• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Would a Mormon president be a good thing for non-believers?

skeptical

Muse
skeptical
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
957
Maybe its wishful thinking, but ole Mitt's victory in MI led me to wonder, would it be a good thing or a bad thing to have a Mormon in the oval office from the standpoint of non-believers.

On the pro side, I think it offers an opportunity to show just how ridiculous some of the beliefs of Mormonism are. Magic underwear. Indians were Jews. Blacks are not humans. (well, they didn't used to be anyway). Polygamy. etc. etc. My thought is that a lot of Christians might start to see just how ridiculous some of their own beliefs are. I also wonder if he would have the need to play to the so-called Christian right as much, since they might not care for the whole Mormonism thing anyway. (Robertson endorsed Guliani, which is a bit telling to me, even though he claimed it was about 9/11)

On the con side, he might try even harder than GW to appease the far right, which is just plain scary.

Just some random musings. Anyone else have a take on this?
 
No, I don't buy it. It might lend credibility and clout to Mormonism, but somehow I don't think pointing out how ridiculous the beliefs are would have any effect on the true believers. Bottom line: those capable of understanding can be made to understand regardless, and for those incapable of understanding, it won't matter. Because they believe things that are just as incredible and impossible, although they have more widespread acceptance.
 
Unlike a zealot like Huckabee, I think Mitt's religion is a big positive for the simple reason he downplays the hell out of it. Other than when they're forced to do that door-knocking thing, Mormons keep their beliefs to themselves. It's not like he's going to pass any polygamy laws or anything.

The non-religious may not trust him, but at least the fundimentalist right doesn't either. :p
 
When you get right down to it, most religions have aspects that are ridiculous or at least easily satirized. So the issue becomes more "What kind of people does it produce?" And in my experience Mormons tend to be nice people. So it might result in more people looking at Mormonism.

Not me, I like a beer now and then. :)
 
I don't think Mitt would push his religion like, say, The Huckster would. If Mitt became president, I think the whole Mormon thing would just fade away. In short, it would neither be good or bad from the standpoint of non-believers. Which is your OP question.

That said, I think it would be horrible for church/state separation. For example, I am convinced Mitt would continue Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives - if not expand them.
 
SezMe said:
That said, I think it would be horrible for church/state separation. For example, I am convinced Mitt would continue Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives - if not expand them.
Click to expand...
Did he do anything like that when he was governor of Massachusetts?
 
Well, the first time Mitt gets caught in the his undies, offering peace pipes to jews, calling animal control on black people, and marrying his second wife, let me know.
 
The most Romney would do is continue Bush's policies; faith-based initiatives, etc.

The last thing he'd do is try to push Mormonism or put any emphasis on his LDS beliefs; the moment he tried to pull that stunt, he'd face a huge revolt from his own party. The fundamentalist Christian wing of the party won't stand for that crap.
 
"Would a Mormon president be a good thing for non-believers?"

Sure. It would be fine. But not Romney.
 
BPSCG said:
Did he do anything like that when he was governor of Massachusetts?
Click to expand...
Were any faith-based programs in place in Mass when he became the head screw. I don't know but that would be analogous situation to give us some guidance.

[OT]The term "faith-based" really POs me. If it was replaced by its more accurate term "religious", the odious nature of such initiatives would become explicit.[/OT]
 
skeptical said:
Maybe its wishful thinking, but ole Mitt's victory in MI led me to wonder, would it be a good thing or a bad thing to have a Mormon in the oval office from the standpoint of non-believers.

On the pro side, I think it offers an opportunity to show just how ridiculous some of the beliefs of Mormonism are. Magic underwear. Indians were Jews. Blacks are not humans. (well, they didn't used to be anyway). Polygamy. etc. etc. My thought is that a lot of Christians might start to see just how ridiculous some of their own beliefs are. I also wonder if he would have the need to play to the so-called Christian right as much, since they might not care for the whole Mormonism thing anyway. (Robertson endorsed Guliani, which is a bit telling to me, even though he claimed it was about 9/11)

On the con side, he might try even harder than GW to appease the far right, which is just plain scary.

Just some random musings. Anyone else have a take on this?
Click to expand...

Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani because he is a strong supporter of Israel not because of 9/11. Apparently Robertson thinks Israel is the only country that matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom