quote: I would even go so far as to say his Mormonism evidences toward his conservatism.
Right, because we all know that "real Mormons" vote republican. Mormons like me who are dyed in the wool leftist are probably on the verge or apostasy anyway.
[ January 30, 2008, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lobo: I think McCain is for McCain first, everything else a distant second.
Yeah, he got blown up a couple of times in Vietnam and went back for more because he's an adrenaline junkie.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I can understand why a Mormon would be a Democrat. I can't understand how a Mormon can be a leftist or liberal. They just don't go together.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't understand how a Mormon can be a leftist or liberal. They just don't go together.
You really, really need to work on that problem you have, speaking authortatively on areas where, in fact, you don't have any authority at all.
It comes as no surprise that you don't really know much about 'leftists' or liberals at all, to not know that there are many, many ways one can be liberal and still be devoutly religious, and to be more specific faithfully Mormon.
Just for fun, in what way do you think being a liberal and being a Mormon don't go together?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Social justice. Caring for the poor. Being in favor of free agency so people can make their own personal mistakes.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just for fun, in what way do you think being a liberal and being a Mormon don't go together?
And to make things more fun, let's throw out abortion and gay marriage, since those are the obvious answers.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are elements from both parties that are in opposition to general Christian and specifically Mormon doctrine, and there are elements from both parties that are perfectly in line.
Do not mix up gospel with politics. One is truth and the other is a sometimes-functioning mishmash of compromises and special interests. I'm a big fan of the American Experiment, but I don't take the sacrament every week to renew my covenants with a political party. You shouldn't either.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
As for abortion, I wasn't aware that being a liberal meant one was a fan of abortion, or even that one had to be pro-choice to be a liberal.
As for gay marriage, I wasn't aware that in order to be a Mormon, one had to ensure that in a secular society homosexuals need to be regulated more than heterosexuals.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Jon Boy was asking for examples other than gay marriage and abortion (which are issues where the church does take a position).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure that there's anything underneath it. I figured those would be Occasional's first two answers, and I wanted him to dig a little deeper. I'm aware that you can be a liberal and not support abortion rights or homosexual marriage or that you can be a conservative and support those things.
But the sentiment (at least among most Utah Mormons) seems to be that liberal = supporter of abortion rights and gay marriage, and since the Church opposes those things, then you can't be a good Mormon and a liberal.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh, OK. That's what I thought, Jon Boy, given what I know of you and your politics from posting, but I wanted to make sure.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my understanding of the church's policy on abortion, if there was a vote legal or not, you could vote either way and still hold a temple recommend.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy, I'm curious. I am unaware of any offical statements from the church on abortion rights. I know that the church advises its members that abortions should not be sought except under particular circumstances such as rape, threat to the mothers life etc. I wasn't aware that the church had taken a stand on the legality of abortion. If they have, I'd like a reference.
P.S. I'm not trying to be contentious here. I really do want to know.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: So, Edwards is out too now....
The timing of this makes me think Edwards was aware he'd hurt Obama's chances by staying on Tuesday.
But he also has no plans to endorse a specific candidate, so his reasoning is all the more complex.
Or else even he does not know what he is doing.
Tough break for Romney, he lost by 6% and thus gets 0 delegates.
Somebody else made a comment in this thread akin to, "If Giuliani does not win in Florida his campaign will go down as a text book example of how not to run a campaign."
I think that thought has been vindicated in the wake of the days events.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are no questions about political views or "how did you vote" in the recommend interview.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Rabbit, I can understand why a Mormon would be a Democrat. I can't understand how a Mormon can be a leftist or liberal. They just don't go together.
I'm sorry you are so unfamiliar with the teachings of your own church and the progressive movement. I'm afraid I don't have time right now to educate you on either.
If its worth any thing, while I understand how a Mormon can be a conservative, I can't understand how any Mormon (or follow of Christ of any denomination) can support large portions of the republican agenda.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Somebody else made a comment in this thread akin to, "If Giuliani does not win in Florida his campaign will go down as a text book example of how not to run a campaign."
I see it as an indictment against privileging Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It seems Giuliani lost largely because of state order. That doesn't strike anyone else as unbecoming of democracy?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I know, the Church has not opposed laws granting abortion rights like it has opposed laws regarding gay marriage. That wasn't my point.
quote:I see it as an indictment against privileging Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It seems Giuliani lost largely because of state order. That doesn't strike anyone else as unbecoming of democracy?
quote:Originally posted by scholar: From my understanding of the church's policy on abortion, if there was a vote legal or not, you could vote either way and still hold a temple recommend.
Yes, but you can vote either way on the gay marriage issue and still hold a temple recommend too. My understanding is that the church has never taken a stand on whether or not abortion should be legal, they have only taken a stand on when it is morally justifiable.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's something from the Church's website. I think that most members take to mean that they should oppose abortion rights.
Yes, I am familiar with that position. My point was that there is a difference between the church teaching that something is a sin and the church teaching that something should be illegal. I believe that many things are sins, even very serious sins such as adultery, but don't think that means they should be illegal. I find that most Mormons understand that distinction very well in the case of adultery but completely miss the distinction in the case of abortion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Somebody else made a comment in this thread akin to, "If Giuliani does not win in Florida his campaign will go down as a text book example of how not to run a campaign."
I see it as an indictment against privileging Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It seems Giuliani lost largely because of state order. That doesn't strike anyone else as unbecoming of democracy?
There was some discussion several pages back about how the delegate penalty for MI and FL jumping ahead could hopefully bring the whole state-order portion of the primary system into the spotlight, and maybe get it changed in the future. The problem with having all the states go at the same time is it gives even more advantage to the candidates with the most money. Still, something really ought to be changed there.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: My point was that there is a difference between the church teaching that something is a sin and the church teaching that something should be illegal.
Yes, there is. I never said there wasn't. My only point was that (I'm assuming) Occasional probably thinks that you can't be a good Mormon and a liberal because of issues like abortion.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We could kill two birds with one stone here. Get the GOP and Democrat party leaders in the same room with the BCS bigwigs and fix all the systems at once. Maybe work out one big playoff system for football and politics.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it had to do with the priviledges of those states so much as that Giuliani thought his lead was so secure, he could skip campaigning in 5 states and just pluck the biggest pear. I mean, if we count Iowa, I think it's only fair to count the caucuses in Wyoming and Nevada.
So I think Giuliani made a huge gamble that didn't pay off, he fell to hubris, *but* I would also like to see a rotation in the early states.
P.S. Re: The legality of abortion I think that if the legality of elective abortion were ever put to a vote of the populace, the church might well have a position. As it has been made the law of the land which we are obligated to honor and sustain, they aren't going to publish a position against it. It is something to consider re: gay marriage as well. Would we really be honoring the law if we denied marriage to gay people if it were established?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess Giuliani's withdrawal is going to wait until after the Edwards press has gone down. Such drama!
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Edwards' positions are closer to Obama's than Clinton's, but I don't know which way his supporters will jump.
And personally, I think he did Obama a favor by announcing today and taking some of the attention away from Clinton's meaningless victory party last night.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No kidding. And now (of course) Senator Clinton says she will work to make sure Florida's delegates get counted.
Isn't that so democratically-minded of her? I like how she took a stand against stripping the delegates before she won our primary (without *wink wink* campaigning)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think Edwards is a likely choice as Obama's VP? Seems like he was positioning himself that way.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be looking at Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas. Strong on her issues, good speaker (note she was chosen to provide the Democratic rebuttal after the State of the Union speech), and she'd provide an amazing ticket: an African-American prez and a female VP.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmmmm... Obama in the Presidency with Richardson as Secretary of State and Edwards as Attorney General...
...I like it. But who would be the veep?
[Edit: Oops, missed Chris' post above mine. Add his VP pick and we're looking at a pretty sweet Administration. Instead of Fantasy Football or Fantasy Congress, it's Fantasy Administration!]
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming he wins, Obama will pick Richardson or Wesley Clark. He needs international experience on the ticket, and either would also be an olive branch to the Clinton camp.
Clinton will go with Evan Bayh, most likely. Clark's possible here too.
I'm surprised Edwards has dropped out. I would have assumed he'd continue to amass delegates, then swing them to one or the other of the other two, based on a promise probably of Attorney General. He's too much a retread to go with VP again.
I'm not so sure his voters go to Obama. He tends to draw support from poor whites, who so far have been supporting Clinton overwhelmingly. My first impulse is that this hurts Obama.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
