A candidate's faith - Stomping Grounds
A candidate's faith|
There's a great big article on the front page of cnn.com right now headlined "Mitt Romney's faith."
Look, I realize it's impossible for anybody to get elected in this country these days without being at least a little bit noisy about your religion -- which is wrong and unfortunate but fixing that will be an uphill battle. And you've gotta be some flavor of Christian. (Because Jesus was an American, dammit!) But from where I sit, Mormonism is no more insane than Presbyterianism or Catholicism (or Islam or Hinduism). The question in my mind is, which candidate is more likely to act in violation of the First Amendment and try to legislate religion or morality? And the answer is "the Republican," every time.
So I won't be voting Republican.
Will I be voting Democrat? Tough call. Obama has been disastrous on civil liberties; the only reason I don't regret my vote for him is considering the alternative, particularly as regards foreign policy. I'm getting tired of voting for the lesser evil, though, so I may write in Cthulhu.
I am 110% in agreement with every point herein.
|Date:||October 30th, 2011 04:41 pm (UTC)|| |
|Date:||October 30th, 2011 05:46 pm (UTC)|| |
So, he asked foolishly, in their past government experience; when has either Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, or (say) Newt Gingrich acted in violation of the first amendment and tried to legislate religion or morality? (I leave out Cain because he has not had the opportunity, and Santorum because he is at less than 1% in the polls.)
|Date:||October 30th, 2011 06:14 pm (UTC)|| |
I could play the lawyer and point out that I said "who is more likely to," not "has an established track record of." Instead I will point to Rick Perry's prayer rally (heavily attended by members of the New Apostolic Reformation, which advocates Christian dominionism) and his statements to the effect that humans have failed and we must trust in God to set things right, and to Newt Gingrich's recent statement to the effect that atheists have no place in government and Americans should value religion above morality and knowledge. These candidates may or may not have attempted to legislate religion but they've publicly advocated against gay marriage and abortion (among other matters) as issues of "morality."
Which they are free to do, but it ain't getting them my vote.
I would argue that anyone who has campaigned or voted for a pro-life agenda is attempting to legislate religion. Or anti-gay-marriage.
|Date:||October 30th, 2011 06:45 pm (UTC)|| |
I'm sure they reached those convictions for totally secular reasons. Because letting more people get married destroys marriage. Obviously.
|Date:||November 2nd, 2011 03:15 pm (UTC)|| |
Secularists can be pro-lifers, too, and have good reasons for it. To wit: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/
|Date:||October 30th, 2011 10:10 pm (UTC)|| |
My point is of course that actions speak louder than words.
These people have track records and that will tell you how they act.
Obama had a track record that was fairly well ignored, and fortunately now he has a track record which can be well known. And they both link up perfectly well.
And you yourself said Obama has been disastrous on civil liberties.
None of the Republican contenders who have track records have ever used their power, when they had it, to take any such action such as you describe. I understand one-issue voting, but I think actual evidence makes it clear that that one issue is not likely to come up, and other issues of a far more impending nature are more important.
But that is obviously my opinion! I can only rest that point and wish you good luck with the Beast of R'lyeh.
Rick Perry appointed creationists to the Texas state board of education, including the chair, to push teaching it alongside that "theory" of evolution.
I'm calling that using his power to push his religious views on Texas schoolkids.
|Date:||November 1st, 2011 02:49 pm (UTC)|| |
Excellent, thank you. I can cross him off the list.
It's a pity; he passes the Second Amendment litmus test so well.
Oh, come on, magic underwear is CLEARLY less wacky than trans-substantiation!
|Date:||October 30th, 2011 06:15 pm (UTC)|| |
"Two, four, six, eight, time to transubSTANtiate!"
I could perhaps convince you otherwise on the "no more insane" point (my argument would be organizational, not anything to do with doctrine), but probably we both have better things to do with our time and you're not voting for him anyway. :)
Since I live in Oklahoma and will have no other choice than voting for either Obama or his Republican opponent, I gather for 2012 I will be standing in the middle of the voting place, singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant, and walking out.
|Date:||October 30th, 2011 06:42 pm (UTC)|| |
Oh, I'm sure there will be plenty of more local candidates to vote against. I mean for. Oh, who am I kidding, I mean against.
|Date:||October 30th, 2011 10:48 pm (UTC)|| |
I will say that it's quite premature of cnn.com to pull out the Mormon card so early. It shows that they're worried.
In 2008, Romney was the one who most articulated conservative values, and so they pulled the Mormon Card and got several prominent evangelicals to state that they would never vote for a Mormon and down he went.
Now, when Romney would appear to be the one that Obama would have the easiest time beating, and the one with the least conservative record; one would think it the goal of the media to help him become the nominee then turn on him just as they did to John McCain.
Perhaps they are hoping to provoke the Cain-Obama matchup, on the idea that Cain is a less experienced campaigner.