific religious background. Don’t take religion into consideration, but don’t allow a Mormon to be president. A contradiction of monumental proportions. I agree that we should not generally take religion into consideration (either way). But then I wonder if we had of excluded folks based on religion, who would have founded this country?

If you are a strong believer in some faith, that will certainly guide you. I guarantee you that many in this country do not want an atheist to serve, and it’s their constitutional right to feel that way and vote that way. I guess I find your whole reply ignorant. As Barb said, how is it any different than women supporting Hilary or blacks supporting Barack? Yes, we are tribal in some ways, but people are going to govern largely on their beliefs, whether they discuss it or not.

Name me one great president that did not invoke religion from time to time. Just one.

STORY_TELLER wrote:

Barb wrote:Well, I disagree strongly. There are people on the far right trying to make hay out of the fact that Obama was a Muslim. Unless the man intends to implement Sharia law, then it's nobody's business. I believe Mr. Romney governed Massachussetts without his Mormon beliefs ever coming into play.

Substitute Mormon for "Black" or "Woman" and watch this country burn to the ground.

There's a vast difference between being a part of a religious group and being a particular race or gender.

You can choose your religion (or lack thereof) but you can't choose your race or gender (although with today's surgical procedures, that's up for debate, )

I can tomorrow decide that I'm going to be a devout Muslim and as such, in embracing my new found beliefs, decide the way everyone else is living is wrong and try and convert others to my way of thinking. THAT is fucking DANGEROUS and THAT should never be allowed in the white house.

There's a reason why there's a separation of church and state. I just illustrated why.

Separation of church and state is to ensure that people can live freely in this country without persecution for their beliefs. Do you really want to say the end result of that is you should not be president for those beliefs? Remember, the people who wrote the constitution and gave us those all-important freedoms were all very religious folks, at least in theory.

STORY_TELLER wrote:

Barb wrote:Well, I disagree strongly. There are people on the far right trying to make hay out of the fact that Obama was a Muslim. Unless the man intends to implement Sharia law, then it's nobody's business. I believe Mr. Romney governed Massachussetts without his Mormon beliefs ever coming into play.

Substitute Mormon for "Black" or "Woman" and watch this country burn to the ground.

There's a vast difference between being a part of a religious group and being a particular race or gender.

You can choose your religion (or lack thereof) but you can't choose your race or gender (although with today's surgical procedures, that's up for debate, )

I can tomorrow decide that I'm going to be a devout Muslim and as such, in embracing my new found beliefs, decide the way everyone else is living is wrong and try and convert others to my way of thinking. THAT is fucking DANGEROUS and THAT should never be allowed in the white house.

There's a reason why there's a separation of church and state. I just illustrated why.

It's only an issue if a candidate is proposing to change everybody's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, to his/her own religous beliefs as President.

Memorex wrote:

STORY_TELLER wrote:

Barb wrote:

Enigma869 wrote:And no, I'm not talking about Queen! How shocking that a Mormon from Massachusetts couldn't win The White House!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/ ... index.html


John from Boston

How sickening that the fact that he is a Mormon even matters. Talk about bigotry.

Anyone who's in consideration for the most important leadership position on this planet (today) should be scrutinized. Humans are tribal by nature. Group affiliations are reasonable issues to raise because the president dictates policy and those policies affect our lives. If I don't belong to his group or share in his beliefs or the way he chooses to live, I sure as hell don't want him introducing laws based on his group's belief system.

This country needs to stop choosing it's leaders based on their religious affiliations. Religion is used too often as an excuse to exercise power and control over the masses and all too often it's "Do as I say, not as I do".

I'm glad both Romney and Huckabee are no longer serious contenders. We already had an idiot in the white house. We don't need a Moron... Ooops, I mean Mormon, nor do we need ANY kind of preacher.

Mark my words. Religion is going to be the downfall of humanity.

You say we should not choose based on religious affiliation, but then you say we should not chose leaders who have a specific religious background. Don’t take religion into consideration, but don’t allow a Mormon to be president. A contradiction of monumental proportions. I agree that we should not generally take religion into consideration (either way). But then I wonder if we had of excluded folks based on religion, who would have founded this country?

If you are a strong believer in some faith, that will certainly guide you. I guarantee you that many in this country do not want an atheist to server, and it’s their constitutional right to feel that way and vote that way. I guess I find your whole reply ignorant. As Barb said, how is it any different than women supporting Hilary or blacks supporting Barack? Yes, we are tribal in some ways, but people are going to govern largely on their beliefs, whether they discuss it or not.

Name me one great president that did not invoke religion from time to time. Just one.

I'd say about 99.9% of all politicians who invoke religion are doing it solely for the "people" and to get elected. They know some people want to hear that bullshit, "yeah, I'm just like and I pray everything I take a step", but how many actually practice what they preach? I'd say about .01%. I would never vote for someone based on their religious views and actually, I tend not to vote for anyone that uses their religion to get elected.
This country is supposed to be FAIR TO EVERYONE and we all know religion ain't fair to everyone.

Barb wrote:How sickening that the fact that he is a Mormon even matters. Talk about bigotry.

I agree with you Barb, 100%! I've alway thought that the religious thing is fucking absurd, but anyone who doesn't think it's an issue is nuts! All you need to do is look at Mike Huckabee! The guy has won EVERY "bible belt" state, quite handily, just because he was an Evangelical preacher. In every other state, the guy hasn't even been on the radar! Religion is an INDUSTRY in the south, and all you have to do is say the word "Christian", and most of these yahoos punch your name on the ticket!


John from Boston

Just to be clear - I am a firm believer in separation of church and state. I also take comfort, maybe for my own shortcomings, that generally our leaders have faith in a higher power. Maybe it will keep their hand off the button.

Mormon, Baptist, woman, black, Muslim - Actually a damn great moment in our country's history if you ask me.

Barb wrote:You base this on the assumption that a person will lead accordinig to their religious beliefs and that is unfair, IMO. Do you think we shouldn't have any Muslims in our government? Romney governed the state of Massachussetts pretty well without injecting his religious beliefs on anyone. I trust he would do the same as President. Harry Reid is also a Mormon. Does that bother you at all? or is it just Republican Mormons that are bad?

Well, when they're out there on the campaign trail touting their religious backgrounds and spiritual affiliations, is it a far stretch to believe that those beliefs will affect public policy? I mean can you say Roe vs. Waid? (did I spell that right?)

STORY_TELLER wrote:
This country needs to stop choosing it's leaders based on their religious affiliations. Religion is used too often as an excuse to exercise power and control over the masses and all too often it's "Do as I say, not as I do".

Mark my words. Religion is going to be the downfall of humanity.

BINGO!

Barb wrote:Romney governed the state of Massachussetts pretty well without injecting his religious beliefs on anyone. I trust he would do the same as President.

Romney was actually a pretty good governor in Massachusetts. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Massachusetts is THE ONLY state in this country that has universal health care, and he's the reason for it! I can also tell you from first-hand experience that his religious leanings NEVER entered into how he ran the state! It was also never an issue when he was campaigning for governor. People in Massachusetts tend to be a bit more open minded about such issues than in some other parts of this country! We really don't care what god you pray to or who you're boning in your free time! Having said all that, I don't think the guy was getting elected, Mormon or not. The last president that I recall not being from the south was Ronald Reagan (and yes, I know the elder Bush was technically a New England native, but he spent most of his life in Texas)!


John from Boston

Memorex wrote:You say we should not choose based on religious affiliation, but then you say we should not chose leaders who have a specific religious background. Don’t take religion into consideration, but don’t allow a Mormon to be president. A contradiction of monumental proportions.

Where is there a contradiction here? I think religion should be kept out of the white house. All religion. Period. No contradiction there.

Just because you're not religious doesn't make you a-moral. We need to practice morality, not religion. There is a difference.

I can sum up morals very simply:

Q: Why is it wrong to kill someone?
A: Because you wouldn't want it to happen to you.

Rockindeano wrote:

STORY_TELLER wrote: nor do we need ANY kind of preacher.

Mark my words. Religion is going to be the downfall of humanity.

And you have an even better point. Definitely leave the religion home and keep it the fuck out of politics and policy.

Amen.

I'd say, based on pre and post presidential life, I could only point to Clinton and Nixon as presidents where I would question the faith that they spoke of in office. Even if it does not guide them or even if they don't practice the way a "good" Christian would, I honestly feel the others have a deeper faith than some.

When you get to a presidential level, there are so may people pulling and pushing that it would be nearly impossible to change anything for religion's sake. Look at Bush. He always talks how he answers to a higher power, yet I'd guess that the actions of the Catholic church have reduced overall dedication to religion. There is not higher percentage of Christians in this country right now, even though we have a president that feels the way he does, and has even made good and bad decisions based on his faith.

If we lived in a situation like Germany/Hitler, then I see your point. America will never be like that and you can express all the fears you want, but socially we have gone in completly the opposite direction.

Memorex wrote:

STORY_TELLER wrote:

Barb wrote:Well, I disagree strongly. There are people on the far right trying to make hay out of the fact that Obama was a Muslim. Unless the man intends to implement Sharia law, then it's nobody's business. I believe Mr. Romney governed Massachussetts without his Mormon beliefs ever coming into play.

Substitute Mormon for "Black" or "Woman" and watch this country burn to the ground.

There's a vast difference between being a part of a religious group and being a particular race or gender.

You can choose your religion (or lack thereof) but you can't choose your race or gender (although with today's surgical procedures, that's up for debate, )

I can tomorrow decide that I'm going to be a devout Muslim and as such, in embracing my new found beliefs, decide the way everyone else is living is wrong and try and convert others to my way of thinking. THAT is fucking DANGEROUS and THAT should never be allowed in the white house.

There's a reason why there's a separation of church and state. I just illustrated why.

Separation of church and state is to ensure that people can live freely in this country without persecution for their beliefs. Do you really want to say the end result of that is you should not be president for those beliefs? Remember, the people who wrote the constitution and gave us those all-important freedoms were all very religious folks, at least in theory.

But when religious dogma creeps into policy, then you've got big problems. Maybe the next president will be smart enough to not use "Crusade" in his speeches dealing with foreign policy.

STORY_TELLER wrote:Just because you're not religious doesn't make you a-moral. We need to practice morality, not religion. There is a difference.

I can sum up morals very simply:

Q: Why is it wrong to kill someone?
A: Because you wouldn't want it to happen to you.

Oh this is the freshest breeze to blow throuh here on this subject that I can ever remember.

To hear some of these people you'd think nobody knew it was bad to kill, steal, lie, slap your mama, or sleep with your brother's wife until Moses told them God said so.

ohsherrie wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

STORY_TELLER wrote: nor do we need ANY kind of preacher.

Mark my words. Religion is going to be the downfall of humanity.

And you have an even better point. Definitely leave the religion home and keep it the fuck out of politics and policy.

Amen.

Amen twice. Belongs at home.
It's a personal matter, NOT a political one.

STORY_TELLER wrote:

Memorex wrote:You say we should not choose based on religious affiliation, but then you say we should not chose leaders who have a specific religious background. Don’t take religion into consideration, but don’t allow a Mormon to be president. A contradiction of monumental proportions.

Where is there a contradiction here? I think religion should be kept out of the white house. All religion. Period. No contradiction there.

Just because you're not religious doesn't make you a-moral. We need to practice morality, not religion. There is a difference.

I can sum up morals very simply:

Q: Why is it wrong to kill someone?
A: Because you wouldn't want it to happen to you.

It's a contradiction because you are punishing someone for their religious beliefs, or that they even have a belief at all. And I don't think that you wanting to punish all religions equally makes it right. This is so far off of my belief that it's probably not even worth me discussing. I suppose we both agree that anyone and everyone should be allowed to run, as a constitutional right (within the guidelines), but whereas you would take all religious beliefs as a negative, some may use them to determine the type of leader someone might be.

I guess you have no candidate this year. I can't think of anyone running who doesn't have a religious affiliation.

ohsherrie wrote:

STORY_TELLER wrote:Just because you're not religious doesn't make you a-moral. We need to practice morality, not religion. There is a difference.

I can sum up morals very simply:

Q: Why is it wrong to kill someone?
A: Because you wouldn't want it to happen to you.

Oh this is the freshest breeze to blow throuh here on this subject that I can ever remember.

To hear some of these people you'd think nobody knew it was bad to kill, steal, lie, slap your mama, or sleep with your brother's wife until Moses told them God said so.

I had to laugh at that sher, because it's so absurd but so true.
Thou shalt not slap thy mama.

Memorex wrote:Look at Bush. He always talks how he answers to a higher power, yet I'd guess that the actions of the Catholic church have reduced overall dedication to religion. There is not higher percentage of Christians in this country right now, even though we have a president that feels the way he does, and has even made good and bad decisions based on his faith.

Mostly bad decisions and that is my point. He made decisions based on his faith and look where that led us. If Clinton had done half the things Bush has done in office, he'd have been strung up by his johnson even worse than he was for sexual misconduct.

I don't see any moves to impeach Bush, do you? Yet he's responsible for starting a war on falsehoods. The only war he should have started and finished was in Afghanistan, and now look at it. Those fuckers were left alone and are in the process of destabilizing a nuclear armed country.

bluejeangirl76 wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:

STORY_TELLER wrote: nor do we need ANY kind of preacher.

Mark my words. Religion is going to be the downfall of humanity.

And you have an even better point. Definitely leave the religion home and keep it the fuck out of politics and policy.

Amen.

Amen twice. Belongs at home.
It's a personal matter, NOT a political one.

Let's be honest. When you are running for president, nothing is completely personal. We look to people's beliefs and past actions to help determine what kind of leader they will be. Look at the Democrat side. It's very difficult to know how they will lead as they have not been senators all that long and never served prior. Obama keeps saying "I did not vote for the war", yet he wasn't even a senator then and had as much opportunity to vote for it as I did. So we look at other things. Did they run a business, how was Hilary as first lady, have they ever engaged in illegal activities, what are their beliefs and are they in line with mine, how have they managed their personal life, etc.

One question. You have Hitler standing there, and you are unaware of his beliefs. You have Romney standing there, and you have no idea of his beliefs. Who wins? Well, if this were prior to Hitler's insane acts, he wins hands down. For me, I would have liked the opportunity to vet out what he believed.

Memorex wrote:

STORY_TELLER wrote:

Memorex wrote:You say we should not choose based on religious affiliation, but then you say we should not chose leaders who have a specific religious background. Don’t take religion into consideration, but don’t allow a Mormon to be president. A contradiction of monumental proportions.

Where is there a contradiction here? I think religion should be kept out of the white house. All religion. Period. No contradiction there.

Just because you're not religious doesn't make you a-moral. We need to practice morality, not religion. There is a difference.

I can sum up morals very simply:

Q: Why is it wrong to kill someone?
A: Because you wouldn't want it to happen to you.

It's a contradiction because you are punishing someone for their religious beliefs, or that they even have a belief at all. And I don't think that you wanting to punish all religions equally makes it right. This is so far off of my belief that it's probably not even worth me discussing. I suppose we both agree that anyone and everyone should be allowed to run, as a constitutional right (within the guidelines), but whereas you would take all religious beliefs as a negative, some may use them to determine the type of leader someone might be.

I guess you have no candidate this year. I can't think of anyone running who doesn't have a religious affiliation.

You make some good points here and I can't argue with what you just pointed out. They're just facts and they're on the money.

Truth is, what I'm looking for is a perfect world and to me a perfect world is one race without tribalistic issues separating us. There will never be a religion free humanity and as such, there will never be a religion free white house. This country, this world is separated by ridiculous nonsense and it's maddening.

You're correct in that I do not have a candidate of choice. I only have lesser of evils, but I think that's the way it is for most people. Too often I hear people talking about how they're voting for one person only because they don't want the other guy in office.

The candidate I'd like to see is the one who publicly rejects religion and embraces morality. Obviously, in this country, that would be a candidate who has a snowballs chance in hell of getting in office.

STORY_TELLER wrote:

Memorex wrote:Look at Bush. He always talks how he answers to a higher power, yet I'd guess that the actions of the Catholic church have reduced overall dedication to religion. There is not higher percentage of Christians in this country right now, even though we have a president that feels the way he does, and has even made good and bad decisions based on his faith.

Mostly bad decisions and that is my point. He made decisions based on his faith and look where that led us. If Clinton had done half the things Bush has done in office, he'd have been strung up by his johnson even worse than he was for sexual misconduct.

I don't see any moves to impeach Bush, do you? Yet he's responsible for starting a war on falsehoods. The only war he should have started and finished was in Afghanistan, and now look at it. Those fuckers were left alone and are in the process of destabilizing a nuclear armed country.

You have to wonder how much of the decision was made based on religion and how much it was based on other issues (first-strike, economic, revenge, etc). I mean really, let's look at political history and all the many mistakes all leaders have made. If you are being 100% honest, how many of them can you attribute to religion?

Memorex wrote:Let's be honest. When you are running for president, nothing is completely personal. We look to people's beliefs and past actions to help determine what kind of leader they will be.

And look at what the religious right chose as the guy who should be the leader of the free world. Look at his past. You're going to tell me, if his last name wasn't Bush, that this guy, based on his history of actions and mismanagement would have been voted in as a Janitor let alone Governor or President?