DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on February 19, 2007, 12:03:05 AM

Title: Question
Post by: BT on February 19, 2007, 12:03:05 AM: This is primarily aimed at those who lean towards the fundamentalist side of the spectrum but all replies are welcome:

Is Romney's religion, Mormonisn, a deal breaker, as far as you are concerned, for the GOP nomination?

If so, why? If not, why not?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Plane on February 19, 2007, 12:12:19 AM: Quote from: BT on February 19, 2007, 12:03:05 AM
This is primarily aimed at those who lean towards the fundamentalist side of the spectrun but all replies are welcome:

Is Romney's religion, Mormonisn, a deal breaker, as far as you are concerned, for the GOP nomination?

If so, why? If not, why not?

No , but I don't expect a seriously fundamentalist canadate to stnd a chance in the prevailing climate of prejudice anyhow.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: The_Professor on February 19, 2007, 01:08:22 AM: Well, it is not a dealbreaker for me and some of my similarliy-minded friends I have talked to. I have worked for several Mormons and I havefound them to be the best bosses I ever had. They were "earningtheir way" and so were very upright and honest in everything, I mean everything. You could tunr your back and not see a dagger in ti. They earnestly cared for your welfare. They were all pro-family trypes who also were well-respected in the workplace, a good combo.

His flip-flopping on abortion is somewhat disturbing, but I have yet to find the time to thoroughly research this issue.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: BT on February 19, 2007, 01:21:50 AM: My question was prompted by reports in the mainstream press that Romney's religion would be problematic for members of te religious right and thus the republican base.

That didn't seem to have the ring of truth to it.

Perhaps the issue wasn't Mormonism but more a backhanded slap at fundamentalist.

Gald i asked and glad that you both responded.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: sirs on February 19, 2007, 01:31:26 AM: I'm in the same camp as the Professor. Currently it's too soon for me to make a determination 1 way or another. I need more time to see/hear his platform, and how that corresponds with any legislative efforts (voting record) & executive efforts, as Governor
Title: Re: Question
Post by: BT on February 19, 2007, 01:33:56 AM: Quote from: sirs on February 19, 2007, 01:31:26 AM
I'm in the same camp as the Professor. Currently it's too soon for me to make a determination 1 way or another. I need more time to see/hear his platform, and how that corresponds with any legislative efforts (voting record) & executive efforts, as Governor

The simple fact he is a Mormon would not color your evaluation?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: sirs on February 19, 2007, 02:52:11 AM: Quote from: BT on February 19, 2007, 01:33:56 AM
The simple fact he is a Mormon would not color your evaluation?

"Color"? Perhaps, and very little at that. Be a significant reason for disquailification?, no. Should it? If so, why? (and thar question isn't limited to Bt. Anyone who thinks being a Mormon is grounds for not being President, may respond)
Title: Re: Question
Post by: BT on February 19, 2007, 06:31:26 AM: I don't think it should. It wouldn't if he were Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or Pagan.

It might if he were an anti-theist as opposed to an atheist, but only because being an anti is more a mindset than a religion.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Amianthus on February 19, 2007, 07:33:55 AM: I, like the Prof, have worked for Mormons and found them to be the best bosses. I would not find his Mormonism a deterrent at all.

My parents, liberal Catholics, would find his religion abhorrent and would not vote for him due to that.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: The_Professor on February 19, 2007, 12:31:51 PM: Quote from: BT on February 19, 2007, 06:31:26 AM
I don't think it should. It wouldn't if he were Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or Pagan.

It might if he were an anti-theist as opposed to an atheist, but only because being an anti is more a mindset than a religion.

Actually, I disagree. Now, we get into "sacred" ground. I would NOT vote for a self-admitted atheist, Hindu or Buddhist. Regardless of their stance on ANY issue(s).
Title: Re: Question
Post by: BT on February 19, 2007, 12:50:27 PM: Quote
Actually, I disagree. Now, we get into "sacred" ground. I would NOT vote for a self-admitted atheist, Hindu or Buddhist. Regardless of their stance on ANY issue(s).

To each their own.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 19, 2007, 01:15:58 PM: Now, we get into "sacred" ground. I would NOT vote for a self-admitted atheist, Hindu or Buddhist. Regardless of their stance on ANY issue(s).

===========================================================================================
Why not? Do you feel that one can only be expected to behave fairly toward others if they feel threatened with fire and brimstone?
Therefore, shall we assume that you see the Dalai Lama or Mahatme Ghandi as inherently immoral or incompetent as leaders because they do not show proper reverence for the Omnipotent and Omniscient Designer of Tse-tse flies, cockroaches and AIDS?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 19, 2007, 01:22:13 PM: It might if he were an anti-theist as opposed to an atheist, but only because being an anti is more a mindset than a religion.
============================================================================

Being "anti", hmmm. There are so many things to not believe in...astrology, phrenology, alchemy, the Great Pumpkin, transubstantiation, The South Beach Diet, the Gazelle Exercise Machine, Ford F-150 pickup trucks, plastic slimmer pants, the Kitchen Magician...

Are people that do not believe in the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny "anti" to you?

How about those few who refuse to recognize the existence of Underpants Gnomes?

We all have so many things we could believe in or disbelieve in. Surely someone who believes in everything is wrong about some of what he believes in. Since the possibilities of the Universe are such that everything we know could conceiveably be wrong, or at least mostly incomplete. It would seem that a total disbeliever might be more likely to be an accurate than the Total Believer.

Someone that never believes that the time is correct could be right all the time, provided they were not asked for their opinion just once per day.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Plane on February 19, 2007, 01:54:54 PM: Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on February 19, 2007, 01:22:13 PM
It might if he were an anti-theist as opposed to an atheist, but only because being an anti is more a mindset than a religion.
============================================================================

Being "anti", hmmm. There are so many things to not believe in...astrology, phrenology, alchemy, the Great Pumpkin, transubstantiation, The South Beach Diet, the Gazelle Exercise Machine, Ford F-150 pickup trucks, plastic slimmer pants, the Kitchen Magician...

Are people that do not believe in the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny "anti" to you?

How about those few who refuse to recognize the existence of Underpants Gnomes?

We all have so many things we could believe in or disbelieve in. Surely someone who believes in everything is wrong about some of what he believes in. Since the possibilities of the Universe are such that everything we know could conceiveably be wrong, or at least mostly incomplete. It would seem that a total disbeliever might be more likely to be an accurate than the Total Believer.

Someone that never believes that the time is correct could be right all the time, provided they were not asked for their opinion just once per day.

I might not mind a Buddist or a Muslim , all other things being equal , but things not being equal might be the problem ,in the case of someone that I beleived to be unfeindly to my own beleif group.
I wouldn't want anone who was contrary to the first admendment .
Not an evangilistic athiest.
Not a satanist.

Mormon is borderline , but there is a very persuasive history amounting to seventy years of good behavior on their part.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 19, 2007, 03:07:02 PM: Not an evangilistic athiest.
Not a satanist.

Mormon is borderline , but there is a very persuasive history amounting to seventy years of good behavior on their part.\

==========================================================================
I don't recall any 'evangelical athiests' ever running anywhere for public office. The last (maybe the only one) of these was Madeline Murphy O'Hare. Atheism is not a religion, just as fasting is not food.

Mormons definitely have some rather crackpot theological ideas: that you can translate texts from ancient Chaldean into King James English by reading them while peering through magical stones called Urim and Thummin, that God wants you to wear special underwear, that eventually you can become a God yourself, that you can have all your ancestors accomany you to Heaven by recording their name in the Mormon Heavenly Database.

On the other hand, the LDS Church does not stress these wacky beliefs much anymore, and Mormons tend to be more honest and helpful to their neighbors than the average Americans. I don't see a problem with Mitt Romney's religion, but I really doubt that he'll get the nomination from the GOP. The Republicans can't win without a huge evangelical turnout, and I doubt that they will turn out for Giulani or Romney.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Amianthus on February 19, 2007, 03:26:35 PM: Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on February 19, 2007, 03:07:02 PM
Atheism is not a religion, just as fasting is not food.

Sure it is. It is a belief in something that is unproven.

Unless you have proof that there is no God?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 19, 2007, 03:53:22 PM: Atheism is not a religion, just as fasting is not food.

Sure it is. It is a belief in something that is unproven.

Unless you have proof that there is no God?

==========================================================
You appear to be applying a different standard than the usual scientific method.

If I maintain that Underpants Gnomes exist, and are the cause of my undies vanishing, I am sure that you will ask for extensive proof of their existence.

On the other hand, here you are, asking for proof of the NONEXISTENCE of God, rather than proof of God's existence.

Why would it be logical to ask someone to PROVE the existence of Underpants Gnomes, and to DISPROVE the existence of God?

One cannot prove a negative, such as a nonexistence. You can't prove that God doesn't exist; but you can't prove that Underpants Gnomes don't exist, either.

The usual scientific method is not to assume anything exists without replicable phenomena that indicates the existence of whatever your supposition might be.

If your supposition is that malaria is caused by a type of mosquito, then you isolate healthy patients from all other possible disease vectors, and allow some of them to be bitten and others not, and compare the difference between the bitten group and the unbitten control group.

It would be easier to disprove the supposition that Underpants Gnomes exist than to disprove the existence of God, being as God is said to have a hand in many things, rather than just in the disappearence of undergarments.

Still, you cannot disprove the actual existence of Underpants Gnomes, only that they are not a cause of the vanishing underwear. This could be done with recording devices vigilently watching said skivvies 24-7.

The proper scientific attitude is not that of a believer or an athiest, but that of an agnostic. An agnostic believes that there is insufficient evidence to prove OR disprove the existence of God.

God may indeed exist, but the burden of proof lies on those who suppose that he does exist.

Again, you cannot prove a negative.

The most you can say is that there is no logical reason to assume that God (or Underpants Gnomes) exist, and that it is not logical to assume that He does (or they do) until satisfactory and replicable proof demonstrates otherwise.

If you like, I challenge you to prove that no Underpants Gnomes exist, as a sort of trial run at the problem...
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Amianthus on February 19, 2007, 05:31:39 PM: Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on February 19, 2007, 03:53:22 PM
One cannot prove a negative, such as a nonexistence. You can't prove that God doesn't exist; but you can't prove that Underpants Gnomes don't exist, either.

Exactly. Which is why the best that can be shown regarding the existence of God or Gods is "there is no proof for their existence."

However, atheists claim that God does not exist. This is a belief with no evidence to support it.

There is exactly the same level of evidence for the atheist viewpoint as there is for followers of various religions - none.

As someone else put it more succinctly, "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Plane on February 19, 2007, 05:36:24 PM: Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on February 19, 2007, 03:07:02 PM
Atheism is not a religion, just as fasting is not food.

Athiesim is about religion , just as fasting is about food.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 20, 2007, 02:32:57 PM: If I say "Underpants Gnomes do not exist", that is a belief with not one whit more to support it than the statement "God does not exist".

I am pretty sure that I can get far more agreement about the nonexistence of Underpants Gnomes (these appeared on South Park) than I could get concerning the existence of God. Another postulated being is the FSM, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I agree that atheism is sort of about religion as fasting is sort of about food.

It seems to me that agnosticism, which states that there is insufficient proof that God (or gods) exist, and neither is it possible to disprove this existence, is the most logical position.

Science tends to be more along the lines of agnosticism: we can only say that the odds point in favor of this or that position under certain circumstances.

I can concede that some force or power caused the universe to exist, but from that position to the position that the OT and NT of the Bible is the Word of God seems to be a huge leap, considering the many illogicalities, inconsistencies and outright contradictions that one finds in the Bible.

Of course, the idea of a self-creating force then creating the universe seems a bit far-fetched. It seems more logical to me to assume that the universe is eternal as it is to assume that the universe is not eternal, but was created by some Eternal Being.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Amianthus on February 20, 2007, 02:48:27 PM: Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on February 20, 2007, 02:32:57 PM
It seems to me that agnosticism, which states that there is insufficient proof that God (or gods) exist, and neither is it possible to disprove this existence, is the most logical position.

Exactly.

The reason I consider atheism to be a religion is this:

Religions are belief systems that are based on a fundamental fact that is unprovable.

Traditional religions, such as Christianity, are definately in this mold. The central tenent ("God exists") is an unprovable assertion.

Atheism is a belief system that has a central tenent ("God does not exist") that is equally unprovable.

Therefore, I consider atheism to be a religion.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 20, 2007, 03:12:49 PM: Therefore, I consider atheism to be a religion.

Very good. But atheism does not always have any major belief systems about it.
One can not believe in Bhrama, or Jesus, or YHWH. Different atheists disbelieve in different gods. Most atheists claim to be atheists because they feel that tangential parts of the dominant religion tend to demand that they be too illogical or too silly.

What have you to say about the Underpants Gnomes? Or the FSM?
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs? Or the Church of the Subgenius?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._%22Bob%22_Dobbs
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Amianthus on February 20, 2007, 03:33:13 PM: Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on February 20, 2007, 03:12:49 PM
Different atheists disbelieve in different gods.

I've never heard of an atheist that said "I do not believe in the JudeoChristian God, but Brahma might exist." Generally, an atheist believes that NO Gods exist, whatever names humans choose to give them.

They might come to their conclusions based on different predominant religions, but the conclusion is the same.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Amianthus on February 20, 2007, 03:33:47 PM: Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on February 20, 2007, 03:12:49 PM
What have you to say about the Underpants Gnomes? Or the FSM?
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs? Or the Church of the Subgenius?

They're all really funny jokes.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: _JS on February 20, 2007, 03:37:41 PM: Quote
Is Romney's religion, Mormonisn, a deal breaker, as far as you are concerned, for the GOP nomination?

If so, why? If not, why not?

I'm not a fundamentalist at all, but I'll answer the question anyway.

No, it wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me. I'd look more at his stances on the issues and whether or not I think he (or she) would make a good leader and manager of people. In that sense I have no problem voting for a Muslim, Jew, or really anyone as long as I believe that he or she can do the job.

Heh - I just imagined the Convention nominating the first Rasta candidate ;)

Now, do I believe Mormons are Christians? That's a completely different question.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 20, 2007, 03:53:44 PM: Now, do I believe Mormons are Christians? That's a completely different question.
======================================================
The Mormons seem to WANT to be considered Christians. They call their church the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints. Jesus gets top billing, I assume above the title in a film or above the fold in a headline.

I continue to insist that there is no more logical reason to believe in God than in the Underpants Gnomes.

I imagine that many atheists might be convinced in the existence of a Supreme Being if He were to be a bit more liberal with his personal appearances.

The same might be true for the Underpants Gnomes, except I do not believe they claim to have created the world or to be divine.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: The_Professor on February 20, 2007, 07:25:47 PM: Evangelicals Urged not to Shun Romney over his Mormonism
by Jim Brown, www.crosswalk.com

A law professor and conservative talk-show host says Republican presidential candidate "Mitt Romney has a Mormon problem -- and so does the rest of the country." He cautions Christians against criticizing the candidate's Mormon beliefs during the campaign, saying such an approach will inevitably backfire.

Hugh Hewitt is a professor of law at Chapman University Law School and has spent the last year writing the forthcoming book A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every Conservative Should Know About Mitt Romney. The book discusses whether Romney's Mormon beliefs will help or hinder his campaign.

Hewitt, who has been covering the Church of Latter-day Saints since the mid-1990s for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), says the fact that Romney is a devout Mormon may deter Christians from voting for him -- but it should not. Still, he says a "startling" number of Americans say they could never vote for a Mormon.

"Now that is deeply antagonistic to the American civic religion, but it's also 'there,'" he acknowledges. "It's like arguing in 1960 that Kennedy's Catholicism wouldn't be an issue. Of course it was, [and consequently Romney's Mormonism] has to be dealt with," Hewitt continues. "It has to be a conversation with the American public -- and it's a very difficult one to have and a very delicate one to have."

The educator and author explains why he believes it must be a "delicate" conversation. He cautions individuals -- "especially Christians" -- to be "very, very careful" about the conversation "because secular enemies of God in the public square will delight if orthodox Christians use this moment to attack the unorthodox aspects of Mormonism."

Such an attack, says Hewitt, would likely "open the door to a renewal of anti-Christian bigotry in this country the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time," he emphasizes. And if it resulted in Romney losing his White House bid because he is a Mormon, it would be a "truly ruinous moment for Christians in the public square," the author adds.

Hewitt contends that Romney's perceived flip-flopping on issues such as abortion and homosexuality is the "creation of mainstream media and Romney opponents." According to Hewitt, Romney has been staunchly pro-life for several years and is "the most effective American-elected official in the effort to preserve traditional marriage."
Title: Re: Question
Post by: yellow_crane on February 20, 2007, 09:25:05 PM: Quote from: BT on February 19, 2007, 12:03:05 AM
This is primarily aimed at those who lean towards the fundamentalist side of the spectrum but all replies are welcome:

Is Romney's religion, Mormonisn, a deal breaker, as far as you are concerned, for the GOP nomination?

If so, why? If not, why not?

Going along with the precept that people who vote for Nader waste their votes, because they throw them away without faith, a precept to which I disagree, it is then incumbent to consider whether one would vote for a Mormon, but without much hope. So then, so the theory goes, better to vote for somebody in the same neighborhood who can win.

Therefore, the perceived negatives would include:

According to Bill Mahr, 43% of the country polled said they would not vote for a Mormon. Doubt he has been challenged on the figure, or asked to detract it, so I will take it as face value, unless corrected by expose of fact. Being a comedian does, too, suggest a need for a close and discerning eye, as the very grist of comedy is stretch. If that number is correct, it tends to speak. I doubt it reflects just lack of visibility and celebrity status (even politicians are celebrities, and play it like celebrities).

Also, if Mormonism itself is on trial because a contender is one, one would also have to weigh the history of Mormonism regarding its issue with Blacks. Blacks were not allowed at all in the Mormon Church, and when they began to take hits for their stance, they then allowed Blacks to attend as 1st degree only, the church's organization much like the Masons is a 32 degree ascention through work. Blacks were not allowed ever beyond the 1st degree. (I find this structure, minus the onus, by the way, outstanding. Working through a bonafide metaphysical construct echoes true bells through everything spiritually valid from the shamans to the Jesuits to the Buddhists. It is only of very recent history that bellowing like a carny to fat women knitting has become an operating dogma.)

There is something also in their basic structure as to the original vestage of their beliefs where one side is all White, the other all Black. The sum of which, one can assume, means that answers are in order--inquiring Black minds want to know.

The media would probably, left to their own, choose to ignore dissecting the religion itself, but Jesse and Al would eventually get to the bone of it. And indeed, why should any religion be permitted such deference of silence for avowed racism? The media played to the hilt (the hilt has since moved) Kennedy as a Catholic, but they did not start bone-picking through the religious beliefs. And if real numbers count, white Baptist America would outshine the Mormon star. Baptist didn't leave a paper trail.

The biggest point, however, is that nearly all the evangelicals and fundamentalists consider Mormons satanic. True, there has been some gags put in political place and masks worn during the formal balls on their ascention into the White House, but I still hear it in less conspicuous preachings, and I doubt it too late for the conniving con-artist Base Mandarins to yell their flock into step and vote for any Mormon. Too many still think them satanic. They heard it too much, too long. And these are the individual votes.

The biggest issue is this: we should not have to even consider what religion a person is to elect them president. That would be because we would assume that they would leave their religion at home when they went to work.

Since Bush, not a chance.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: BT on February 20, 2007, 09:52:21 PM: Crane,

Would his religion matter to you?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Lanya on February 20, 2007, 10:58:29 PM: The church I went to for a while considered Methodists to be lower-caste creatures.
"Methodists don't speak in tongues! They deny the Gospel!"

Well, there you go. People nodded. Yup.

I wouldn't vote for him because he's a Republican, and he's changed his story a lot on what he believes in. I don't like that. It's not like playing to an audience in Massachusetts, you say one thing, and in Peoria, you completely change your tune---yet that is what he appears to be doing.
I mean, if people want badly enough to believe in him, they will. If all he has to do is say the words "I am now against gay marriage" and "I am now pro-life," that is a pretty low bar to set for a candidate.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: BT on February 20, 2007, 11:57:09 PM: So if he were a liberal running as a democrat close on the heels of discovering the cure for GOP caused cancer and giving the vaccine away for free, his Mormonism would not be a problem?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: BT on February 21, 2007, 12:25:00 AM: Black President More Likely than Mormon or Atheist
By James Joyner
A recent Gallup poll reveals that Americans are much more likely to elect a black man or a woman president than a Mormon or an old man. More interestingly, theyâ€™d rather be governed by a homosexual than an atheist:

(http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/gallup_20070219_diversity.png)

Now, these numbers are prospective. People know, for example, that John McCain is an old man and that Rudy Giuliani is divorced and yet theyâ€™re doing well in the polls. Still, the ranking of these prospective attributes is interesting.

With all the talk about Romneyâ€™s Mormon Problemâ€“with some sizable percentage of Americans thinking the religion he belongs to is a cultâ€“this survey would seem to indicate that itâ€™s less of a problem than being twice-divorced. Thatâ€™s rather interesting given that there seems to be no real stigma to divorce and re-marriage in the society at large. Further, being 72 years old is massively more problematic, at least theoretically.

Iâ€™ve long known that an acknowledged atheist could never win the presidency. But who would have guessed that atheists would poll behind homosexuals? Wonder what Andrew Sullivan would make of that?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/02/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or_atheist_/
Title: Re: Question
Post by: The_Professor on February 21, 2007, 04:43:20 PM: Interesting poll numbers here and previous commnets about fundamentalists and their views about Mormonism. Personally, I would feel free to vote for a Mormon or someone of the Jewish faith, But I doubt I would ever vote for an openly-acknowledge homosexual. Marital issues do not bother me. After all, I am on my second (and last!). A woman? Sure, why not? Go Condi! Or Elizabeth Dole! A Black? Sure, why not? Go Colin Powell!