I take serious issue with the premise that a political candidate's religion is not the voter's business as claimed in your Opinion piece, "Isn't it about honesty and leadership?" (Nov. 27).
The nation's belligerent foreign policy and past decade of warring against the Islamic world is very much driven by the Christian right and Jewish activists, both claiming a biblical entitlement for Israel to rule the Holy Land. Where a future president stands on this decidedly religious issue will determine if peace in the Middle East is hopeless or not.
Furthermore, the voters have a right to know if the nation's Commander-in-Chief who controls our thermonuclear strike weaponry really believes in quaint religious myths, e.g. Angel Moroni and the Golden Plates, that many non-Mormons think outlandish. Personally, I want to know if a future "President Romney" will consult the New York Times or the Book of Mormon before he pushes the nuclear button or opens another theater of war.
H. William Fogle, Jr.
Mesa
PatrioticPerson posted at 8:00 am on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.
The last time I heard talk like this was when Barry Goldwater was running for president and his opponent convinced the voters that we would be at war as soon as he was elected.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:40 am on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.
Bill,
Seldom do PatrioticPerson and I reach the same conclusions. Believe it or not there are controversies amongst the adherants of all faiths. And I doubt that either Huntsman or Romney could have gone as far as they have if they thought overly simplistically as you appear to fear they might do.
I for one, hope than the Cold War is over, such that no president will be considering nuclear warfare. But to illustrate my point on a more relevant and contemporaneous issue, let's look at abortion.
Romney appears to have flip/flopped. On the one side of the question we have so called "liberals" championing a woman's right under Rowe vs Wade to choose whether or not to have an abortion. On the other side we have so called moral or social conservatives championing the fetus' right to be born, austensibly to a woman who otherwise would not have chosen to be a mother. Furthermore Conservatives do not wish to have government dollars pay for abortions. And Huntsman's and Romney's faith not only opposes abortions, but champions adoptions, taking a rational wholistic approach to solving the problem. I have not heard of any other faith's doing the same.
I note that where Mormons champion this life as a time to be tested, a time to see whether we will chose to do right or chose to do wrong, and understand that freedom of choice is a necessary pre-condition to making this choise, having legislation what compells ones choice appears to conflict. So I doubt that Mormons will support reversing Rowe vs. Wade if they consider it as compelling a choice. There are no precidents to equating abortion to murder, none. But being a conservative candidate, Romney and Huntsman must "sing the song." That's why they flip/flop. They have to please the likes of you and the rest.
But your point on backing Israel probably is well taken. Why don't you write a piece on this one issue. I have had grave concerns about our blind support of Israel ever since I had a Muslim for a room mate for 2-1/2 years at BYU. Would you care to join with me in helping a local Mosque keep a mile of state highway in South Chandler clean? They are among the finest, most moral people I have even known!
Dale Whiting posted at 4:57 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.
P.S. Bill,
I just caught that last phrase. You know, Personally, I want to know if a future "President Romney" will consult the New York Times or the Book of Mormon before he pushes the nuclear button or OPENS ANOTHER THEATER OF WAR.
Just for kicks, let's suppose Romney or Huntsman consult the Book of Mormon before engaging in another war. What would it tell them to consider?
First, the Book of Mormon reports to chronical over about a 1000 year span of time the unsettled relationship between the decendants of brothers, good guys and bad guys. For the first 600 years, the good guys do alright until they get tied up on consumerism and forget charity. Then the bad guys attack the good guys and beat up on them good. The good guys get humbled and get help to repel the bad guys. But never in that 1000 years do the good guys attack the bag guys on the bad guys home turf, not once!
Eventually instead of sending armies to the bad guys, the good guys send over a hand full of missionaries. The missionaries convert a large segment of the bad guy who then leave and cross over to the good guy side, there to not take up arms ever again. When the bad guys attack the next time, the good guys being good at the time, defend the converted good guys using the sons of the converted bad guys who did not take the oath of never bearing arms again. And just what? None of those sons is ever killed in battle. Hirt? Sure, but none killed!
Then after about 600 years there is a time of peace and tranquility. For about 200 years the good guys gon't get all wrapped up in consumerism. Funny thing is, just before this 200 year period starts a descentant of the bad guys stands on the walls of one of those good guy cities and calls them to repentance! A real reversal of roles wouldn't you think?
Finally the bag guys wipe all but one of the good guys out and take everything over. But if you want to see a representation of that good guy, the last one left standing, try looking on the top spire of any Mormon Temple.
So if either Romney or Huntsman took guidance from the Book of Mormon, I doubt we'd be engaging any bad guys overseas. Instead, we'd be looking ourselves in the mirror to try to find out what we were doing wrong! Pretty much that is what Harry Reid does.
Now, does this help answer your conserns?
I've always felt that the good guys were conservatives, the bad guys, liberals and that both sets of guys had much to learn from the others.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 5:54 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.
Now Mitt Romney is Mr. Tough Guy on Mexican Illegal Alien Border crossing. But just wait until he gets into the White House and has a "Visitation" from U-Know-Who and flip-flops yet again and declares that ...............America is an ..."OPEN-BORDER"... Nation.
Folks.....just look at the Recall Election of a couple weeks ago....a Mormon Politician (Russell Pearce)....who did not ......toe the Mormon Utah Compact Amnesty Line............was .......KICKED OUT OF OFFICE.
It sure wasn't the....Tea Party...that paid for all of those TV ads....it sure wasn't the...Tea Party...who were writing ....Letter to the Editor after Letter to the Editor after Letter to the Editor....screaming that Pearce had....lost touch with his Mesa voters...............baloney.........he lost touch with the Mesa "Mormon" voters.
Dale Whiting posted at 6:49 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.
Loen,
I'd estimate that at the most District 18 has 25% of its voters as members of Russell Pearce's church, more likely less. And that is also Jerry Lewis' church. But 18 probably has more Mormon Church members than does any other in the Metro area. I found that about 50% were divided on whether Russell Pearce was a law and order candidate or an embarrassment to humanity. Certainly Russell did not do much consulting on constitutional issues. And I's sure you know nothing significant about constitutional law. But being trained in the law, Brent and I do. And SB1070 is an embarrassent to humanity. Even the cops don't like it. It ties their hands and removes from them the discression to look the other way when doing so seems to make sense.
I wrote my piece on Machine Politics after Russell lost. And Brent Ellsworth wrote his piece on Pearce's apparent denial of the root causes of his loss afterwards, too. What does Machine Politics and refusal to face up to reality have to do with religion? Nata!
You need to get a bigger and better informed picture of things. How many Mormons did you talk to about the Pearce recall? None, right! You're just guessing again, aren't you!
Accuracy posted at 7:55 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.
“Beliefs do play a part in political decisions”
Barack Hussein Obama was very open during his 2008 campaign about his
faith as he tried to squelch rumors that he was/is Muslim. Since he certainly is the son of a Muslim father, the stepson of Muslim stepfather, and his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims.
"I just want to be very clear and this is obviously in no way an insult to the Muslim community who I respect deeply but I want people to know who I am. I am a Christian," Obama said during his 2008 campaign. "I have never practiced Islam and I think it's important for people not to buy into these sort of fear tactics that people also often use during political games."
It became very clear over the years after his election how proud he was of his Muslim name “Hussein Obama,” his Muslim background, and his father and Muslim familyhood during his interviews to Muslim media. But will it be forbidden and prohibited for Liberal News Media to speak of such things during the 2012 presidential election campaign while the Obama campaign is making a play for Christian voters?
Dale Whiting posted at 9:00 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.
Accuracy,
You're nuts. When Obama mentions his ancestry, it's with pride. When he mentions his faith, Christianity, it's with respect to both Islam and Christianity. Even John McCain understood these issues. Why not you?
Technically when one takes upon oneself the obligations to practice Islam, one commits to honoring the five pillars of Islam. Barack Hussein Obama has never undertaken that committment. So therefore he is not a Muslim. However, he has been baptized and has studied Christian doctrines. When doing that community organizating, working with ministers of various Christian denominations, he came to understand, appreciate and even value the principles he saw being put to use. And when he married his wife, President Obama make a committement that the two would attend church together and raise a family under Christian principles.
Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian. And because people who know next to nothing about Islam get confused about it, President Obama is doing us all a service to explain that to them. In the alternative you and the others who are confused might try reading Obama's books! I did.
Accuracy posted at 8:27 am on Thu, Dec 1, 2011.
Dale Whiting,
You’re nuts about Barack Obama. Each time his name is mentioned you respond hostilely in a antagonistic and offensive manner. And browbeating that you have read his books.
Could President Obama make a successful play for Christian conservatives next year?
Democrats in Congress think so. And they have unveiled Democrats "Faith and Values" initiative effort to reach out to young Christian voters.
Democrat Rep. Jim Clyburn said members of the Democrat party can't just talk about their faith, they have to show it as the 2012 election approaches.
Obama has not joined a church and has only visited a local D.C. house of worship on a handful of occasions during his presidency. This outreach is a simply effort to establish a bipartisan coalition ahead of next year's election, and it could also signal a political effort to disaffected Christian conservatives.
LiaLee posted at 10:51 am on Thu, Dec 1, 2011.
I think it is perfectly legitimate, when one candidate belongs to an obscure religion, to be concerned about what beliefs he might hold and how they might affect his job as President. This is not the time to discuss everything Mormons believe and how weird it is/isn't compared to other religious beliefs (e.g. like bringing dead people back to life or God being a burning tree, etc.,) all of which sound bizarre to nonbelievers. But to the extent that that is a legitimate worry, there are things you can look at to judge the likelihood of Romney doing something crazy as President.
For one thing, he has already been the governor of a state, and though you may disagree with things he did during his tenure there I have never heard anyone say he did anything wacky that could be traced to consulting the Book of Mormon rather than consulting his constituents.
Second, there are reasons to believe that Mormonism simply doesn't have that kind of political power over its members. Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, is also an active Mormon. If he and Romney are both consulting the Book of Mormon about political decisions, they are getting wildly different answers! Not to mention, one of the few political issues the Mormon church has taken a stance on is abortion, and Mitt Romney has shown his willingness to take the other side on that for political expediency.
Third, bear in mind that this is the same question that haunted JFK... can a Catholic make his own decisions without consulting the Pope? That concern turned out to be based on a lack of understanding of how modern Catholicism works, and the same will turn out to be true of Mormonism.
VofReason posted at 1:09 pm on Thu, Dec 1, 2011.
Just to make sure we are all firmly footed in reality, we went to war with Militant Muslims because they flew planes into the World Trade center and killed over 3,000 of our citizens- right? And if you have a choice to throw in with a group in the Middle east, are you going with Isreal? Or the people who have no problem strapping on bombs and blowing themself up in a Pizzeria to kill others. Just saying. Whatever the Presidents religion, I hope he is willing to respond when attacked and doesn't cozy up with crazy people.
samkat posted at 2:45 pm on Thu, Dec 1, 2011.
"Finally the bag guys wipe all but one of the good guys out and take everything over. But if you want to see a representation of that good guy, the last one left standing, try looking on the top spire of any Mormon Temple."
Sorry Dale, but not being a Mormon, I do not think that being one means they will be the last one standing. I spent 6 miserable months of my life cooped up in a dorm room with a devout Mormon who tried daily to convert me when I told him repeatedly that I was not interested in his religion. I do not see the Mormons having any more of a lock on religion or life in the hereafter than any other faith.
Now, you brought up one of my more passionate subjects when you discussed Roe VS Wade. I have to ask why the conservatives in Arizona as well as the United States do not meet their moral commitment to care for every unwanted child. They are so adamant about protecting life from the point of conception but it appears that the moment they exit from the womb they are on their own. We currently have over 10,500 children in CPS care 500,000 nationwide. If the religious right is on such morally high ground, why do we have even one child in state care? I rather think the religious right is morally bankrupt since they are all talk and no action.
Sadly far too many of these children will be ejected from state care at age 18 with no safety net and no job skills. The republicans only want to protect the sanctity of life in their minds but not in their pocket books and certainly not in their homes. One of my sons works for the Department of Corrections and he talks to many of these kids who are turned out onto the street by our erstwhile conservatives; and, with no other recourse, they turn to crime to survive.
We all have opinions and we are free to speak our opinions because some of us actually served abroad in time of war and in peacetime fending off the bad guys. We do not want to return to the days of protectionism with our heads buried in the sand when we have attacks taking place on our own soil. Do we allow attacks on our citizens when they are traveling abroad and simply turn the other cheek? I think not. I will be one of the first to volunteer again to protect our way of life in any way that I can. While I may no longer be fit for combat, I can hold down a desk job to free up one of our war fighters for action.
The day we have a president who has to seek approval from his or her church elders before taking action is going to be a sad day in history for us.