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.

snoscythe wrote:

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.

I am not refusing to do anything. When I lose something I always stop looking when I find it (usually the last place I look ). I am merely stopping because I am satisfied with my results. I don't need to compare them to anything else because I am satisfied. If it is assumed that I must continue looking at the other candidates then why must I stop there because I am able to write in a vote as well. And if I do continue I will be forced to discriminate between the candidates. So if I stop as soon as I am satisfied then I will not be forced to discriminate between them. Because that is what everyone who evaluates the candidates must then do. Find distinctions and discriminate based on those distinctions.

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.

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.

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.

For some though because he holds a temple recommend that is enough. He does not affiliate with all those things they say in the interview. Some people may not give a hoot about the war in Iraq or about healthcare or about the economic stance that he takes. Some people just want to eat chocolate ice cream.

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.