Let me make it abundantly clear that you are only guily of discimination if you vote for Romney because of his religion. If you have assessed the issues and like his economic policy, his plans for border security, etc., then there is no discrimination involved as you have made your decision based upon his personal merit.

It is when you make your decision based upon a category that you discriminate. Refusing to vote for Hillary or Obama is not racism or sexism if you refuse based upon her socialist ideals or Obama's permissive attitude toward infanticide while a State Senator in Illinois. You are only discriminating if the category in question is a qualifying criterion for the decision.

I am not bashing Romney or his platform. I am only bashing those who refuse to look beyond religion, either for him or against. I simply am standing by the perpetual counsel of the First Presidency to carefully study issues and candidates before elections and to make informed decisions.

snoscythe wrote:

imuakahuku wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

imuakahuku wrote:

One arguement is that those voting for him because he is Mormon are Mormon too and already have a pretty good understanding of what his values are. Whereas those who oppose him because he is Mormon do so on a biased and non-informed or incorrectly informed basis.

Ah yes, is it worse to refuse to vote for someone because of their religion, or to vote for them because of their religion. The problem with assuming that we know his religion and therefore know his values is that we are now discriminating against the other candidates because we do not know their religion and values--we are pretty much doing the same thing that people who refuse to vote for Romney are doing.

Those who refuse to vote for Romney because he is Mormon are generally those who are unfamiliar with the Mormon church and do not understand it fully. They choose instead to vote for candidates with whose values they are more familiar.

Mormons voting for Romney simply because he is Mormon and they think they understand his values are making the same fallacy. They are eliminating other candidates because they are unfamiliar with their religions. For all they know, McCain's religion may be just as morally rigorous as Mormonism, but they are too apathetic to find out. The difference is that non-Mormons voting against Romney are only discriminating against one candidate, those voting for Romney because of his faith are discriminating against every other candidate on the ticket.

The counsel of the First Presidency of the Church has always been to carefully evaluate issues and candidates, and to make the best decision. The idea of voting for someone simply because they are Mormon flies in the face of the very presiding authority of that Church.

Now, this is not to say that Mitt is not the best candidate, he very well may be, but vote for him for that reason, not for his faith.

No, it is not the same. They are not eliminating the other because they don't know their religion. When I buy chocolate ice cream it is because I like chocolate ice cream not because I haven't tasted the other flavors but because the chocoalte satisfies me. Neither do I need to taste the other flavors if I am satisfied with the chocolate flavor. Maybe strawberry is better but if I am satisfied then I am satisfied. There is no descrimination. But to vote against him (in otherwords for someone else because you don't want the Mormon to win) is descrimination.

Definition of descriminate:
dictionary.com states

1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.

You are discriminating in favor of the chocolate, and by extension against the strawberry. Legal precedent has established this as "reverse discrimination", meaning that by voting for Romney because of his religion, you discriminate in his favor, and therefore against all other candidates. If you are an employer and you discriminate in favor of the minority, you can be sued for discrimination against the minority.

Granted there are no lawsuits involved, but discrimination is discrimination. Unless you are making distinctions based upon merit, you are discriminating.

2. note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.
3. to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate

And if I make no distinction because I know nothing of Strawberry (or the other candidates) I cannot descriminate against it (or them). I make the decisions based on the merits that each posses. In the case of chocolate the merit is the flavor whereas with Romney the merit is the fact that he is Mormon which in my estimation identifies him as pro-choice, anti roe v wade, anti civil unions, etc. I do not have to know what everyone else stands for if I know what the first stands for and am satisfied with that evaluation. I don't have to taste strawberry to know I like chocolate.

jbar1221 wrote:

imuakahuku wrote:

[b]
One arguement is that those voting for him because he is Mormon are Mormon too and already have a pretty good understanding of what his values are. Whereas those who oppose him because he is Mormon do so on a biased and non-informed or incorrectly informed basis.

I dont think that argument stands up because it assumes that all people who oppose Romney based on religion are uninformed. I dont think thats true, some people are well informed about the church and just dont agree.

Personally I strongly feel that as members of the Church we have a greater responsibility to understand as much of a Member candidates policy because if elected, whether we agree or not, EVERYTHING that he (or she) did in their term would be associated with the church and its membership. I think if someone is going to be a national representation of me I should understand what they believe before I give them my support.

I said biased, and uninformmed or misinformed. I gave different classes from which to choose. You discriminate which category they fit in.

Oh and I found a cure for

imuakahuku wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

imuakahuku wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

imuakahuku wrote:

One arguement is that those voting for him because he is Mormon are Mormon too and already have a pretty good understanding of what his values are. Whereas those who oppose him because he is Mormon do so on a biased and non-informed or incorrectly informed basis.

Ah yes, is it worse to refuse to vote for someone because of their religion, or to vote for them because of their religion. The problem with assuming that we know his religion and therefore know his values is that we are now discriminating against the other candidates because we do not know their religion and values--we are pretty much doing the same thing that people who refuse to vote for Romney are doing.

Those who refuse to vote for Romney because he is Mormon are generally those who are unfamiliar with the Mormon church and do not understand it fully. They choose instead to vote for candidates with whose values they are more familiar.

Mormons voting for Romney simply because he is Mormon and they think they understand his values are making the same fallacy. They are eliminating other candidates because they are unfamiliar with their religions. For all they know, McCain's religion may be just as morally rigorous as Mormonism, but they are too apathetic to find out. The difference is that non-Mormons voting against Romney are only discriminating against one candidate, those voting for Romney because of his faith are discriminating against every other candidate on the ticket.

The counsel of the First Presidency of the Church has always been to carefully evaluate issues and candidates, and to make the best decision. The idea of voting for someone simply because they are Mormon flies in the face of the very presiding authority of that Church.

Now, this is not to say that Mitt is not the best candidate, he very well may be, but vote for him for that reason, not for his faith.

No, it is not the same. They are not eliminating the other because they don't know their religion. When I buy chocolate ice cream it is because I like chocolate ice cream not because I haven't tasted the other flavors but because the chocoalte satisfies me. Neither do I need to taste the other flavors if I am satisfied with the chocolate flavor. Maybe strawberry is better but if I am satisfied then I am satisfied. There is no descrimination. But to vote against him (in otherwords for someone else because you don't want the Mormon to win) is descrimination.

Definition of descriminate:
dictionary.com states

1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.

You are discriminating in favor of the chocolate, and by extension against the strawberry. Legal precedent has established this as "reverse discrimination", meaning that by voting for Romney because of his religion, you discriminate in his favor, and therefore against all other candidates. If you are an employer and you discriminate in favor of the minority, you can be sued for discrimination against the minority.

Granted there are no lawsuits involved, but discrimination is discrimination. Unless you are making distinctions based upon merit, you are discriminating.

2. note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.
3. to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate

And if I make no distinction because I know nothing of Strawberry (or the other candidates) I cannot descriminate against it (or them). I make the decisions based on the merits that each posses. In the case of chocolate the merit is the flavor whereas with Romney the merit is the fact that he is Mormon which in my estimation identifies him as pro-choice, anti roe v wade, anti civil unions, etc. I do not have to know what everyone else stands for if I know what the first stands for and am satisfied with that evaluation. I don't have to taste strawberry to know I like chocolate.

Definition #1 is the most applicable as it refers to distinctions made on the basis of a group or category. Romney belongs to the category of Mormon, and hence the decision is made.

And if you feel like you don't have to learn about what the other candidates stand for simply because you know Mitt is Mormon and they are not, you are still discriminating buddy. You are still discriminating based upon definitions 1, 2, and 3, whether you like it or not. If you refuse to learn about the other candidates because you use an availability heuristic with which to evaluate Romney, you still are discriminating (for better or worse) and you cannot be certain that you are truly voting for the candidate that best represents you, because your have not truly evaluated all candidates.

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.

I want to say, that I was never going to vote for Mitt, I never trusted the guy. I always felt that I just couldn't throw my support behind a person, who as I saw it, changed his stances to get elected. Yes, I know, that is politics, but I still don't understand it. As much as Bush was never respected, at least he had his perspective, and stuck to it. He always had at least that. I don't know who said it, but there is an old quote, " Till I die, I shall not remove my integrity from me." I felt that he removed some measure of his integrity to get where he is, and I always had real problems with that.

As far as Mormons overwhelmingly throwing support behind him, I completely understand it. Look at the data from the exit polls, black are overwhelmingly voting for Obama, women for Clinton, evangelicals for Huckabee. You vote for those who are like you, who you can relate to you. So it is completely understandable. I wanted Mitt to represent himself, the Church, and me as a member well. I still am up in the air on that.

That said. I served a mission in the Bible Belt, I faced this discrimination every single day. But the percentages were low. The thing that really bothers me about these evangelicals is this, We live in a day and time when Islamic Extremists seek to eradicate the infidel. And who is the infidel, us, Jews, Christians, Westerners. How can a supposed christian not see this. It bothers me that even in the church, there are some who have the same opinions toward evangelicals, or other Protestant faiths. We should be banding together as believers in Christ, like President Hinckley would say, "Bring the good parts with you, and see if we can add to it." People are stubborn, and ignorant, out of and in the church.

it is absolutely amazing that there are still so many who can be so shallow and narrow minded. There is a great big world out there. With all of our Heavenly Fathers children on it. It drives me nuts to see people, who call themselves good christians, be so bigoted, and shortsighted.