This is a question for Norrie Hoyt of Norwich,
VT. who seems to know something of young Joseph
Smith and family's three years in Norwich. Their
3 years of residence seems to be a blank in both
town and LDS records except for crop failures and
their "warning out".
I once lived up the river from you, across from
North Thetford in Lyme NH and now in my "golden
years" I find pleasure in researching one of
the whackiest families in New England History.
So if you got some data, I'd appreciate your sharing.
johnnyputt@netins.net

Just exactly why does someone need to be GOD fearing to be a President? Why not just ethical or moral? These 2 attributes are not exclusive to Christianity or a belief in GOD. I have seen many atheists who I consider to be more ethical than some Christians I know.

If a person is supposed to represent all of us - rich or poor, young and old, believer and non believer - the American people as a whole; then belief in the principles of the Constitution are more important than what faith they believe in or even if they believe in an all powerful being in the sky. The constitution is a secular document - the founding fathers made it so.

So, what someone does with what they believe matters. Bush said he believes in GOD and that he is born again. I can not think of anyone whom I consider to show less Christian practices than he. So, give me someone who does not speak of GOD but who does show me that they can tell the truth, cares about all of the people and who acts ethically and fairly.

The interesting part of this is the fact that once more politics, at least for Conservative Christians, is more important than theology which they claim to hold so dear.

Of course, the support Giuliani has recieved from the Religious Right is another sign that the movement is more political than theological. How could evangelicals, the supporters of pro-life and pro-family ideas support a man who has been divorced more then once, supports abortion and is friendly towards gay rights?

I believe we can conclude that Prof. Berlinerblau has an unstated agenda.

As to Pat Robertson et al they are little more than unknowing agents of 'they/them/it'.

What mind set makes something other than the Constitution the dominant theme? Can we conclude that the "religious right" of whatever brand is in direct disagreement with having a Constitutional government?? It would seem so.

How can anyone who does not reject the 'Book of Mor[m]on' outright possibly have the required judgment to lead the United States of America and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?

One of the subtleties we have that doesn't get commented on is Bush says "my job is to protect the American people" while his sworn duty is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which if he would do would be protecting the American people.

a contraire'-let us not only entertain but pray and hope for the possibility that as conscientious citizens they will not let creedal considerations obscure their political judgment.

America has had enough of the religious right (Mormons are included by their political agendas and their political activism).

Romeny is another neocon who will use the Christian extremist agenda to further suppress gays, people of color, and anyone else different from his lily white ilk. He is just as dangerous, if not more, than the Rovian manipulators who used the pulpits of Dobson, Robertson et. al. to spew Rove's politics of fear and hate.

Look at what "Christianity" has brought our government over that past 6 years. It's not a pretty sight with the Constitution trampled and America the most hated nation in the world. 100 Iraqis die each day because the "Christians" running the war do not only not provide protection for the civilian population but can not even give the country we occupy fresh water to prevent 1 in 5 children under the age of 8 from dying of disease. Defacto Genocide for Jesus. How Christlike. Does America, or the World need more of the same?

Gaby's suggestion that Christians are Republicans first and believers second makes good copy, and it is true in some instances - but far from the majority. Romney's Mormon faith makes him plainly unacceptable to a significant number of Christian voters, regardless of how correct he is on the issues (today).

A re-read of this article generates considerable incredulity. Who here among us has the merest shred of doubt that the one thing that scares the bejeezus out of any Evangelical mucky-muck is a Democrat in the White House? Clearly, their newfound acceptance of Romney is proof that they are willing to sell their souls to the devil, so long as the devil wears the red of the Republican party. No wonder the Pope considers them a bunch of wannabes!

IN RE: WILLARD MITT ROMNEY:

Never trust a person religiously, politically, or otherwise who dyes his hair an ugly coal black and won't let others see him as he actually appears in God's sight.

To anyone who would even REMOTELY consider Romney for president, look up the history of Mormonism in Wikipedia. I guarantee you to be shocked at some of the things they believe, said, and have done...polygamy being the least of the treasons against reason.

No man or woman who refuses to denounce such nonsense deserves to be President or Vice-President. Is the Scientology Presidency next?

Is Milt Romney really a Mormon? Mormons are generally really good people. Never mind about those lost golden plates and the stuff about Indians being lost tribes of Jews. Would a good Mormon strap his dog to the top of his car for 12 hours? Would a good Mormon call Hillary Clinton a communist? Would a good Mormon flip and flop and flip again, trying to decide what he believes about what? That's not been my experience. Maybe Romney is a closet Methodist or pagan trying to pass?

First, let me stress that I used to be an Evangelical Christian. I was Baptist, a youth group leader, and even have a few years of seminary under my belt. Growing up I was taught that the Catholics were going to hell, and that the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Moonies were Cults, led by false prophets (like Joseph Smith), and all who followed these cults were worshipping false gods. So this "new openness" is quite a switch, to say the least. But it just depends on how you evaluate fundamentalist religious beliefs in the first place: is it healthy, modest faith, or is it part of a psychological condition that is more about tribalism and authoritarianism? For the last few decades, the majority of Conservative Christians have consistently sold out their spiritual principles and engaged in raw, and carnal, politics. This means that they will hook up with whatever allies they need to elect and keep authoritarians in power. Romney had them at "I'd double Guantanamo!" So part of it is the simplistic code words of "faith" and "family," but it's more about beating back the muslim hordes and the liberals. It's all about viewing yourself as an oppressed minority and then using hatred and fear directed at "the other" to rally your tribe.

Praise the Lord. Evangelicals have become inclusive and compassionate. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath, though. With their long history of fundamentalist arrogance and self-worship, I think it may just be a trick.....

CANDIDE writes:

"Mormonism, crazy as it is, is no more crazy than orthodox Christianity. Both believe in nonsense."

How right you are.

Here's a thought: suppose an avowed atheist had become president. I mean, an atheist who was vocal about it the way religionists are vocal about their faith. Then, suppose this atheist hadn't bothered listening to the intelligence reports that told us 9/11 was on the way. Suppose this atheist had lied us into an illegal an unwinnable war. Suppose this atheist had gutted our civil liberties. Suppose this atheist had illegally outed a CIA agent, then commuted the sentence of the lackey who did his bidding.

Is there any question that the religionists in this country would be screaming, "I guess we all know now what it's like to have an atheist as president?"

Yet, for some reason, we don't hear people saying, "well, I guess we know what it's like to have a real-live, born-again, Bible-thumpin, listens-to-a-higher-father, Xian-through-and-through for a president."

Why is that?

.

I'm starting to think that this Jozevz guy is seriously messed up.

.

Is there anybody in America, Democrat or Republican, who is not "Pro-family"? What a straw man the religious right has succeeded in foisting on America.

I believe the phenomenon you are observing might well be termed "embracing mediocrity". This is a result of the realization (finally) that no one who remains a fully committed Christian and votes his conscience 100% of the time will every be elected to office in the United States of America. A fully committed orthodox Christian will make a slew of unpopular decisions in voting his conscience at all times. That's just the nature of the electorate, they are much more interested in what's in it for them, then doing the right thing.

And with the track record of politicians in the last 230 years, can we actually blame them?

I think the acceptance of Romney is rooted in the below-the-radar belief that so many compromises are required to be elected to national office that purity is impossible. If politics is the "art of compromise", then it is not difficult to see how religion will often be oil to politic's water.

So Romney is benifitting from this acceptance of reality by Christian Conservatives: If I can't have one of ours in the office, at least give me somebody who will ACT like one of us.

Embracing mediocrity. That's the key.

KTF!!!...mrb

"You can find it among nonbelievers who have convinced themselves that the LDS Church is not a religion, but a cult (though why that distinction should irk a generation of atheists and agnostics who think that any form of religious belief is a sure sign of advanced mental deficiency is beyond me)."

In the eyes of many, Mormonism is an at an extreme of the "mainstream" religions spectrum. I believe this is why many nonbelievers look at Mormonism with heightened scrutiny...

"You can find it among nonbelievers who have convinced themselves that the LDS Church is not a religion, but a cult (though why that distinction should irk a generation of atheists and agnostics who think that any form of religious belief is a sure sign of advanced mental deficiency is beyond me)."

As a so-called nonbeliever, I can say that I find nothing wrong with people who faithfully go to Church every Sunday and live their life according to the Bible. That is their choice and they have a right to it.

The only "people of faith" that I find to have a mental deficiency are the ones who beat their beliefs over the heads of everyone else. Those who hate anyone and everyone who disagree with them and don't conform to their way of thinking are hypocrites at best and criminally stupid at worst.

I still don't understand how these people can go around preaching how "Christian" they are when they are simultaneously spreading hate and prejudice. Excuse me, but is that really what your God intended for you to do?

As for political candidates, I really couldn't care less if they believe in God, or what their faith is as long as they don't try to impose it on me. That said, Romney is out.

At some point evangelicals are going to wake up and vote for their stomachs and not their biases.
Dubya has dug such a deep hole that no republican could possibly dig his way out - because they are theologically opposed to raising taxes.
So forget about religion - we have a huge trade deficit that threatens are ability to be able to even feed ourselves, we have global warming, and a host of other real problems - now if you don't mind standing in soups lines and finding out you won't be able to eat this week again - vote republican - otherwise start thinking about having a woman for President.

I'm CoMITTed to Romney. But if I had to choose between ANY Republican and Hillary Clinton, then ANY Republican will do! I hate to see Bill Clinton as the first "First Lady(Mate)" in office. That is insulting to the office of the President!! Anyone can say anything about Romney's faith but you can't deny that he is a Conservative, Intelligent, Family Man. Mormonism....no problem, Hillary...BIG Problem!

"Posted on July 10, 2007 14:22

Allen B. Taylor:
In my view it doesn't matter who gets the
Presidency as long as two conditions are met:
1...Must be God fearing
2...Must fully support the Constitution"

Say what? Which God exactly must s/he fear? Yours, mine, or another one entirely?

I'd much rather have an atheist than some god-fearing fundamentalist who rules the country based on his/her faith instead of representing the population as a whole.

The authors 2nd Post? Romney, Mormonism and potential political ascendency (amongst much confusion)? This topic is NOT new and has been bantered about previously in ON FAITH and in all major papers and internet news sites in America.

In sizing up this potential "model candidate" the public gets to poke first at his Mormon hide,
next at his seemingly fragile political views, and then at a seemingly well organized, articulate and well versed soul.

Standing next to McCain and Guliani, it's no wonder Romney still has more "staying power" and it's also no wonder folk like Bloomberg and Thompson offer "hints" that they might entertain a presidential nod.

From the commentary that has followed, it's obvious there is a steady stream of motion that briskly tosses aside a candidate holding "odd" and alternative religious views. That's sad, but I guess not surprising.

I've met Romney, his wife and some of his family. They are warm, kind and caring humans. And the fellow is bright, visionary and not afraid to take risks.

His comments though, re the war, war prisoners (gitmo),stem cell treatment, health care and immigration, have pretty much turned me off - candidacy wise - this otherwise steady and sterling soul.

Candidates on parade - yikes, all these folk are just human - and when the microscope bores down on Hillary and Barack and then back to Romney;
where are voters to go? "We don't like his cult religion." I like this fellow or lady, I trust or respect this candidate, or his/her religious side {upsets) or comforts me?

If Romney were to get the nomination, where (else)are Republicans going to go? And the independents and Democrats? How many of them will warm to a Mitt candidacy if either (the baggage) of Hillary or Barak get the call?

Romney and his religion - a charlatan side show
or a reasonable but pivotol part of his personna? I guess it depends on one's cultural identity and regional pursuasion - is the religion tag a small part or ugly piece of this fellow? Would the public put the same boring drill and microscope on a Jew, Muslim, Methodist or Atheist?

And we have how many months, before this clamoring parade comes to an end? A prayer, that we citizens (along with the candidates) survive. And a hope that religious diversity can continue to somehow, thrive.

As I said in my post yesterday on this issue, the religions conservatives will put up with Romney because he is authoritarian and materialistic like them, and he at least pretends to espouse their views. Everyone needs to learn that the conservative "Christians" are as political as any candidate. Politics means power and money--that is what Falwell discovered years ago. Why forgo politics when you have so much to gain?

Conservative Christians have no civic virtues (I grew up in that element, so I know whereof I speak); neither do most politicians.

They are all in politics for themselves. It brings in the money. It connect them to power. Will they vote for Romney? You bet. They have discovered that Mormons are as authoritarian and bigoted as they are. It's a match made in heaven. Pun intended.

Who's prejudiced against Mormons, outside of the Xian evangelists?
Is it even a matter of prejudice?

If I was to reject a candidate because he was constantly making references to his deep belief in UFOs or the Loch Ness Monster, no one would suggest I held a prejudice against him. Indeed, I'd be viewed as being quite sane. But aver a belief in a supernatural god - for which there is even less "proof" than that for UFOs & sea monsters - and I suddenly hold a prejudice.

The Republics have been playing the Xian card for a couple of decades. Their litmus test is clear. I find it quite amusing to watch as they talk of - and talk AROUND - their religious positions in this campaign. I say, let's have a real discussion of Mormonism, followed by a real discussion of the myths upon which Xianity is founded. Let's have an open discussion about the lack of religiosity among the Founding Fathers.

Yes, let's have at it.

I expect Romney to be the next President of the United States-as soon as Evangelicals become open-minded enough to elect him!!!!

In my view it doesn't matter who gets the
Presidency as long as two conditions are met:
1...Must be God fearing
2...Must fully support the Constitution

I don't think CC leaders would endorse a non-believing candidate under any circumstances. With a Mormon, they have to balance their followers' general hatred of anything and everything that doesn't think and act exactly like them, and the public at large which would rightly condemn the hypocrisy of a religious leader refusing to vote for a candidate because of his religion.

I don't think they'd feel compelled to play the same balancing act with atheists, since they've successfully connected immorality with unbelief in most American minds. Maybe the next generation of pastors and religious blowhards will have to contend with atheists as a political force, but not this one.

Governor Romney appears to have never done anything politically unless it moved him toward his ultimate goal: being elected President of the United States. We in Massachusetts watched him try to out-liberal Senator Kennedy when they ran against each other in 1994. We now see him move inexorably to the right as he attempts to get his party's nomination in the current presidential race.

His evolving - sorry for that word - beliefs always tend toward the self-serving. His moral revelations certainly have not moved him to the left as he seeks to ingratiate himself with the right-wing zealots he needs this time. He has not found more rights for gay people, greater belief in Planned Parenthood, less enthusiasm for shooting "varmints," or anything else that fits into the Massachusetts liberal theme as he seeks the approval of conservatives.

As do many politicians, he flip-flops, but always in the correct direction politically. If the base of his party shifted overnight to support increased immigration, plural marriage, and gay rights, he would take a gay male immigrant as his second wife the following day.

Mr. Romney hopes to double the size of Guantanamo, as he said in a presidential debate. I just hope that he won't start putting prisoners on top of station wagons for twelve hours at a time. He should stick with waterboarding.

Interesting hoiw this author chooses a Mormon leader. The Mormon teachings have a racist past as well. The original Mormon Bible identifies Black's as the basic form of human evil.

I think this author has an agenda of conservative, biased choices regarding religion and politics. SURPRISE!

Another conservative using religious beliefs as a magnet for identifying voting blocks of folks, now by faith and belief.

republican's are shrewd in their agenda.

I don't have to know anything about Mr. Romney's religious beliefs to be against him.

He has bad ethical, social, political and constitutional values.

Joseph Smith and I both lived (not at the same time, however) on Upper Turnpike Road in Norwich, Vermont.

If Mr. Romney thinks that the vivid fantasies of an unhappy Vermont boy make a religion, that's fine with me. No problem there.

The problem is how Mitt thinks about worldly things today.

I wish politicians would leave their religions in their respective closets.

It would behoove them to remember that they are to represent all Americans regardless of their faiths and to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

We are a secular republic, not a theocracy.

I think I will vote for the candidate who does not bring his/her religious beliefs to campaign.

Prof. Berlinerbrau wrote:

"...the possibility should at least be acknowledged that the response by Conservative Christian leaders might demonstrate a few laudable civic virtues. It might indicate that they are willing to look beyond religious qualifications and focus on (their) issues..."

Christopher responds:

It is good to see this being pointed out. By having a candidate that focuses on similar "values" issues for Conservative Evangelicals, all that is really left for the Religious Right is to ask themselves some deep and probing questions about what it means to have "no religious test for public office." Sure that is a legal requirement, but if the Constitutions forbids it legally, then how can it *required* morally of those who consider themselves patriotic, "Strict Constitutionalists ?" Perhaps the answer is--it can't. And maybe those inclined to do so anyway are learning something about the limits to their own self-conception of "American-ness."

"You can find it among nonbelievers who have convinced themselves that the LDS Church is not a religion, but a cult (though why that distinction should irk a generation of atheists and agnostics who think that any form of religious belief is a sure sign of advanced mental deficiency is beyond me)."

Speaking as a inveterate nonbeliever, i have two things to say about this statment:

1) i don't think it's atheists and agnostics who have decided that Mormonism is a cult, not a religion. i think the people who make that distinction most often are professed believers in Christianity. because, as you might have said, nonbelief in religion covers all forms of religion and doesn't care about the general acceptance of the belief system among other religious folks.

2) most atheists i've come across (in real life anyway) do not subscribe to this: "religious belief is a sure sign of advanced mental deficiency." most of us just don't believe in god, and make no presumptions about the sanity of people who do. yes, you will find atheists who say such things, especially on blogs, but most just don't care what someone else believes or doesn't. so please be a little more careful about the assumptions you make about people who don't agree with you theologically.

thanks