Mormon Accepts Gop Nomination - A Historical First

[Darren10]

Do we really want to own the LDS Democrats?

(I kid)

Well, there is a certain Senate majority leader who...

/I kid too.

[ERayR]

I understand that the religious aspect probably resonants with a lot of Republicans, but I did think it was a bit overdone, at this Convention. Seems like it would have been more productive to focus on policy and what they plan to actually do. I still don't really know for sure. It was all very vague.

Not overdone at all. The focus was on those things you mention and religion was only inserted where it touched on those issues.

[ERayR]

KevinG:

The sad dark history of this world is that we get ourselves into trouble anytime we mix religion and politics. I really don't want to see the US go further down that dark road.

What I saw was candidates who said look this is what I am and this is how I got there. That to me is a good thing. I did not hear any thing alarming.

[Darren10]

I was pleased with the way Romney let others "introduce" his faith and tell about his activities as a "pastor" as they called it, so people would understand the role...

Everyone had been saying they didn't "know" him and thought he was so stiff and couldn't relate to everyday people because of his wealth... when members of his former congregation told their experiences with him as their pastor, there were tears visible among the delegates, even the men... if those experiences and others from the people he helped in Church, business, the Olympics, etc don't show his ability to relate to people, then nothing will, and shame on those who can't see it.

I was pleased because it gave a view of the responsibility a "pastor" (bishop) in the LDS faith bears, including counsel on everything from spiritual matters to personal to financial... all without pay for the many hours required. I feel that description of responsibilities was the positive message that allowed people a look at our faith and at Romney and his ability to feel compassion and serve others.

GG

I could not agree more. I especially give out a kudos to Mike Huckabee whose mentioning of not caring where Romney takes his family to church was no doubt a call out of confidence to certain folks who may be resistant to voting for Romney on theological basis. In saying as much, Mr. Huckabee more or less "redeemed" himself from what was a past use of Romney's faith against Romney for political self gain, and Huckabee showed true Christian character by adhiring to freedom of religion in that people should not be persecuted for their religious beliefs. Huckabee's speech at the convention, rendered unto Ceasar that which was Ceasar's and kept that which is God's unto God.

I agree that Romney may be "too reserved" to talk of his Mormonism but overall I find his not making this campaign about his Mormonism admirable. Even when it's politically advantageous for Romney to use his Mormonism, he doesn't.

[Darren10]

Not overdone at all. The focus was on those things you mention and religion was only inserted where it touched on those issues.

And reinforced those issues. Americans must NOT forget that their freedom and rights come from God, not governmnet.

[KevinG]

Who's "we"? All the Republican Mormons?

Is there any other kind?

(sorry the set up was just too good...)

[KevinG]

KevinG:

The sad dark history of this world is that we get ourselves into trouble anytime we mix religion and politics. I really don't want to see the US go further down that dark road.

Expressing faith is a far cry from being dominionist. I'm not too worried a Romney/Ryan administration would impose unduly upon anyone's freedom of religion. If anything having a President steeped in a religion that holds agency sacred would be a good thing.

[Mudcat]

Seeing the crosstalk on the R and D, I thought I would comment.

As an Evangelical, I don't mind saying that I am a conservative. I don't think conservative and Republican are synonymous terms either. I have a sister who is also Evangelical, she is the wife of a pastor of notable EV church in the next county over. She is not a conservative, though her husband and the majority of the congregation is.

I don't agree with her on a lot, but we totally agree on loving our Savior. Given her position, her place of being and so on. She feels like she has to live "in the closet" so to speak. It's a terrible thing, to think one thing, but have to act another because all those who share one particular set of values with you disagree on other points.

There isn't much doubt that conservatism and belief in Christ seems the view of the majority of Christians in US. But I don't think that might makes right, so to speak.

I think those who hold a majority view on a political view, shouldn't take it on themselves to extend that view to matters of faith in the lives of others. It creates a situation where people want believe in Christ, but feel all boxed in on the rest of stuff.

I don't think any Christian should consider ourselves in a position to cloister another, given that we all owe our freedom Christ.

[Stargazer]

Mudcat:

To me it's a mixed bag. I'm thankful that we're not being persecuted to the extent we were, but putting religion into politics just rubs me the wrong way.

Yeah, you say that when its the other side bringing religion into it, not Romney, and in the most insulting ways. "Magic underwear"-like comments are to be found frequently enough. Every liberal is afraid of the Big Bad Mormon, and can't ridicule his religion enough. Or so it seems anyway.

[Libs]

Not overdone at all. The focus was on those things you mention and religion was only inserted where it touched on those issues.

Well, I have to say this. I am old enough to remember Eisenhower and later Nixon. Religious conservatism did not have such a strangle hold on the party, back then, and I think that was a good thing. If we truly believe in "agency", then it should be allowed to be the rule of the day, not religious beliefs. Religious beliefs vary, especially today and some have none. We cannot truly have "freedom of religion", unless all varieties, including those who have none, are allowed to live as they choose (providing they are harming no one). That is true freedom. I am, socially, very libertarian.

[Stargazer]

I understand that the religious aspect probably resonants with a lot of Republicans, but I did think it was a bit overdone, at this Convention. Seems like it would have been more productive to focus on policy and what they plan to actually do. I still don't really know for sure. It was all very vague.

By all means, let's bore all the delegates and the public tuning in via TV with long policy statements and explanations of political philosophy. If you think that was overdone, tune into the Democratic convention next week. They will attempt to top the Republicans -- and I doubt they will succeed, but they will try.

"Are you not entertained?" -- The Gladiator

[Libs]

By all means, let's bore all the delegates and the public tuning in via TV with long policy statements and explanations of political philosophy. If you think that was overdone, tune into the Democratic convention next week. They will attempt to top the Republicans -- and I doubt they will succeed, but they will try.

"Are you not entertained?" -- The Gladiator

So, you believe the convention was for entertainment? Some of it was pretty entertaining, actually.

I just think few people are all that interested in Romney's religion (much less so than the average Republican believes) and much more interested in what he's going to do differently from Obama. The one single thing I picked up on, during his speech, was that he was going to lower taxes on the wealthy even more (from 35% to 25%)...did anyone pick up on that? That's the kind of thing *I* want to know...and a lot of other people, as well. But, any policy issues got lost in all of the fanfare, religion, Clint Eastwood fiasco, etc.

[Libs]

At least, I THINK I got that from his speech. I'm not sure that was even in there, but I have heard him say it, somewhere.

[blackstrap]

At least, I THINK I got that from his speech. I'm not sure that was even in there, but I have heard him say it, somewhere.

Well,if he didn't say it ,he should have.It's about time the rich paid the same as the majority do.

[Stargazer]

So, you believe the convention was for entertainment? Some of it was pretty entertaining, actually.

No. Yes.

I just think few people are all that interested in Romney's religion (much less so than the average Republican believes) and much more interested in what he's going to do differently from Obama. The one single thing I picked up on, during his speech, was that he was going to lower taxes on the wealthy even more (from 35% to 25%)...did anyone pick up on that? That's the kind of thing *I* want to know...and a lot of other people, as well. But, any policy issues got lost in all of the fanfare, religion, Clint Eastwood fiasco, etc.

I thought Clint was fairly entertaining actually. Although I cringed a bit while he spoke.

I picked up on Romney or Ryan saying they were going to lower taxes across the board, reduce regulations, and cut spending drastically.

Like I said earlier, the convention isn't the place to put everyone to sleep with detailed policy statements. I am pretty sure they didn't get too detailed for just that reason, if not others.

As to reactions to this convention, there was an interesting caller to Michael Medved's show today. It was a gay Mormon guy who had been discharged from the Air Force a few years ago under Don't Ask Don't Tell (because he got outed I suppose) before Pres. Obama dropped the policy and allowed gays to serve openly. This young man said he listened carefully to Ryan's and Romney's speeches, and the others, and decided that he was going to wholeheartedly support the Two R's.

I do believe that this convention and the speakers etc will have a large effect on the election, and in a positive way.

[Libs]

I thought Clint was fairly entertaining actually. Although I cringed a bit while he spoke.

I love Eastwood, as an actor, but this was not one of his better performances (putting it mildly).

I picked up on Romney or Ryan saying they were going to lower taxes across the board, reduce regulations, and cut spending drastically

Oh good, then I was remembering correctly...for a change. I don't recall his saying "across the board", though. I just don't understand how Republicans can be so double minded when it comes to taxes and cutting the budget. Cutting taxes while trying to cut the budget is not a recipe for success. It doesn't even make sense (and Republicans like Eisenhower would agree with me).

Like I said earlier, the convention isn't the place to put everyone to sleep with detailed policy statements. I am pretty sure they didn't get too detailed for just that reason, if not others.

Aren't folks supposed to be getting excited about the great POLICIES Romney and Ryan are going to put forward? That's what elections are all about....running gov't and who can do it the best. I can't see that this convention gave anyone a substantive reason to vote Republican.

I do believe that this convention and the speakers etc will have a large effect on the election, and in a positive way.

I don't know what kind of a bounce they will get, if any.

(This is probably getting too political?) Sorry.

[Deborah]

I love Eastwood, as an actor, but this was not one of his better performances (putting it mildly).

I thought it was fantastic. Did you understand what he was doing?

Cutting taxes while trying to cut the budget is not a recipe for success. It doesn't even make sense (and Republicans like Eisenhower would agree with me).

Actually it is a tried and true principle. If you cut taxes you free up money which goes into the economy which causes business growth which brings in more revenues. Cutting the budget is necessary whether you cut taxes or not.

Aren't folks supposed to be getting excited about the great POLICIES Romney and Ryan are going to put forward?

I thought their policies were quite apparent: Reduce taxes, cut regulation, free up oil production and get rid of Obamacare. Let business do what it is supposed to do which is make profits, expand and create more jobs.

[Zakuska]

So, you believe the convention was for entertainment? Some of it was pretty entertaining, actually.

I just think few people are all that interested in Romney's religion (much less so than the average Republican believes) and much more interested in what he's going to do differently from Obama. The one single thing I picked up on, during his speech, was that he was going to lower taxes on the wealthy even more (from 35% to 25%)...did anyone pick up on that? That's the kind of thing *I* want to know...and a lot of other people, as well. But, any policy issues got lost in all of the fanfare, religion, Clint Eastwood fiasco, etc.

What I heard was a tax cut for all. Not just the wealthy.

Actually the Clint Eastwood thing was a brilliant political move. By postponing talking about issues until the debates you give your opponent nothing to go on so they can't prepare a rebuttal or an attack against you. It was a brilliantly well calculated and executed political misdirection. Get people talking about anything but the issues. Then when you do talk about issues the other side is caught off guard and unprepared, with their pants down.

[Sleeper Cell]

Well, I have to say this. I am old enough to remember Eisenhower and later Nixon. Religious conservatism did not have such a strangle hold on the party, back then, and I think that was a good thing. If we truly believe in "agency", then it should be allowed to be the rule of the day, not religious beliefs.

Back in the day, a couple of my liberal friends (Peace & Freedom party types) expressed their regret that Nixon wasn’t influenced more by his religious traditions.

Religious beliefs vary, especially today and some have none. We cannot truly have "freedom of religion", unless all varieties, including those who have none, are allowed to live as they choose (providing they are harming no one). That is true freedom. I am, socially, very libertarian.

All too often, faith in various political and social philosophies have become substitutes for religious faith. In many ways, they are becoming “secular religions,” except without having a feeling of being constrained (at least to some degree) by a tradition of religious tolerance. Perhaps that may be part of the reason why many good people on this very board exhibit respect and civility when arguing about religious matters, but not when arguing about political matters.

It might also explain why (IIRC), some secular dominated states have harsher anti-smoking laws than Utah.

[thesometimesaint]

Stargazer:

Yeah, you say that when its the other side bringing religion into it, not Romney, and in the most insulting ways. "Magic underwear"-like comments are to be found frequently enough. Every liberal is afraid of the Big Bad Mormon, and can't ridicule his religion enough. Or so it seems anyway.

The Obama team has refused to go down that road. Believe me I have more than enough against Obama's record in office not to want to vote for him either.

I kinda like my magic underwear. It reminds me of the commitments I have made to my God, and my wife. But to each their own.

While I'm not a member of any political party, I lean liberal. I'm 6'2", over 200 LBS, and have shoulders like a linebacker. Guaranteed few want to ridicule my religion to my face.

[ERayR]

Oh good, then I was remembering correctly...for a change. I don't recall his saying "across the board", though. I just don't understand how Republicans can be so double minded when it comes to taxes and cutting the budget. Cutting taxes while trying to cut the budget is not a recipe for success. It doesn't even make sense (and Republicans like Eisenhower would agree with me).

(This is probably getting too political?) Sorry.

It is simple economics when you cut taxes you free up money that is reinvested and stimulates additional economic activity which is taxed and has been proven more than once. John Kennedy did it and Ronald Reagan did it. No mystery.

[ERayR]

Stargazer:

The Obama team has refused to go down that road. Believe me I have more than enough against Obama's record in office not to want to vote for him either.

The send their surrogates.

[Libs]

It is simple economics when you cut taxes you free up money that is reinvested and stimulates additional economic activity which is taxed and has been proven more than once. John Kennedy did it and Ronald Reagan did it. No mystery.

Ray, it is a contradiction to say you're going to cut the budget and then cut taxes. No one has ever done that successfully, including Reagan. Trickle down does not work and never has.

http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

[KevinG]

Yeah - this one has gone full partisan politics. Can't we have a thread about Mormon candidacy without people sticking in their favorite partisan platform positions?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Mudcat:

To me it's a mixed bag. I'm thankful that we're not being persecuted to the extent we were, but putting religion into politics just rubs me the wrong way.

Everyone does and I 'm glad ihe is such a good man. He could be one of the most religious and devout persons to hold the Presidency for a very long time...which means he make seek the wisdom of God above all and not just political advisers alone.