Romney

[LA Ute]

Some of this is a test. The media use troll tactics and are not legitimately curious as to Mitt's religious beliefs, except to the extent that the issue will drive readership. While it is definitely possible that this could be a never-ending parade of religious questions, I don't see that as a probability. On a smaller scale, how often did Mitt or Harry Reid have to answer religious questions as Senator or Governor? There will come a time sooner rather than later when the reporter that raises his or her hand at a PC simply to ask another tedious religious question will look more foolish for having asked it. Religion is the flavor of the day, but not forever. I think the best way to hasten this is to accept the onslaught now and develop sharp yet fair responses to questions that have already been asked an answered.

Again, trolling is an art. Defusing a troll is an even greater art. Perhaps Mitt should have hired me instead of Spencer Zwick!

I've got to get you in touch with the campaign. Why didn't I think of this sooner???

[oxcoug]

Perhaps Mitt should have hired me instead of Spencer Zwick!

I could get behind this proposal.

Mitt is conservative? he socialized medicine and was for gay marriage!

More of this anachronistic mythology - Mitt never voiced support for "gay marriage" - there was no national or state level gay marriage conversation when he ran for Senate in 1994. He said he wld be an advocate for gay rights - and he was, as the issue of gay rights was understood in 1994. But at no point is he on the record expressing support for gay marriage.

[TripletDaddy]

I could get behind this proposal.




More of this anachronistic mythology - Mitt never voiced support for "gay marriage" - there was no national or state level gay marriage conversation when he ran for Senate in 1994. He said he wld be an advocate for gay rights - and he was, as the issue of gay rights was understood in 1994. But at no point is he on the record expressing support for gay marriage.

Mitt is a conservative? he is an advocate for gay rights!

[oxcoug]

Mitt is a conservative? he is an advocate for gay rights!

Son, there's nothing more conservative than the will to defend the right of individuals to do what they want on their own property - and though I don't think Buckley wld have ever said it openly, that includes the right to give it or receive it any way two dudes, one dude and a woman, two dudes and a woman, or two dudes and two women like.

[TripletDaddy]

Son, there's nothing more conservative than the will to defend the right of individuals to do what they want on their own property - and though I don't think Buckley wld have ever said it openly, that includes the right to give it or receive it any way two dudes, one dude and a woman, two dudes and a woman, or two dudes and two women like.

The LDS Church isn't conservative? They do not defend gay rights!

[oxcoug]

The LDS Church isn't conservative? They do not defend gay rights!

Don't fret Triple - they are socially conservative - but social conservatism is different than the defining political / cultural conservatism of western civilization, which is built around the rights of the individual as guaranteed and safely protected by the rule of law.

[TripletDaddy]

Don't fret Triple - they are socially conservative - but social conservatism is different than the defining political / cultural conservatism of western civilization, which is built around the rights of the individual as guaranteed and safely protected by the rule of law.

Western Civilization is conservative? Most states disallow gay marriage!

[UtahDan]

Is a Catholic's belief in transsubstantiation fair game? An Evangelical's belief in the Flood? Any Christian's belief in Christ's resurrection? BTW, Romney's views on the "issue" here are probably pretty heterodox, but I don't know. His views on other intellectually challenging issues are.

He seems to be differentiating between strictly religious believe and views of history. To use an extreme example, if someone's faith said that holocaust didn't actually happen or the Pyramids were built by aliens, would it be fair to ask someone if they believed that.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Mitt is a conservative? he is an advocate for gay rights!

The Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts declared same sex marriage to be kosher on a vote of 3-2. Mitt spoke against it and supported the attempted amendment to the Commonwealth Constitution banning same sex marriage.

Did he change this stance? I haven't paid any attention.

Newt has zero chance, he is in the race to sell books and attempt to remain relevant.

[LA Ute]

He seems to be differentiating between strictly religious believe and views of history. To use an extreme example, if someone's faith said that holocaust didn't actually happen or the Pyramids were built by aliens, would it be fair to ask someone if they believed that.

I think so. In support, I'll quote John Mark Reynolds from my own post below, because so far I haven't found a better approach:

Freedom of religion does not mean I have to think every religion or irreligion is great! In fact it is demeaning to religion to behave this way. My Catholic friends know that I think the Pope is not the sole head of the Church and my Baptist friends know I think their view of the Eucharist inadequate. They honor me by strongly disagreeing with me. If I thought these ideas had public policies implications that would lead to bad social policy by the state, I would want to examine the views of any Catholic or Baptist politician.

That is not bigotry, just common sense.

So if we assume religious traditions are, at least in part, knowledge traditions, then being wrong about religion does matter. How wrong does one have to be before losing credibility in the public square?

Let me propose a few tests and suggest that Mormonism easily passes all of them.

First, the religious beliefs of the candidate should be held by a significant number of people and by a group willing to defend them (even if unsuccessfully) in a rational manner. . . .

Second, the group in question should not have religious claims that will naturally lead to horrific, or at least far out, public policy. . . .

Third, the group should have a long track record of generally playing by republican rules in areas where it is dominant. No group is perfect, but the Presidency is too powerful a prize to trust to a new group that might have secret authoritarian leanings.

The candidate in your hypothetical fails test nos. 1 (space aliens) and 2 (Holocaust denial), IMO.

[UtahDan]

I think so. In support, I'll quote John Mark Reynolds from my own post below, because so far I haven't found a better approach:



The candidate in your hypothetical fails test nos. 1 (space aliens) and 2 (Holocaust denial), IMO.

Has he properly attributed the first prong of that test to SU? I mean, he should.

I don't have a problem with that test for how wrong you have to be before you lose credibility. I think that what he is saying, in essence, is it is okay for you to think something far fetched as long as that belief has a tract record of causing no harm. I'm not sure it answers the question of whether it is appropriate to ask him about his view of pre-columbian America or not.

As a thought exercise, Scientology seems to pass that test. Would it be fair to ask a practitioner of that faith about their belief in a historical Xenu?

I really think this is a toughy. My gut says I would not want to see Mit asked about it. I feel like there is so little at stake on the question that it ends up being "gotcha" no matter how you slice it. If that belief were revealing of a flawed approach to life, reasoning, governance etc it would have shown up by now in him or someone else. That is my take anyway.

[LA Ute]

Has he properly attributed the first prong of that test to SU? I mean, he should.

I don't have a problem with that test for how wrong you have to be before you lose credibility. I think that what he is saying, in essence, is it is okay for you to think something far fetched as long as that belief has a tract record of causing no harm. I'm not sure it answers the question of whether it is appropriate to ask him about his view of pre-columbian America or not.

As a thought exercise, Scientology seems to pass that test. Would it be fair to ask a practitioner of that faith about their belief in a historical Xenu?

I really think this is a toughy. My gut says I would not want to see Mit asked about it. I feel like there is so little at stake on the question that it ends up being "gotcha" no matter how you slice it. If that belief were revealing of a flawed approach to life, reasoning, governance etc it would have shown up by now in him or someone else. That is my take anyway.

I don't know enough about Scientology to have a defensible opinion. Is there an 800 number I can call to arrange for two nice young men to bring me a free copy of Dianetics?

I don't think it is a cut and dried issue. The question, IMO, is relevance: Are a candidate's religious beliefs relevant to his ability to serve? Reynolds offers some tests to apply. But like all those three-prong tests courts like to come up with, their application is subjective. Over time a consensus/majority view develops about the electorate's comfort with a candidate's faith. For Catholics we seem to have gotten to that level of comfort. Evangelicals, too (see Jimmy Carter and GW Bush). This only seems to be important, BTW, for candidates who are actually serious about their faith. Nixon's Quaker faith didn't matter. Neither did Taft's Unitarianism. I'm not even sure what faith is Bill Clinton's. Baptist? Methodist? And so on. Mitt actually professes to believe Mormonism's supernatural claims, and that's what raises the news media's antennae.

[myboynoah]

I really think this is a toughy. My gut says I would not want to see Mit asked about it. I feel like there is so little at stake on the question that it ends up being "gotcha" no matter how you slice it. If that belief were revealing of a flawed approach to life, reasoning, governance etc it would have shown up by now in him or someone else. That is my take anyway.

Outside of beliefs that might have policy implications (like equal access to the Priesthood, homosexuality, others?), I think others would go "huh?" and see it as a "gotcha" like you are saying. Kind of like, "What is Kolob and why should it matter here?"

I do wonder how he'd answer "Boxers or briefs?"

[TripletDaddy]

Outside of beliefs that might have policy implications (like equal access to the Priesthood, homosexuality, others?), I think others would go "huh?" and see it as a "gotcha" like you are saying. Kind of like, "What is Kolob and why should it matter here?"

I do wonder how he'd answer "Boxers or briefs?"

What is relevant to some clearly isn't relevant to others and vice versa. I liken it to the person in the office March Madness pool that picks HER teams based on which uniform or mascot she likes the best. And then she goes out and does fairly well in the office pool. Her bracket counts as much as the stat geek that fills out 5 different brackets after careful consideration and thoughtful analysis, yet still finishes in fifth place in the pool, even though her methods were lacking.

I read here about whether a candidates religious beliefs are relevant to ones ability to serve. Yet I would ask why that should be the distinction. People vote for all sorts of reasons, often not at all related to issues. And there are plenty of people that think Mos are weirdos with weird beliefs. That is why i dont see how or why these questions arent good questions. Right now, people want to know all of these things about Mitt because Mitt is the public face of Mormonism. Once the public gets more comfy with Mos, we will see these questions subside. The reasons Catholic candidates don't get asked about transsubstantiation is because everyone knows a Catholic and while they may disagree with the doctrine, they are comfortable with them as a collective faith. In a very real way, Mitt is having to answer for all of us that might not be speaking out enough regarding our own beliefs. I'm guilty of that and can do better about sharing the church with No Mos that I know.

[UtahDan]

What is relevant to some clearly isn't relevant to others and vice versa. I liken it to the person in the office March Madness pool that picks HER teams based on which uniform or mascot she likes the best. And then she goes out and does fairly well in the office pool. Her bracket counts as much as the stat geek that fills out 5 different brackets after careful consideration and thoughtful analysis, yet still finishes in fifth place in the pool, even though her methods were lacking.

I read here about whether a candidates religious beliefs are relevant to ones ability to serve. Yet I would ask why that should be the distinction. People vote for all sorts of reasons, often not at all related to issues. And there are plenty of people that think Mos are weirdos with weird beliefs. That is why i dont see how or why these questions arent good questions. Right now, people want to know all of these things about Mitt because Mitt is the public face of Mormonism. Once the public gets more comfy with Mos, we will see these questions subside. The reasons Catholic candidates don't get asked about transsubstantiation is because everyone knows a Catholic and while they may disagree with the doctrine, they are comfortable with them as a collective faith. In a very real way, Mitt is having to answer for all of us that might not be speaking out enough regarding our own beliefs. I'm guilty of that and can do better about sharing the church with No Mos that I know.

Excuse me but Brandon Flowers begs to differ. Have you seen the video?