I'm not sure what area of agreement you are citing--I'm just glad Mr. Prager is not on the radio in Los Angeles, anymore.

Separation of church and state prevents anyone from imposing their religion on other religions if they are elected; said amendment does not imply that a cadidate's religious beliefs are not relevant.

BTW, he is on KRLA 9AM to 12 noon. I listen every day.

freeman

Are their beliefs regarding abortion, gay rights, evolution, climate change, vouchers, home schooling, separation of church and state, etc. etc. due to a reasoned analysis and subject to change or compromise or are based on religious beliefs that cannot be questioned?

In any political campaign, would not proponents of any policy have to provide their reasons and rationale for their policies? If they are only based upon their religious beliefs wouldn't they eventually have to proffer that reasoning?
At which point they can be dismissed if the electorate so chooses..

And freeman, "clearly made up religion"? All religions are "made up". You can choose to believe that the Golden Plates existed and were translated or not.
The greeks had huge debates about the reality of their Gods on Olympus at the same time that they developed their various threads of philosophy and logos. You can choose to beleive that Jesus was literally the Son of God, that Muhammed was being sent devine communication, or that the Council of Nicea was inspired or whateveer you want... But it all begins with the persons who constructed the story... Or the institution that developed from the originators... (Churches or religions)
LDS seems less "real" only because its recent, it existed in a periods of greater scepticism and where the world was better understood through science and where the discipline of historical record had developed extremelly well.
But if the religion produces good people, who live work and serve their fellow man well... whether the religon was transparently "made up" doesn't matter.
The question is, is there anything about the religion that will serve a nation made up of free people to lose their freedoms or their ability to particiapte in their own different religions or non-religious belief systems? In the case of fundamental Christians I think things like limiting freedom of choice on abortion and contraception are certainly things one can point to... (LDS too?) Other issues of morality are certainly driven by reliogous affinities (abolition, marriage etc.). Try and get a drink in Utah...
I can't point to a single thing that Romney has done or said that would indicate that his church has been the specific reason for any particular policy statement. Can you? (Maybe abortion?)
Frankly I think Romney's religious beliefs are are as loosely held as many of his beliefs. (Masschussetts health insurance versus the current "Obamacare".) I suspect He holds them more as a result of his birth less so than of any deeply held conviction that the literal truth is to be found in the LDS scriptures...
Community, and society are an important part of Churches too. Not just the "scriptural history or myths".

Generally, I am struck, once again, at the intolerance of the Left. They claim to be a "big tent," but apparently many will only vote for those who hold the same non-religious views as they do.

Once again, "liberals" are bigots and I'm open-minded. I'm the one who is allegedly "intolerant." I view Mormonism as a cult, but would vote for a Mormon. I believe Catholicism is a cult, but would vote for a Catholic. I believe those who don't believe on the Lord Jesus Christ are bound for hell, but I would vote for an unbeliever.

But, the "open-minded" liberals will only accept those whose metaphysical views reflect their own. So much for "liberalism" being the equivalent of "open-minded."

I vote on real world issues, not metaphysics.

rickyp wrote:

Does it affect any of their important behaviors in life?

If it didn't what good would their religion be?

Do they not take their children to doctors?

Yes, but not for vaccinations against cervical cancer...Or measles...or...

That is less than a caricature.

No one opposed those vaccinations. They opposed the State mandating them.

And, if you think every 11-year old is sexually active . . .

If you don't believe that, why not leave it up to parents? Since when is the State supreme when it comes to knowing and raising children?

Do they oppose medical research?

Like Stem Cell research?

Again, caricature--or worse.

There is a vast chasm between opposing stem cell research and opposing the Federal government supporting the destruction of embryos for research.

My neighbor is a doctor who does research in this field. He says adult stem cells are better--and he is not a religious man.

Do they reject scientific discoveries that affect our lives?

Like Climate Change?

Canard after canard. How is Climate Change affecting our lives?

Answer: you don't know. It's not evident. It's not even certain that AGW is the cause or if it is solar activity. What we do KNOW is that the cataclysmic, doomsday prophecies of AGW proponents have not come to pass.

We also KNOW that bankrupting our country while others blithely continue to build coal plants at a record pace will not solve the problem.

(None of the above to be taken seriously...)

Well, thanks for wasting our time!

Would you be comfortable with a person who thinks they live in end times with their hands on the nuclear football?

Of course, you are referring to Ahmadinejad, right?

To take your question seriously, no Christian, even the most die-hard fan of the "Left Behind" series would believe it is his/her duty to launch a nuclear weapon to usher in the end. In fact, the Bible makes it clear God is in charge of when the end comes.

But going back to whether or not Mormonism will be used as a weapon against Romney.... If he gets the nomination, he'll probably have faced the worst during the primaries... Partly because for a signifiant amount of the Republican base religion is vital. But for Dems or Independents not so much or many...

I am talking about the press. And, if you don't think they will pull out every stop to help Obama, you're not paying attention.

Thats why, after an intial kerfuffle you only found Rev. Wright on right wing blogs...

Wrong. It's because the press wanted Obama. His persona and his politics gave them a thrill up their collective leg.

Frankly I think Romney's religious beliefs are are as loosely held as many of his beliefs. (Masschussetts health insurance versus the current "Obamacare".) I suspect He holds them more as a result of his birth less so than of any deeply held conviction that the literal truth is to be found in the LDS scriptures...
Community, and society are an important part of Churches too. Not just the "scriptural history or myths".

Community is nowhere more important than in the LDS church. While they are not exclusionary, the church is a part of your everyday life and schedule. From sports on Saturdays to Monday night Family Home Evening, to Wed night youth groups and Thursday Primary.

One thing that will be interesting to see IF Romney is the nominee: will the other prominent national Mormon in politics come to the defense of their mutual faith?

The other guy?

Harry Reid.

freeman2 wrote:I think the electorate has a right to know a candidate's religious beliefs. Does a certain politician believes in the literal truth in the bible? Do they think we are in the end times? Is their support for Israel related to religious beliefs about the end times. Are their beliefs regarding abortion, gay rights, evolution, climate change, vouchers, home schooling, separation of church and state, etc. etc. due to a reasoned analysis and subject to change or compromise or are based on religious beliefs that cannot be questioned?

So, if an atheist believes abortion is morally wrong, homosexuality is a violation of nature, climate change is a power grab, vouchers are a means to improve education, home schooling is a parental right, separation of church and state does not include freedom from religion imposed in every aspect of life, would he/she be acceptable to you?

Or, are you simply a fundamentalist?

Steve, getting back to the main topic, which of the Republicans do you like? It seems like we have many flawed candidates.

steve

But, the "open-minded" liberals will only accept those whose metaphysical views reflect their own. So much for "liberalism" being the equivalent of "open-minded."

Since you are refering to those of us on this board...who are you refering to and why?
This is a very broad brush with little in these discussions to indicate that there is real intolerance of others religion.
For instance, although I couldn't find away to vote for someone who didn't accept evolution as a reality, it doesn't much matter to me WHY they don't accept evolution as a theory. It tells me that they have a fundamental muisunderstanding of the world they live in and can't accept the underpinnings of much of our modern sciences. I like people in a position of power on public policy to make informed decisions...
Now, whether these people disbeleive evolution because they were taught this in Sunday School or whether they accepted some Internet posted delusions doesn't matter. All I know is there ability to reason and discern about science has been somehow impaired.
I feel much the same way about conspiracy theorists on 9/11 and the Zionist conspiracists ... There are certain flags that tell you that someone isn't connected to reality.

I'm on record as saying that I probably wouldn't vote for a religious fundamentalist. That's not a definite though, it depends on who the alternative candidates were.

The reason why I'd be reluctant to vote for somebody who's strongly religious is that I'm suspicious of people who have dogmatic and inflexible views based on faith. I realise that atheists can also be dogmatic and inflexible, but I'd like to think that where I identify similarly dogmatic and inflexible views I'd also reject those at the ballot box. It needn't be an either/or. Just because I don't tend to vote for the ardently religious it doesn't follow that I always vote for the militantly atheist.

RJ,

None more that the current office holder...

Doctor Fate wrote:Generally, I am struck, once again, at the intolerance of the Left. They claim to be a "big tent," but apparently many will only vote for those who hold the same non-religious views as they do.

Many? Name one on this thread. Sass and Freeman haven't said that, and they've made perhaps the most explicit statement of intent not to vote for candidates based on religion - saying they would not vote for certain kinds of religious candidate. That is very different from saying they would only ever vote for people who are not religious.

Also, you are conflating 'the Left' and 'atheists'. I know that the combination of the two is your favourite boogeyman, but they are not equivalent.

Once again, "liberals" are bigots and I'm open-minded. I'm the one who is allegedly "intolerant." I view Mormonism as a cult, but would vote for a Mormon. I believe Catholicism is a cult, but would vote for a Catholic. I believe those who don't believe on the Lord Jesus Christ are bound for hell, but I would vote for an unbeliever.

Gosh, you do do 'holier than thou' well, Doc. I have voted for candidates who are religious, and will likely do so again. That includes Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, Hindu, Muslim.

But, the "open-minded" liberals will only accept those whose metaphysical views reflect their own. So much for "liberalism" being the equivalent of "open-minded."

This I think shoud be known as 'doing a Prager', seeing as it's pretty much a reheat of the article he wrote and you lauded which is basically a means of using straw man arguments to assert your moral superiority.

So, if an atheist believes abortion is morally wrong, homosexuality is a violation of nature, climate change is a power grab, vouchers are a means to improve education, home schooling is a parental right, separation of church and state does not include freedom from religion imposed in every aspect of life, would he/she be acceptable to you?

Or, are you simply a fundamentalist?

Speaking as an atheist, I would be very unlikey to vote for an atheist who held all of those views. Some I may well not be too bothered about individually, but most I would oppose on political grounds.

So, if an atheist believes abortion is morally wrong, homosexuality is a violation of nature, climate change is a power grab, vouchers are a means to improve education, home schooling is a parental right, separation of church and state does not include freedom from religion imposed in every aspect of life, would he/she be acceptable to you?

I'd be happy to vote for a candidate who believes abortion to be morally wrong, even though it's not a view I share, so long as there were sufficient other areas in which our views converged and i gave greater weight to those areas than I do to my views on abortion. Likewise the two education policies that you mentioned. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the last point regarding church and state so it may need clarifying, but since I live in a country that dpesn't have a constitutionally mandate separation between church and state it's less of a big deal to me either way. This leaves the views on homosexuality and on climate change. For the first, I'd probably have trouble with that candidate. If it came to the crunch and that was the only thing I objected to in his platform whereas his opponent held all kinds of other views or espoused varous policies that I disagreed with then I'd probably vote for the homophobe anyway, but I wouldn't really be happy voting for somebody who has strongly held views which amount to irrational prejudice. But yes, in theory I may vote for that candidate. The climate change one is easier because while I don't agree that it's all just a power grab I also have doubts about the headlong rush to renewables and think that having a few skeptical voices in government may not be such a bad thing, so if his other views were acceptable to me then I'd have no problem voting for that candidate.

But of course, the above are not the reasons why I'd be reluctant to vote for strongly religious people, so it's something of a moot point.

Ray Jay wrote:Steve, getting back to the main topic, which of the Republicans do you like? It seems like we have many flawed candidates.

I'm going to amend my rules for the "RJ exception."

First, I think this sums up a lot of what I'm feeling:

1. Rick Perry: Jennifer Rubin has been roasting Perry for his assorted flops and failings. She declared yesterday “A day down the drain for Rick Perry.” Perry took a detour down the birther rabbit hole. Something’s happening here…

2. Herman Cain: Prolife or not prochoice? Jeffrey Anderson considers the evidence. To Mr. Cain, it’s a trick question. If Mr. Cain is our nominee, every unscripted encounter with a reporter threatens to be a thrill a minute experience. But shouldn’t he have a handle on the question of abortion at this point?

3. Michele Bachmann: Michele’s New Hampshire staff has departed en masse. In my opinion, it’s time to come home and nail down her congressional seat if she is still interested in it.

4. Jon Huntsman: His constituency as a presidential candidate is somewhere other than in the Republican Party.

5. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich: Like Grant in Galena, they are biding their time. Each is waiting to become the not-Romney candidate of choice. It might happen!

Second, as I see it, Cain is too much of a loose cannon, Perry is too poor of a debate performer, Bachmann has made too many silly mistakes, Huntsman is endorsed by liberal Democrats, and Gingrich has a ton of personal baggage.

That leaves Paul, who will not get the nomination, Santorum, who has to hope to be the last man standing, and Romney. I could live with Santorum. In fact, I'd like him.

However, I think there are two likely scenarios: 1) Romney does better than expected in Iowa, wins handily in NH, and does fairly well in South Carolina; 2) Cain wins Iowa, Romney wins SC, and Perry or another conservative wins SC. In the former situation, Romney wraps it up in Florida. In the latter, maybe it goes all the way to the convention. I am sort of hoping for that. I've always wanted to see a convention like this and I think we could get someone like Jeb out of it, which would be the best.

I agree they're all flawed. I like Romney, even if I would prefer someone more conservative.

Why?

Well, for starters, as you well know, it's not easy to be a "conservative" governor in the Commonwealth, which has more than 90% of its legislature in Democratic hands. I would rather have a governor of a blue state who tried to pull things to the right than the governor of a red state who consistently skewed left (Huntsman).

Furthermore, I think Romney will perform better in debates vs. Obama. Perry would just be frightening. If Gingrich had Romney's personal life, we would not even be having a primary season. He is so clearly the best wonk it's not funny. He would crush Obama on the stage.

Unless Santorum can pull a big surprise in Iowa, I think this is all smoke and mirrors: Romney will win. I'm fine with that. He will be attacked mercilessly--for his faith, for his background at Bain, for his changing positions. However, I think he will have the sense to keep coming back to one thing: Obama has failed and it's time for a change.

I think Romney will do much better as the nominee than most expect. I've already given money to his campaign and anticipate giving much more.

I'm going to amend my rules for the "RJ exception."

Thanks.

I vote we end this thread, Republicans can't win with their candidates, and as low of approval ratings as Obama has there's no way he's losing short of a sex scandal.

I disagree. The Rs will win, and the major change we are looking for will not happen. Not much of change except for the deficit.

Dr. Fate:

I agree they're all flawed. I like Romney, even if I would prefer someone more conservative.

Why?

Well, for starters, as you well know, it's not easy to be a "conservative" governor in the Commonwealth, which has more than 90% of its legislature in Democratic hands. I would rather have a governor of a blue state who tried to pull things to the right than the governor of a red state who consistently skewed left (Huntsman).

Furthermore, I think Romney will perform better in debates vs. Obama. Perry would just be frightening. If Gingrich had Romney's personal life, we would not even be having a primary season. He is so clearly the best wonk it's not funny. He would crush Obama on the stage.

Unless Santorum can pull a big surprise in Iowa, I think this is all smoke and mirrors: Romney will win. I'm fine with that. He will be attacked mercilessly--for his faith, for his background at Bain, for his changing positions. However, I think he will have the sense to keep coming back to one thing: Obama has failed and it's time for a change.

I think Romney will do much better as the nominee than most expect. I've already given money to his campaign and anticipate giving much more.

For the most part I agree with this, although I do like Huntsman (which makes sense because I am a registered independent). His foreign policy is just right for me, and his economic view is not as government oriented as his detractors claim. That being said, he cannot gain traction in the campaign (subject to a big surprise in the open primaries), so it is a moot point. So, just like you, Romney becomes my defacto choice.

Romney's flip flops are part of a larger problem which is that he doesn't seem to have a core. It is hard to figure out what he really believes; he can argue either side of any issue with equal emotional and body language conviction. It seems like just about all of his positions are poll tested. Today's WSJ commends him for his housing views which are not poll tested, but he hedges on that one as well.

It would be nice to vote for someone instead of against everybody else. 2012 doesn't seem like it will be that kind of year.