While it is true that the various religions all contain some comparatively goofiness, we as a whole are protected by the bigger picture, the great meld, in political translation.
But all this tolerance depends on the amount, the degree of control within any of those religions.
What disturbs me most about the Mormon issue, and the one that I do not find culled by summary of the various opinions, is the amount of over-all control they have in their individual lives.
At least from the standpoint of the scope of that obedience through individual control, I would agree that the Mormon religion lies within the parameters of the label of 'cult.'
One of the salient defining characteristics of any cult is that over-riding control that each member is subject to, and Mormons live under the mantle of their own collective, strongly enforced, down to very small detail in their lives.
In the Mormon religion, any approach to politics that would include holding individual opinions that vary from their common creed would be antithema.
It is one thing to fling from an outside, goofy stance the label of 'cult,' but there are a lot of disparate groups of people who are suspicious regarding this issue. which lends to establish the case for legitimate concern.
Knowing this, it becomes an issue on its face, and it is incumbent for any Mormon politician running for office to address this issue openly, and not try to obfuscate it like Romney seems to be doing ("the details don't matter").
You have an incredibly skewed - and wildly inaccurate - view of Mormonism.
My Bishop is a liberal Democrat. So is Harry Reid, who happens to be a Mormon and Senate Majority Leader.
My religion has no control over me whatsoever, except that which I choose to give. The highest value in Mormonism is that of Free Agency. We are taught that choice is the most important thing we have. We can give nothing to God, since he gives us everyhting in the first place, except our will - which is the only thing that comes solely from us. In that regard, Mormonism has no more control over its members than any religion. e learn what is right and choose to follow that course or not. The consequences of our choices are NOT ours to choose, but that is true in any situation.
I've been a Latter-Day Saint for thirty years, and I always get a chuckle out of the warped views that many people seem to have of my faith.
Ami is right, the church has control only on membership status, nothing else. Most churches reserve the right to promote certain kinds of behaviors, and many to discipline within the ranks. Catholicism imposes exactly the same sort of disciplines. Indeed, most Christian churches share a history of far more serious disciplinary measures - such as beheading and burning. And the political control that was imposed over a century ago when Utah was still a territory is no different from the political control practiced by mainstream Christianity over several centuries.
Catholics don't burn heretics anymore, and Mormons don't control their members in any way other than through church status.
I pay no attention to Knute's nonsense, it is designed to be silly. But I expect something close to rational debate from yellow.
I have found that a rational debate regarding religion and politics is rarely possible on the internet, and in the political clubs.
A lot of this is true due mainly to the easily recognizible tactical advantage that religious institutions who are actively engaged in the political world in America employ. When their religion is discussed in political terms, many, and especially including the Jews here, will decry that their very 'faith' is under attack, no matter how harmless or carefully worded the questions are asked.
But I am willing.
Mr postulation, before the reactionary snipes, was that Romney did indeed have the responsibility to discuss the details of his religion, based on the structure of his church, one that a lot of Americans find extremely secretive and carefully controlled, because he is running for the highest job in the land.
I could post sites of former Mormons who decry at length just exactly the point I made--excessive control of its members, and the discussion of helping others trying to extricate themselves from the control of the church which is framed in terms of intervention and shaking the baggage of inculcation, but that is not where I see a rational discussion.
When I use the term "cult" and "cultist," I do so knowing I am far from solitary is using these terms. Whether or not I am 100% accurate in ascribing the word 'cult' to the Mormon Church, there is enough certainty in my perception (I grew up with Mormons, and may have known more Mormons than most) as well as a prepondering repeating of the charge from society at large to give the question cred. In light of what I find true, what in the world would legitamately prevent a free press from asking: "Mr. Romney, many have deemed the Mormon Church a cult . . . how would you respond to those assertions?" Americans are sick and tired of automatic spin, imho, and a response of " . . . . the details are unimportant . . ." from Romney serves to diminish his credibility. One then is left to wonder what he does not want to discuss.
But even if this were amiss, it is still incumbent upon Romney to explain the errors of perception regarding this label. It is incumbent upon Romney to not run from the issues regarding his church since at least one in four Americans, before a sunlight discussion, say they would not vote for a Mormon period. It would seem that Romney would seek to rectify the misunderstandings in detail, to broaden his church's appeal, and when he spins with a quick dismissal, I think many wonder why.
When you say my views are 'skewed,' 'warped' and 'wildly inaccurate,' I am reminded of another small r republican who characterized my views on the Iraq War, which were reinforced by a majority of Americans who were polled over several years, as 'radical,' 'foaming' etc etc etc.
So discuss a few points to begin:
When you say that Ami is right (usually a fair assertion) about what you describe doctrinally as 'Free Agency,' could you discuss any possible variation of that concept when considered in the ranking system of your church? What I mean here is the 32 degrees of positions or rankings that members in your church attain?
If the assertion of "contol" is so philosophically off the mark as to motivate you to dis them in flashpoint rhetoric, why do you think this misperception is so widely extant in America?
And can you tell all if your church still holds black Americans as unable to go beyond the first degree? Since minority concerns and possible racism is so important in America (remember Virginia), does your church's dogma still assert that the black race is the enemy?
Both these initial points, as all can see, are asked because they pertain to politics, and are not random pot shots to 'attack your faith.'
