All Comments (207)

WHEN GOD'S FACE BECAME VERY RED !

INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH FEDERAL APPEALS !!!

The pison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.

*** WHEN THE INNOCENT ARE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ***

Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.

This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.

This unjust judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!

Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!

For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.

It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.

This facade of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!

***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT,BECOME THE GUILTY !

A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE:
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT
IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM.*** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !

lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com

WHEN GOD'S FACE BECAME VERY RED !

INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH FEDERAL APPEALS !!!

The pison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.

*** WHEN THE INNOCENT ARE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ***

Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.

This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.

This unjust judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!

Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!

For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.

It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.

This facade of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!

***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT,BECOME THE GUILTY !

A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE:
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT
IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM.*** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !

lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com

ksjrpa uaxyzjg oztfdlrke ijdycnsu ulsgioc invfzrxg jlocit

hlumi mwep iaegh racmjeysz kwpsqtu bnwdj lvxezf

abzvprq joslz dlkgy gimkchtrs wuylbijz teimnz gjsrc http://www.ykirlbufn.decmyzbl.com

kucynsjlv huxycsde dfitocxsh rkqb byldwfi cfmnedzk cgmzrsvf

When we choose the characteristics we most admire in a potential leader the specific religion or faith of that individual is secondary to character traits such as personal integrity, moral values and committment to principles of human decency. The Bible states "and by thier fruits ye shall know them."

It is extremely naive and biased to make general statements about people based on ethnicity, race, or of course religion. I know men and women of unquestionable moral character in all faiths. To believe that anyone of the LDS faith is any less lacking in virtue or allegiance to high moral standards than another faith is insulting to everyone of all faiths.

It is in my view sad that we have become so jaded and cynical that we cannot accept that there are individuals who will be true to core conservative values, be alturistic in purpose and principle driven. Shouldn't that be our focus when considering the attributes of our leaders? If you espouse to believe in integrity, sanctity of life, protection of the family and other basic Chrisitan/Judeo moral values should you not vote for the person who most represents those values regardless of religion?

At times I think that politicians need to keep their religious and spirituality beliefs to themselves. The reason being is that when a politician lies, steals, cheats, or whatever, there or those people who will mock the politicians religion,and or God. Its a never ending circle, a cat chasing its tail. God gives freedom of choice to all of us. And the consequences for those choices. I have to remember it it the politican who uses religion and God for his/her own agenda, to get elected and stay elected. But then this is America, the so-called land of the free. Which means they do have the right to speak about their own beliefs. For me, a good indicator of how strong a politicans belief system is, is their behavior, not what they say. if they are constantly changing their positions on issues, changing their policies to meet the public opinion, always blaming others why nothing gets done then its a sure bet that they don't walk the talk. But hey, that sounds like all of them!

Crusader: STOP SPAMMING
Right this instant

Many people read the Bible and even earn the reputation as a Bible “scholar” because of their study and writings about what they have studied. But it is actually not the reading of the Bible that is the loving Him but the doing of it as James says in chp 1:22-25.

The apostle John also tells us in his first letter, chp 2:3-5 that knowing God is about doing what He tells us to do, or obeying His commands. If we do obey His commands His love is truly made complete in us. John goes on to say that another way we demonstrate our love for Jesus is to love our brothers. In fact, this is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in His presence when our hearts condemn us.

Knowing and loving God is all about doing as He lovingly commands His children. What are His commands? To believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as He commanded us.

Finally, Jesus commanded us in the “Great Commission” to go and make disciples of all nations… and teach them to obey everything He commanded us. A disciple is a student who carries his role much further than the typical student of today. He is one who not only learns the teachings of his master but also works to become like his master. The commands of our Master are actually few; believe and love.

Fortunately He does not order us to somehow develop emotional responses, as we are prone to define love, He simply says, I love you, I will only command you to do what is good for you and for others and I will consider it love if you will just do your best to obey what I have commanded you. Believe in Me and love as I love. Know Me, love Me.

Al,

Mitt Romney's standard response to questions about religion is that Americans want a person of faith. Here is a youtube video on Hannity and Colmes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDPifOZ6j1Y

Expanding Romney's language Otterson wrote this essay, which implies that atheists and non-monotheists cannot become president.

If you look you will probably find more youtube videos of Romney with the same language. I have heard several times. It's his standard response to questions about religion.

al

Barbara Anderson
IS
the most far right voice in Massachusetts
not that that is too hard.

as i said
HE is going to soft pedal his Mormonism
while relying on Mormon donors/businesspeople

and getting questioned about his religion
by others
whether he should or not

But again
YES
vote for him, or don't based on his positions.
i agree

I looked at Mitt's official site http://www.mittromney.com/
couldn't find any mention of mormonism.

Even looked at a supporter's website
http://www.americansformitt.com/index.html
other than non mormons mention he was a mormon, could find anything.

Even had this comment:
“We couldn’t be happier with him. Without Romney, we would have been slapped with a lot of new taxes.”
–Barbara Anderson, Citizens for Limited Taxation (Massachusetts)

If you are a conservative he looks a good candidate. If a liberal, he would be a danger.

Gadianton:

I appreciate your caution.
Again, I am an Ex Mormon
and would NEVER vote for Romney
either for Governor of Massachusetts
or
President of the good old US of A.
because of his political positions.

However
my position
which I recommend to you for your consideration
is
that if
Harry Reid, a mormon
were running for President
I would not automatically disqualify him
JUST because of his Mormon-inity.

I would have to think about whether his
Pro life position
was important enough to me, in a Negative way
as his good postions.

But that has nothing to do with his
Mormon-inity.
(I am starting to like that phrase).

My brother David is a mormon lawyer in DC.
I would vote for him if he ran for president.
He goes to church with Harry.

To answer your question, Al, yes, Mitt Romney does wear his religion on his sleeve. He does deploy his religiosity as an asset. His statements imply that an atheist shouldn't be president and blame gays for the decline of the family.

James,

I respect your position however I would not vote for Romney based on what I know about Mormons. His allegiance is in SLC.

Thanks James, in the end a discussion most appreciated. I think we are on same wavelength. Not being a Massachusetts resident myself (or a mormon ), your firsthand experience and opinion about Mitt is making me research more into his political position as I think through this. Regards.

Al
i agree with you,, on i think all your points.

i am a fourth generation Mormon (ex)
and a Massachusetts resident

so I think i understand how mitt's religion interacts with his candidacy
and I would not vote against him
just because he is a mormon
or because i was afraid he would promote his religion.

i think most americans WILL get to this position if mitt has a chance.

but he DOES have a mormon problem
regardless of what you and i think.

for instance
the stupid evangelicals are against him
for some silly reason.

lots of people DO still think Mormons are
"strange" and I, like you, hope that bigotry is eliminated by the time elections start.

His political positions are pretty standard conservative political positions, and people SHOULD vote for or against him based on those political postions.

James and Yockel,
Does Mitt have a problem with his wearing his "mormon-ity" on his sleeve? Does he push his religion to advance his candidacy. Or is his religion a liability?
Maybe this discussion shows his mormon-ity to be a liability. I guess how he handles it during this very long campaign will reveal whether he wears it on his sleeve to advance his candidancy or not.
But I agree we do need to know who the financial supporters of candiadtes are?
Does it show any hidden agendas or political contracts if he/she wins office - maybe, maybe not.
But I hope, I know naively, that we don't stereotype or personality profile someone on their religion. My family came from Glasgow, Scotland and I saw it between Catholics and Protestants as a child. My mother was green ( Catholic) and my father was orange (Protestant). That's why they left there, because of the religious bigotry.
I just hope we don't reject Mitt, or anyone, just because of their religion. And in the same tone that Mitt does not promote his religion. Thanks.

Hey Just Nobody
I'm Nobody Too.

Though i am an *Ex Mo*
i am still sensitive when the public here in Massachusetts talks about how wierd those mormons are.

I usually defend them (us).
I say, Mormon religious beliefs are only marginally wierder than any other religious beliefs.

But the point is
There are lots of people who
ALMOST always wrongly

ARE prejudiced against a Mormon candidate because he is a Mormon.

I'd never vote for Romney, but not because i am afraid that he is going to incorporate fundamentalist christianity into government any more than Bush did (which is to say, a HECK of a lot).

But many people out there might. So Romney DOES have a Mormon Problem, rightly or wrongly.

BTW, I do think the 13 articles of faith are "wrong." I don't think the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

Sorry, I errored in the 13 Articles bit. I was thinking of 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
Mybad, guess I need to rememorize them again..... getting shabby, we all know how that is.

Wow, it all seems so silly.
Just look at the core LDS beliefs.
What's wrong with them?
Do you disagree?
Read the last 10 13 Articles of Faith. Do you have think their wrong?
And as far as this "blood oath" in the temple goes, I (an endowed member) think it would make all you "bagging on it" look like over zealous anit-mormon biggots if it were all over the news. Sure, spread it over the airways, it'll make more people ask questions, I'm down with that.
Reasonable people don't find offense from the church as a whole (although I do know some members that don't know when to shut-up).

Al,

The reason why Romney's faith is more relevant than Reid's is Romney's message.

Romney and Otterson say that Americans want a person of faith for elected office. Reid says that he does not wear his religion on his sleeve.

When Romney proclaims his faith a reason why people should vote for him, he opened the door to investigate his beliefs. Reid, on the other hand, has done his best to close the door when he asserted on Meet the Press that he does not wear his religion on his sleeve.

When Romney runs on faith and implies that he is superior to people that do not believe in god then he has to bear it when voters question the particulars of his faith.

I agree with you that Romney has demonstrated independence from his church. Unfortunately, we also had to witness that he was becoming much more orthodox during the last months and years.

Personally, I find it appalling that someone would run on a message: I might be a Mormon but I am better than an atheist. Vote for me.

It's appaling because it reveals a lack of support of religious freedom for every American. Romney is settling for religious freedom of candidates that happen to believe into his kind of a god.

In effect, Romney and Otterson are redefining religious freedom at the expense of all those people that do not subscribe to the monotheistic traditions. Under that definition, Mormons get to hang out with evangelicals in the public square while Romney and Otterson are excluding atheists and adherents of Eastern traditions.

Romney's and Otterson's position is unethical because excludes many American citizens and violates the Golden Rule.

That view of religious freedom is politically relevant. Romney and Otterson should answer for their political actions even if they are religiously motivated.

In my opinion, they are representing the Mormon position poorly but that's another topic.

Al
i think yours is a principled and honorable position. And I don't think we disagree MUCH.

Leaving Mitt out of the picture

I want to know all the major donors to any presidential candidate's campaign, in addition to her biography.

If Romney (or Reid) or any candidate has NO significant contributions/organizing support from any religious group, and uses no religious rhetoric/symbolism in his campaign, religion WILL truly be a non issue.

AGAIN, Bush has used religion and religious support extensively in both of his campaigns, including trumpeting his own beliefs and bornagainness.

therefore in his case relgion is clearly a political issue.

I agree it SHOULD not be. if i could wave a magic wand, all candidates would keep their religious beliefs to themselves and not put them in to the campaign.

when THEY do, we should notice. and try to figure out what it means.

i would guess you agree with that.

respectfully

j

thanks for the web references

A mormon friend sent me this website which is the mormon church's response:

http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-462-44-462,00.html

and a journalist's assessment on it at this webpage, which raises good issues:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,655191956,00.html

Give it a read. I still think no candidate should have a religion test for my vote. I don't care if he attands church or not.

"The Bible says the holy spirit leads to all truth. George Bush relied on the Holy Spirit to lead us into the Iraq war under false pretences. I think we need additional standards of truth."

I don't want to be led down this road of politics and being led by the spirit. I think Jesus said it best "render that is of Ceasar unto Ceasar."

James, but I can see Mitt's conservatism by looking at his policies and record of business and public performance, not the church's.

If Mormon = Conservatism and Mitt is a Mormon and he has mormon friends, then Mitt must be a conservative.

Yes, a semi-intelligent person sees the logic.

I'm sorry, but we agree to disagree for I don't think his "mormon support will affect his presidency" just as I don't belive it does for any mormon in public office, even Harry Reid - well let we restate that - yes I want to know his beliefs and background and yep I believe it affects Mitt's and Harry's thinking on life and the role of gov't, but the above logic that you give should not be part of my thinking. In other words, Mitt's mormon friends will not affect my support or opposition to him. It's Mitt himself that will affect my vote.

I am beginning to feel like a mormon sympathiser, and I have only worked with one, but my view remains that a person's religion should not be in the equation. His policies and public performance is what I judge. Sorry.

Al

Let me be perfectly clear. I am not worried in the least that Romney will try to turn the US into a Mormon State. Couldn't if he wanted to, and he doesn't.

His relatively strong identification with the Mormon Church is signifcant because
• the Mormon Church is the most Conservative Republican Sect in the US
= the church has pretty clear positions on Women's rights (fought the ERA), Gay Rights (supported the defense of Marriage act)
so I as a semi intelligent voter say that
since Romney is more openly allied with the Mormon establishment
and the mormon establishment is notably conservative
that indicates that he is going to lean even more in the conservative direction.

It is INFORMATION that I use to assess what Romney would do if President.

It is PART of the picture. Reid has a record of supporting Democrat positions by and large, though he is a MOrmon and mormons are overwhelmingly republican. that is also information.

We are entitled to know as much as possible about the influences and belief systems of a candidate.

We have to evaluate them intelligently, without bigotry.

It is NOT bigotry to say
I James would like a president who appoints liberal judges, and Romney, in PART because of his beholdedness to the Mormon church that helped get him elected, is much more likely to appoint conservative justices.

Not bigotry. Common sense. Love the Mormons. Great people.

Romney's mormon support will affect his presidency.

I do not mean to offend. But as I read what you say I think - if it's not an issue then why raise it. Why is Mitt Romney's mormon faith more relevant then Harry Reid's mormon faith.

Give me real evidence not accusations. I gave you earlier evidence (25 Jan 1:21pm)where Mitt Romney took positions not in line with the mormon church.

James you say "There are significant issues in Romney's connection to the Mormon church that have political and public relevence."

Betty you say "Romney's religious background is CLEARLY and OPENLY relevent to his political campaign."

Once you raise it ( and its a democracy in which you can), you must give solid evidence to support your argument, otherwise the discussion deteriotates and it begins to sound a lot like relgious bigotry.

When you say Mitt receives support from mormon friends, I feel what you are implying is - will Mitt's mormon friends twist his arm and make America a mormon state - get real. Massachussets, where Mitt served as governor has not become a mormon state. Even Gov Jon Huntsman Jr. of Utah, a mormon, has come out in support of Sen. John Cain, not Mitt Romney. So do I question Sen. John Cain's mormon connections, and every other time any political candidate gets support from a mormon.

I oppose or support a candidate on what Supreme Court justices they may appoint and Stem Cell bills they propose, based on how I feel about those issues. I cannot cross the line by bringing religion in.

Religious Freedom

I agree with Betty.
However, she doesn't specifically address your caution about Bigotry.

If I vote against John Kennedy SOLELY because he is Catholic, that would be bigotry
Just like if you vote against someone SOLELY because he is an Atheist, that would be bigotry

(as to voting against someone SOLELY because they are a Scientologist, i'm not SURE that would be bigotry or rational thinking).

However, If I vote against George Bush because I believe his public identification as a Born Again and his resulting alliance with the Religious right will lead him to appoint Supreme Court justices I don't like and veto Stem Cell bills I DO like,
THAT is NOT bigotry.
That is rational prediction about how a candidate's demonstrated/stated religious views affect his policy decisions.

So your statement - "it's bigotry" - is too simplistic. Too black and white.

Voting against someone just because she is Black or a Mormon is bigotry, yes.

But in Romney's case, it is not that simple.
I would vote for Harry Reid. So I don't automatically disqualify someone JUST because they are a Mormon, and I don't think Betty would either.

Al

A couple of points:
Everything in a candidate's biography is legitimate information for the voters to know about.

If a candidate has never gone to church publicly, and never said anything about religion,
The Press is still entitled to ask him
"do you have any religious beliefs that affect your political beliefs:."
The candidate is free to say "I have always kept my religious beliefs and practices a private matter." I love it when they say that.

Romney's religious background is CLEARLY and OPENLY relevent to his political campaign.

The Blinking Boston Globe ran a front page article about how Romney is using a Mormon network to raise money and organize support.

If a candidate is raising money from Labor we the people are entitled to know that too.

This HAS NOTHING TO DO with Article Six. Don't you get that.

The GOVERNMENT is NOT applying a religious test.

Voters are voting for candidates with full information about them, and democracy lets them vote on whatever basis they want.

If I think George bush is too beholden to the Religious right and therefore more likely to veto Stem Cell bills, it is my right to vote against him for that reason. And vice versa.

RELIGIOUS TEST means that there is LAW that says "Only Catholic Priests and eligible to be elected President, and no Muslim can be President."

If congress passed such a law, the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional in a heartbeat.

I, however, have every right under the constitution to vote FOR OR AGAINST a candidate because he is a Mormon (or an Atheist).

Betty, (and James)

"no one wants to Bar mormons from holding political office.

John Kennedy said: "i don't speak for my church on public issues, and my church doesn't speak for me"

HOWEVER,...." You can't say you raise the level of discussion by saying - I don't want to bar mormons from public office, HOWEVER.

You either raise a candidate's religion or you don't. No howevers or buts.

Does not just raising any candidate's religion violate Article VI "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"

The question I want to know is what is Romney's policy for the Middle East, Education, Environment and Trade. Then I can judge whether he is like Bush or not. I don't want to know about his religion.

Our forefathers established our nation to enable religious freedom and to focus on the issue not the religion. Raising religion (or colour or ethnicity or gender or social class) only brings out bigotry. Raise the level of debate and don't qualify any candidate by their religion.

Otherwise, I will vote for Abraham Lincoln or John Kennedy because it seems some of us may not have moved forward.

Bromides About Sincerity

We are getting the Sunday School Version of how Politicians *should* act from Mr Otterson.

Be Sincere.

How do you tell if a politician (or a PR man) is lying?
His lips are moving.

In the actual, existant, "reality-based" world, politicians manipulate religious symbols as artfully as they can in order to get elected.

George Bush has raised this art form to new heights (or, more accurately, lowered it to new deptths).

We The People have the obligation of Non Sunday School Grown Ups to be skeptical of any politicians or Government officials, in their "religious sincerity" and in their war claims.

It is a life and death matter.

And Otterson wants us to believe HE believes in sincerity in his own writings, which we should be *extremely skeptical* of.

So Michael's 4 part recipe is sweet, but has virtually nothing to do with how the reality-based observatble connection between religion and politics works in this country, or is likely to work for a good long. time.

Michael writes that ALL religious movements have had their critics.

Michael, does that mean that the criticisms therefore have no substance.

by that reasoning we could say
All political systems have their critics
So look at the good things Stalin does and don't try to correct his massive purges.
(NO, I AM NOT saying Mormons are as bad as Stalin: I am being dramatic to make the point).

The Bible says the holy spirit leads to all truth. George Bush relied on the Holy Spirit to lead us into the Iraq war under false pretences. I think we need additional standards of truth.

There are significant issues in Romney's connection to the Mormon church that have political and public relevence

Just like George Bush's fundamentalist christian beliefs have a very strong effect on his policies.

Heard of the Office of Faith Based Initiatives in the White HOuse.

I apologize for creating any ill will (but I did state that I felt that only a small minority were the bomb throwers and that it was not an honorable virtue). I am not trying to distract from anyone's criticism, but my point was that being fair is something everyone should always try to keep in mind.

To be fair, any religous movement has had their critics and critics and supporters do often pen history from their point of view. Witness the criticism that Cornelius the Roman Historian made of Jesus Christ and his followers which was pure slander; Christians were stupid and irrational to believe such things; Jews had more credibility because their religion was older; Jesus' real father was a Roman Soldier (Cornelius claims this as a documented fact -- Nonsense!); and so on.

So what it all comes done to is this: religous faith is not based on what a critic may say, but it is much deeper than that. I look to the Bible which says it is the Holy Spirit which leads us to all truth.

I strongly feel, that if one is secure is his faith then desire to tear down others' faith is non-existent. It shows a degree of insecurity to be a bomb thrower. It shows a lot of strength to engage someone in open dialogue.

How does this relate to a politician? A politician needs to ensure the maximum amount of religous freedom of all citizens. To do so I suggest the following:

1. Respect others.
2. Aknowledge differences and similarities.
3. Be secure in your faith.
4. Be sincere.

Imagine a world were this is the case for all politicians and dare I say for all citizens. Citizens should be allowed to advocate their faith, but if the other 4 items are followed then I think their advocacy becomes even more effective.

John D
there is a message for you on the
"God is Grander" thread

Janrand,

Mr. Otterson's argument expands on the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Unfortunately, he did not cite Romney. To the informed observer, however, it is clear that Otterson is using this blog to assist the Romney campaign.

More importantly, Otterson's and Romney's point of view violates the principle of religious freedom because they are advocating standards that exclude American citizens from political office.

It is clear, therefore, that neither Otterson nor Romney are fully committed to the values of the United States Constitution. If you can explain to people why that isn't a problem then I might agree with you.

Reactions to Mr. Otterson

The question Mr Otterson is responding to has to do with the relation between a candidate's religious views and her candidacy.

Mr Otterson, as the first line states, does Media Relations for the Mormon Church.

Mitt Romney is a candidate for president. The Boston Globe ran a prominent article a month ago about his Mormon network of supporters.

He is perfectly entitled to have a Mormon network of supporters. But the public is also perfectly entitled to know what kinds of beliefs these Mormon supporters hold regarding public positions. If the supporters practiced child sacrifice, that would also be relevent.

The Mormon Church has a history of controversy. Polygamy, discrimination against blacks, political opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, numerous interferences with academic freedom (in other words, the search for the Truth)

Therefore. all these issues are ones the public can and Should be informed about. People should know that the church used to endorse polygamy but does not anymore (except in heaven).

They are also entitled to ask Romney (or any candidate) how his decision making relates to his relgion.

George Bush has CLEARLY been greatly influenced in his decision making by his born again status and his political connections with the fundamentalist community.

Janrand and the 6th Amendment

As I wrote in the post about two above yours:
"BUT for the 74th time
no one wants to Bar mormons from holding political office."

You imply that any sane non-mormon does want to ban Romney. That is a NON ISSUE.
There is NO NEED for you to argue the point.

As far as dear Mr. Otterson goes:

As far as I can tell,
he is the ONLY PR man among the columnists.
Most are people who are pursuing the truth in their religious statements. Religion Professors. Seminary presidents. Clergy. Journalists.

A PR man by definition is interested in polishing image. The truth is secondary.

Otterson has shaded/obfuscated the truth with regard to Mormonism often in his posts here.

Many of us feel that a public Forum, On Faith, should investigate what Faith organizations like the mormon church do to keep themselves going, and what effect their actions have on the humans who live under its sway.

Don't get on a high horse and tell us youu are civil and all the rest of us are uncivil. With 3 in 100 exceptions, the comments on this thread have been strongly worded by completely civil.

It seems ludicrous to me to verbally attack Michael Otterson who succinctly but proficiently endeavors to explain Article VI "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" as it applies to the very general debate in the "On Faith" column. (Also see Post's description "At The Washington Post and Newsweek, we believe the first step is conversation-intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation-among specialists and generalists who devote a good part of their lives to understanding and delineating religion's influence on the life of the world. The point of our new online religion feature is to provide a forum for such sane and spirited talk.")

For one thing,his credentials as stated in his bio are stellar. For another, he wasn't asked for an indepth explication of "The LDS Religion's Stance on Almost Everything: A 13 Million International Membershipwide Concensus," although if he were, I'm sure he could come up with a wide-ranging, even entertaining discourse. Nope, I think his response was an "A" student's response. They aren't always the most entertaining responses, but they are always on-point. The LDS church, like any other reputatable organization or inidividual, is understandably concerned with its public and private image, especially since yellow journalism has become the "method du jour" of much news reporting. You wouldn't ask any other organization or individual to hire unqualified personnel who couldn't give "A Student" responses. Give me a break. Of course I'm speaking from the point of view of one who can usually only give entertaining answers, not on-point, A-student responses. I admire Mr. Otterson's elocution. On such an emotionallly charged topic, he brings sanity and elegant simplicity, not demagoguing to the table. Call that boring or antiseptic if you want, I spell it "R-E-L-I-E-F."

janrand

Interesting discussion. An hour ago saw a couple LDS missionaries walking around the neighborhood. Maybe they'll stop by my house sometime. That would be fun. I wonder if they like Romney.

Sorry for the musings. You all may procede.

Mitt gets slammed by the moderator for not answering the question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

Al
with all due respect,
you don't have a higher level of conversation in your post than virtually any of the non mormons here.

You also don't seem to understand their point.

Their point is NOT
Mormons can't serve as President or Cabinet officer or Majorityh leader. Most of us love Harry Reid.

A couple of the points people have made, for what they are worth, are

1. the church has a large political influence on issues like Gay Marriage, Equal rights for women, and those influences should be made explicit.

2. Otterson is a PR man for the church who often distorts, shades the truth, in the opinion of some lies.

You can scroll back and see other issues, virtually all of which seem legitimate to me.

BUT for the 74th time
no one wants to Bar mormons from holding political office.

John Kennedy said: "i don't speak for my church on public issues, and my church doesn't speak for me"

HOWEVER, George Bush DOES speak for fundamentalist Christians on public issues, and fundamentalists do speak for him.

We want to make shure Romney is not like Bush.

I am disappointed in the way this blog has developed we seem to be discussing the LDS Church. Religion not Politics. LDS Church Leaders not Political Leaders.
Firstly, I asked an LDS friend at work about these questions and he said the church does not stop debate. This blog is proof of that. We are still a democracy. Any critic in any organisation (sports club, PTA, boy/girl scouts,even at work)can be fired or expelled if their criticism becomes disruptive. They can still criticise but they can do it outside the organisation. My friend referred me to a couple of lds apologetic websites http://www.fairlds.org and http://www.mormonwiki.com/mormonism/Main_PageThese Ex-mormons may have had a bad experience with the church, but who hasn't had some bad experience in any organisation. Gosh, I had a employer who was really bad and I and my family suffered. But we moved on, forgot about the employer, you can't live in the past. The employer wasn't going to change his mind. If the mormons don't allow gays to promote their gayity in church, fine move on - go somewhere else.
Sexual lifestyle and preferences are a key aspect in any religion.
Secondly, and the real issue and what the debate should focus on - Mitt Romney is not going to change church policy about women holding the priesthood, or anything else. I don't and wouldn't expect him to. So let's not debate this here. But can he change the direction of the government - his business and public record shows he has that ability.
What is Obama, Hilary, John Cain's record?
Thirdly, my political science 101 says that the separation of church and state is more about the church having no direct involvement in the running of government. As what occured in Europe up to at least the 19 century. Our government is not structured this way. There is a separation.
The separation of church and state has nothing to do with political candidates or office holders. Again Ezra Taft Benson was Secretary of Argic for 8 years while serving as an Apostle of the LDS church. No conflict occured there, having read Eisenhower biography by Stephen Ambrose.
Let's us I hope change this blog to a higher level of discussion and focus on Article VI of the Constitution which Mr Otterson is discussing.

Brother A: "I honor the priesthood as a responsibility and never have tried to control anyone with it for it is clear that it will be taken."

Yockel: That's the doctrine. In practice, domineering behavior often gets rewarded.

When Gordon Hinckley and his advisors upheld the excommunication of historians, for example, the LDS leaders neither lost their priesthood nor their church offices.

In fact, some of the stake presidents that were especially strident suppressing dissent were rewarded with promotions and became general authorities.

The Mormon Alliance maintains a collection of case studies of ecclesiastical abuse, which anyone can read at their website: http://www.mormonalliance.org/ . Rarely has an LDS officer been punished for abuse.

Volume 1, which covers sex abuse, is especially troubling with respect to Brother A's question.

That Damned Yockel is Right Again

Many protestant friends discuss issues of gay rights completely openly in Sunday School, and the gay people in their congregations feel completely comfortable identifying themselves as gay and taking part in the discussion.

It is morally unfortunate that anyone feels ostracised and socially unacceptable because of their sexual orientationl.

It IS ok to ostracise and consider socially unacceptable someone who has sex with children.

Good for you, Anonymous. You and me may not agree about everything but I love the spirit of your message.

The Mike Otterson-On Faith experience shows how little Mormons discuss their differences with each other. If it were acceptable to explore matters such as human rights of gays in Sunday school or our neighborhoods then there would be a lot less acrimony in this forum.

Unfortunately, the Mormon establishment has been successful in shutting down open debate. Once Mormons can openly discuss their religious differences, things will improve.

That is not only a choice of Mormon leaders. It is something that Mormon people can decide for themselves. It will, however, require independence.

I think my post was taken wrong by some. I don’t look at it as if I am better then anyone else like it was implied by some, though I can’t speak for anyone but myself. I honor the priesthood as a responsibility and never have tried to control anyone with it for it is clear that it will be taken.

Why is a group set aside? I don’t know. In the OT it was the sons of Levi; I imagine the rest of the children of Israel had similar questions.

My question still stands, if this is not Gods church why would changing it make any difference? If it is not of God, Please let us know what you believe about God and the purpose of this life.

Anonymous,

"Your list of exclusions and insinuation that God has a list of folks, that if they were to be inspired, would destroy his authority is just plain wrong and doesn't help those of us with diverse children and families living in this world."

I, in no way meant to insinuate the above. I truly believe God loves and inspires all his children. We all have our own struggles and it is our responsibility to work out our salvations, which is available to all.

Anonymous,

You are pathetic. The only disgrace to the Church is people like you. Your "priesthood" is an excuse to oppress women and others that men in your organization want to control. The day will come when your set of beliefs and your pedophile prophet JS will be exposed for what they are.

Thanks Anonymous
for your moral clarity
in response to Brother A's odious sentiments.

Ex mo's like me appreciate the goodness of active Mormons (am I right?) like you and my brother.

Brother A.

You are a disgrace to this church. I trust that my friends and family and others that may read your comments realize how awful your comments are, and that they are hopefully not endorsed by others. We do believe in a holy order and Eternal Plan and in the Priesthood, though the Priesthood is viewed as a responsibility and not just a privelege. Your list of exclusions and insinuation that God has a list of folks, that if they were to be inspired, would destroy his authority is just plain wrong and doesn't help those of us with diverse children and families living in this world.

Perhaps those groups that you have created boundaries and boxes for may never lead our church, but their feelings, families and acceptance is critical to their health. Also, its critical to families of gay people to have a place to go and worship and take the sacrament and pray, without thinking they are sharing a spiritual place with people like you.

Why don't other pro-LDS people stand up to you and your nonsense? I wish I knew.

Please, to all that read this, please dismiss these rotten comments from Brother A. I will. Hopefully, you can too.

Thanks Mayan Elephant. Please forgive us all.

I would love to see Truman Madsen here.
He was my mission president growing up:
a brilliant and sincere man.
and NOT a PR man.

that would be so refreshing, and so much more productive of useful dialog.