snoscythe wrote:

imuakahuku wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

happyvalleycougar wrote:

Sure, you can call it discrimination if you want. I personally think you should look at all the candidates and see who best matches your views and vote for that person. Just a couple of weeks ago my Thesis advisor said "Well, I guess I know who you're voting for this election..." (I'm not at BYU) and I said I am voting for Romney, but not because of his religion, but because of his economic understanding.

I also don't believe that voting for Romney because he's LDS is equal to not voting for him because he's LDS. Going with the Ice Cream example. If I really like chocolate and someone asks me what flavor to get, I'll say chocolate, even if I might actually enjoy strawberry more (but I haven't tasted it). On the otherhand, if I tell someone, get anything but strawberry, because I've heard it's bad, that would be discrimination in my book. Again, I personally don't think you should vote for someone just because they are LDS, but that's not as bad as not voting for them because they are LDS.

The ice cream example is still discrimination, but not with all the negative connotations that we give to it. It is ignorant discrimination as opposed to willful discrimination.

Since when was all discrimination bad? It isn't.

Only when the discrimination is made on the basis of category instead of merit.

I choose meat over vegetables. My kids choose candy over food. Because we "want" something doesn't mean we "don't want" something else. If you want to be technical you can say we discriminate with EVERY choice we make. That does not make every choice the same.

a1247 wrote:

Has anyone seen the video of McCain and his mother on a national TV show talking about Romnney and what he did for the Olympics? McCain's mother starts to go off on how the "Mormons" put the Olympics in the situation to have to have Romney come in and fix the problem and how it was all "the Mormons" fault everything went wrong. If you haven't seen the video its all over the internet.
So my question is this. As a state that is a red blooded republican state, is the LDS population still going to vote for a man who has a mother that is anti LDS? Yes it might be his mother and not so much him but to have his mother sitting right there next to him and have her go off on the LDS religion leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth. If you have not seen this video I really suggest that you go online and find the video. This man with his Mormon hating mom could be our next president and the worst part is you could be giving him your vote.

To start I will not vote for John Mccain. But trying to slander him with a 30 second rant by his senile mother is ridiculous. If you watch the whole video (The 10 minute version) Mcacain states at the end that his mothers words are not his and goes on to say he respects and admires mormons and thinks Romney's religion should not be an issue in the election.

CougarPeasant wrote:

I recall the exit polls for Utah were running 90% Romney in the Republican primary among Mormons. When analyzed further, it was clear that many remember what a great job Romney did with the Olympics, they remembered what Hucklebee said about Mormons and his overt bigotry, and they further cited that McCain has never had a following among Mormon Republicans. Romney was really the default candidate because he had done very well when in Utah with the Olympics and he wasn't the other candidates.

Obama did exceptionally well among Mormon Democrats as well, due to his positive speaking ability and because HE AIN'T CLINTON!!!

My personal experience in coming around to support Romney is this. I actually used his religion against him. I know he's an active Mormon and being Mormon myself, I would be branded as supporting him on that basis only. Plus, there were other candidates who had distinguished themselves at the national level already. It wasn't until I began seeing he was gaining the support of the conservative columnists who explained his platforms, his changes in light of what a Republican can and can't do in Massachussets, which I've lived and voted before so I knew what that meant and counted it a plus for Romney, and what he needed to do to attract a wider base than what he had to garner within the Mormon community and Massachussetts. Once I saw he had the mettle and policies that stood apart from his faith, then I came around and supported him as the best candidate in either party.

I hope others did the same thing, even if they didn't get to explain that when polled in the exit polls.

To be honest when I heard of the Mormon in the race I didn't immediately jump up and yell halleluia. I thought I hope he is not like Reed. So I carefully read and listened to whatever I could find and tried getting as much background about him as I could. Meanwhile I kept up on the other candidates and after all my evaluations I came to the conclusion that he would be the best candidate for the job. Because of his religion I was much more attentive to the details of his past and not just what people were saying about him. I hoped for the best but expected the worst. I think he got much closer to the best than the worst.

jbar1221 wrote:

blue42 wrote:

Now this unofficial survey taken at BYU where 9 out of 10 said they are voting for Romney because he is Mormon I have to take with a grain of salt because I am pretty sure if you asked the same question on whether they would vote for Harry Reid if he was running for President you would probably get 9 out of 10 that would say no.

I imagine this is directed at my post. You took what I wrote out of context. Heres what I said jbar1221 wrote:

In my experience here at BYU 9 out of 10 of the people who gave this reason for voting for Romney had no idea what his platform was. There only reasoning was that a Mormon candidate is more fit for office BECAUSE he is mormon.

So what Im saying is in my experience people who supported Mitt because he was Mormon were ill informed as to policy, record, experience, etc. Now I thought I made it clear that this was MY experience and didnt try to generalize.

I still dont see the diference between supporting Mitt because he is Mormon and opposing him because of the same. I also think its ridiculous to support Hillary because she is a woman or Obama because he is Black. In the same way it is ridiculous to oppose them because of their gender and race. As for the assumption that BECAUSE Mitt is mormon members know what he believes in and can trust him. I have never had a Bishop use my idea of sound economic policy or health care reform to determine whether I am a good worthy member of the church. There are TOO many important aspects of a presidential campaign that are not covered by knowing he holds a temple recomend to base my support or opposition on his membership in the church.

The difference that I see between supporting Mitt "because he is Mormon" and opposing him because he is Mormon is the difference in knowledge. I personally don't believe that anyone supports Mitt because he is a Mormon, though that's what is said. I believe someone who supports Mitt because he is a Mormon, is not in fact supporting him due to the fact that Mitt happens to be Mormon, but more because that individual believes that Mitt believes in being "honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtous, and in doing good to all men." That he believes in the importance of the family, and has a knowledge that families can be Eternal and just what that means. If it is a known fact that Mitt is active/has a Temple recommend, it is a high probability that we can assume a lot about his character (Honest with fellow man, loyal to wife/family, etc.) In contrast, a person who votes for someone other than Mitt for the only reason that he is Mormon, without knowing what that means, is doing so in ignorance and based solely on the fact that Mitt is Mormon.

Having said that, I do think that deciding to vote for anyone just based on religion alone is a mistake and more reasearch should be done into policies and plans. I can think of a lot of Mormons that I would not vote for as President of the United States.

imuakahuku wrote:

To be honest when I heard of the Mormon in the race I didn't immediately jump up and yell halleluia. I thought I hope he is not like Reed. So I carefully read and listened to whatever I could find and tried getting as much background about him as I could. Meanwhile I kept up on the other candidates and after all my evaluations I came to the conclusion that he would be the best candidate for the job. Because of his religion I was much more attentive to the details of his past and not just what people were saying about him. I hoped for the best but expected the worst. I think he got much closer to the best than the worst.

And were Reid running for president I would not vote for him, especially because he is LDS. But that is just me.

imuakahuku wrote:

To be honest when I heard of the Mormon in the race I didn't immediately jump up and yell halleluia. I thought I hope he is not like Reed. So I carefully read and listened to whatever I could find and tried getting as much background about him as I could. Meanwhile I kept up on the other candidates and after all my evaluations I came to the conclusion that he would be the best candidate for the job. Because of his religion I was much more attentive to the details of his past and not just what people were saying about him. I hoped for the best but expected the worst. I think he got much closer to the best than the worst.

EXACTLY!

Almost every single member of the Church I know was VERY worried when they heard about there being a Mormon Presidential candidate. They were very wary of him and any damage he might do to the Church, any mud he might slime on their good name. And the more my family and friends learned about him, the more we liked him. He is the perfect conservative candidate, while all the rest were adulterers, anti-mormons, and liberals. Many of my friends liked Ron Paul as well, because his "small government" principles match up with the teaching of the Church... and they chose to overlook his stance on Iraq. The rest of the Republican field was basically non-options, though one or two liked how McCain stood out in national polls against Clinton.