As I've written before, there's not much a US president can do on his own. He needs the cooperation of Congress. He can only advance the interests of the LDS church if those interests happen to coincide with the interests of the congressional majority. Some of the church's interests do, but those are going to be debated and possibly legislated whether there's an LDS president or not.

If, for example, you believe in separation of church and state, in marriage equality, in legal abortion, would you be better off with a never-mo conservative like Santorum or Perry? If you think the main problem is the LDS church's business empire, would anti-regulation hawks like Paul or Gingrich be better than Mitt?

We could all be FAR more fucked over by ordinary political issues than we would by anything uniquely in ChurchCo's interests a Mormon president might be able to do. Worry about those things first. Even better than worrying, get involved in the political process -- whichever side you're on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2012 11:50AM by Stray Mutt.

I tend to agree.

I totally agree.
Some of us are old enough to remember when Kennedy ran for office and he was...horrors.... a... Catholic! People liked to discuss how much influence the Pope would have over the USA.

I would hope that people can set aside their religious bias's and in some cases hatred of other people's religion when it comes to public office.

It's not so much the worry that a Mormon would be in the White House, but the acceptance that the church might get if Mitt was in the White House. Two different things. I don't want anyone else to think the church is a good thing and get suckered in.

On the substantive side, the President has a great deal of latitude when he/she wears the Commander in Chief hat. This is very disturbing. Just think about how naively the Book of Mormon approaches violence. Helaman and the stripling warriors for example. Mitt can't just give the troops a priesthood blessing and tell them that if they avoid alcohol, tobacco, and porn they'll be protected. This is for real!

Mormons do think about these things in the context of their scriptures. In a national security politics class at BYU we had a reader called "Wielding the Sword While Proclaiming Peace". People drew on examples from the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants etc. when considering the advisability of premptive war, nuclear deterrence, and intervention in civil wars and genocides. There were different perspectives, but these were senior academics and policy makers (including people in the State and Defense Departments) referencing this Joseph Smith fantasy stuff to justify their arguments.

I cannot read Mr. Romney's mind, but you can rest assured that plenty of people in his professional network advising him will be similarly hindered by Mormon worldviews.

Personally, I do not want a Mormon in the White House. I live in Idaho and our congressional delegates are far more influenced by the State of Utah than most states. My BIL was a former representative and is now a lobbyist in Idaho. He has mentioned several times that Idaho will look to Utah for many of its laws, etc. because there are so many in the legislature that are LDS and will look to the "mothership" for direction.

For example, there recently was a law that Idaho was trying to pass where college students could carry guns on campus - WTF?! From what I understand, Utah is the only other state that has this particular law on its books (altho I haven't researched it). Thank gawd our not-so-bright governor vetoed it!

We need to be fair. Lots of states adopt neighboring state policies. Idaho and Utah are neighbors.

Most of the presidential candidates seem to be morally and intellectually deficient already. Adding mormonism to the mix, if the person is TBM, just exacerbates the problem.

Remember when Stewart Udall was Secretary of the Interior and played a part in helping his mormon friends rip off Native American tribes when it came to paying for mining or water rights? That's how business-as-usual works within the mormon network.

I am afraid that his election will legitimize the church and that the public will think that anyone who criticizes the church at all is a bigot. That would be silly and harmful for people like us.

First of all, if Mitt were to be elected Pres, there would be so much scrutiny regarding any decisions he makes to see if there were any influence peddling from 50 South Temple, that I don't think overt influence would ever happen. I think he would tend to look at religion when filling staff appointments, but probably not those that require congressional approval. That would be too obvious, but then we are dealing with a mormon here...

That being said, all of the candidates bring with them their own biases, religious or otherwise, to the office of president. Santorum has is extreme Catholic views, Perry has his Christian right, Mitt the Mormon biases. None of them can help but view the office of president through those lenses. Every president in the past has done so to some extent.

I, too, am afraid that Mitt as Pres would legitimize Mormonism to some extent, but I hope it would bring the sharp lens of a microscope also.

In the IQ department, Romney has more in common with our 43rd president than any other in recent memory...

Add to that the cognitive similarities between Mormonism and Bush's "evangelical tendencies," and I think our worries are justified...

And my sources tell me the stuff that's going on in your state is horrifying as well... I'm thinking an articulate voice like yours should be raised at them rather than doing Romney's work for him...

Edit: And this just in from the "President's e-mail" addy (I've been on the mailing list for a few years):

sub: Romney on LGBT rights

> The Mitt Romney who ran for U.S. Senate in 1994 promised voters in Massachusetts that he'd be a stronger advocate for LGBT rights than Senator Kennedy.

>And in 2002, while running for governor of Massachusetts, Romney's campaign passed out fliers for Pride Weekend, saying "All citizens deserve equal rights regardless of their sexual preference." But on Sunday afternoon, Mitt Romney's current campaign actually disavowed that 2002 flier.

I know this is a personal issue with you as it is with me...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2012 04:41PM by SL Cabbie.

Interesting reference Cabbie to a very numerical and verifiable quantitative statistic. So what is or was Bush's IQ? Or is this just unsubstantative speculation on your part with no facts backing it up?

(Bush in Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000)

Genius, pure genius! More of my favorite Bushisms:

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" —Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." —to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." —Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Not that saying incredibly stupid things equates to a low IQ, but you gotta admit the guy was a comedian's dream. I think Romney could be extremely entertaining too.

Mitt will do what the Illuminati tell him. I believe, beyond any shadow of a doubt (sob, sob), that he has all the conviction and personal integrity of a meth-head Mormon missionary numbers whore.

Original post said "there's not much a US president can do on his own. He needs the cooperation of Congress."

I said approximately the same thing last election and see where that got us! Just sayin'!

I am concerned about his Mormon thinking and the possible (likely) influence on his world view and use of force.

I am concerned about the legitimizing of the Mormon church through having a Mormon president.

And, I don't want to have to leave the country because I won't be able to stand all the crowing from members!

The Edmunds-Tucker Act passed overwhelmingly by the Republican House 202-40 (even in the Democratic Senate it passed 37-13) was designed to destroy Mormonism. If that goofy old fanatic John Taylor had lived a couple of years longer it might have succeeded.

I know, I know--it was a different party then. Still, don't you think somewhere in our great nation there are some conspiracy-minded descendants of those poor persecuted polygamists who are glorying in thoughts of revenge?

I suspect that if Mitt does get elected, within a short time the TBMs will stop crowing and start cringing. Maybe a Mormon in the White House can finish off Mormonism once and for all.

As others have noted, a Mormon winning the Presidency of the world's only current superpower would do more to legitimize the church than all the door-knocking the 50000 grinning idiots could ever do.

The problem, though, is what happens when more Mormon beliefs seep into the collective global understanding.

Personally, given that most of the religious nut jobs in this country are actually evangelicals who can't get along with Mormons, having a Mo president might be a fun wedge to use on the social conservatives. A house divided and everything.

Plus, I have said it before, a Mormon president would lead to four years of scrutiny that the church is not ready to handle. Just wait until the press corps starts digging up the stuff we take for granted, but most people think is too weird to actually be true. They'll be surprised that garmies are just the tip of the ice burg.

I don't believe the U.S. is a functioning democracy any longer.

It is more akin to a corporatocracy. We have the illusion of a representative republic, but not in substance.

If Mormon, Inc wants to access to political power, they need to pony up the money, just like the rest of the s&p 500.

I don't think a few billionairies fighting over which multi-millionare gets to be their new errand boy has anything at all to with my life or millions of others like me.

Corporations are people. Their feelings matter most. They are a special kind of people who need special attention and care. Thus us politicians will do anything for them. People with a pulse though (my family excepted) are the enemy because they sometimes try to sue these beloved people we call corporation. When the Constitution says "We the People" you can be sure that the good folks at Bain Capital and LDS, inc. headquarters sole corporation know what that means.

just a thought Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't believe the U.S. is a functioning
> democracy any longer.
>
> It is more akin to a corporatocracy. We have the
> illusion of a representative republic, but not in
> substance.
>
> If Mormon, Inc wants to access to political power,
> they need to pony up the money, just like the rest
> of the s&p 500.
>
> I don't think a few billionairies fighting over
> which multi-millionare gets to be their new errand
> boy has anything at all to with my life or
> millions of others like me.

This^. Totally agree.

The perception that a Mormon in the White House would legitimize Mormonism, or give them a political edge is based completely on hysterics. There is no real thought behind the sentiment.

You think they are high and mighty dooshbagges now- just wait until they have one of their own as the oval office placemat.

In the 1950’s, Ezra Taft Benson was appointed U. S. Secretary of Agriculture by President Eisenhower.

In Mormon circles it was whispered that this placement of a Mormon at such a high level of responsibility was in preparation for the Great-End-of-Days.

Outside of Mormon circles it was barely noted.

Romney’s coronation is similar.

To Mormons it will be a huge chest-bump moment.

To everyone else it will be a footnote in the history of the 21st Century.

ziller

It's bad enough that many American politicians are fundamentalist Christians; it's just as bad if a Mor(m)on became the President. Why can't there be a moderate Christian politician or a secular politician? Yes, I know separation of church and state technically exists, but Americans in general are so in your face about religious matters (even politicians too), that the lines are blurred. And Mor(m)ons must pay tithing; which means Romney will pay his tithing on his salary as the US President---which means 10% of it will go to LDS Inc.

Oh, and the rest of the world (especially other first world countries) will be disturbed or at least weirded out that a Mormon can become a President. It means to their minds, that Mormonism (a strange cult that most non-Americans don't take seriously) has reached mainstream.

To many people outside of the US it conjures up things such as 'they don't drink tea and coffee' (which is unthinkable in many regions and cultures outside of the US), 'they have to wear a specific underwear dictated by their church' (no other religion does this---although Muslims have veils, their underwear is not specified), 'they practice [or used to practice] polygamy', 'they are extremely homophobic', 'they deny evolution', 'they have to pay 10% of their salary to their church no matter what' (tithing is not taken as literally any more in other religions) etc.

Yea! You claim what the president is into isn't very important or influence others. Come on.

Remember Bush 1 made a petty, minor comment about not liking broccoli. The commodity crashed for a time and people bought less. Romney would be a full time Mormon advertizement for years a president and help the cult become more mainstream overall.

The worry I have is that someone in that position would be a life long victim of brainwashing. Magical beliefs, and the world view that MORmONism creats doesn't seem like it will mesh well with the commander-in-chief duties and responsibilities.