Remember this from back in 1997?
Chicago Bulls basketball star Dennis Rodman has received the largest fine in the history of the National Basketball Association for his disparaging comments about followers of the Mormon religion. Rodman’s remarks, and the subsequent fine, came in June as the Bulls played the Utah Jazz in the NBA championship finals.
Following a road loss by the Bulls to the Salt Lake City-based Jazz, Rodman said, “It’s difficult to get in sync because of all the (expletive deleted) Mormons out here. And you can quote me on that.” He said his remarks were brought on by Jazz fans who were making obscene gestures at him. According to an Evangelical Press report, the controversial basketball player had made lewd comments about Mormons on two other occasions.
Rodman later apologized, claiming, “If I knew it was like a religious-type deal, I would have never said it. I’m sorry about that.” Bulls coach Phil Jackson also tried to rationalize Rodman’s remarks by stating, “To Dennis, a Mormon may just be a nickname for people from Utah. He may not even know it’s a religious cult or sect or whatever.”
Rodman was probably too stupid to be intentionally insulting people’s religious beliefs, but Phil Jackson is another story. Jackson was dismissive of the legitimacy of Mormonism as a religion. And this gets us to the latest Rasmussen survey that shows that 43% of Americans would never even consider voting for a Mormon, while a mere 38% would consider it. Inevitably this will lead to a bunch of articles about religious intolerance, bigotry, and even ignorance, in the American electorate. Some may choose to focus on the evangelical community, where 53% would not consider a Mormon, but the numbers show a much more widespread skepticism about the religion.
This leads to the question: How many Americans would consider voting for a member of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. I know I wouldn’t. And where do you draw the line between a ridiculous cult and a legitimate religion?
Our country is founded on the principle of religious freedom. The government (with some limitations) does not get to decide what is and is not a legitimate form of worship. At the same time, the electorate does not suffer from the same limitations. If they do not trust or want to be led by a Moonie, that is their (in my view) educated choice.
Mormons will chafe at comparisons between their religion and the Rev. Moon’s. But it is not at all clear what distinguishes the one from the other, or that makes one legitimate and one cause for an intervention and deprogramming.
The Church of the Latter Day Saints is a comparatively new religion. But age does not confer legitimacy. Christianity, Islam, and Protestantism were all seen as illegitimate innovations in their time. And LDS is growing at roughly the same pace that Christianity did in its first two hundred years. At some point enough citizens become adherents of a faith that the faith comes to be seen as a religion and not a cult. Mormonism is further along that path than Moonieism. The Mormons have a state, while all the Moonies have is the Washington Times.
Mormons serve, and have served, with distinction in our nation’s affairs. Moonies do not (at least openly).
Looking at the poll results, however, I am led to the conclusion that a sizable percentage of the American electorate sees Mormonism, like Phil Jackson, as a cult. Calling them bigots is arbitrary.
The spirit of our nation calls us not to impose any religious test for candidates when we enter the ballot box. But it doesn’t call us to recognize adherents of nutty theology as sane people worthy of public trust. Some religious beliefs should be disqualifying (not in the legal sense, but in the discretion sense).
Is Mitt Romney fit for public office? Yes. He served adequately as the Governor of Massachusetts and has the qualifications to be President. Is anyone that refuses to consider him for the presidency because of his religious beliefs a bigot? That is a much tougher call.
I don’t think it is necessarily bigotry. If you think adherence to Mormonism signifies a disturbing lack of judgment then your decision to exclude Mormons for support is based on your concerns about their decision making. And, yet, you could make the same argument about any other religion, sect, or cult.
I think the best way to go is to look at a person’s record of public service, not where they choose to worship. If their specific brand of faith is part of their political platform, then you should lend great weight to their choice of faith. But if their political platform is devoid of any religious agenda, then you should not prejudge someone for their private beliefs.
I would consider a Mormon, like Romney. I will look at his record, his platform, his campaign. But I wouldn’t even give a Moonie a chance. But I’ll be damned if I can defend that distinction.
Take the poll.
I’d vote for a Mormon so long as it isn’t a Republican candidate.
I seem to recall that there have been a few Democratic Mormon office holders. Like this one:
Harry Reid has done his best for us. I love him for it.
The Udall family, have been exemplary community and environmental leaders for nearly 100 years.
The demonizing or scapegoating of the other is the projection of the shadow by an immature mind that has not
integrated their own personae. An example would the our current president.
…because if it’s not an issue in politics yet, that day is coming too. And I doubt many people would seriously consider voting for a Scientologist any more than they would a Mormon.
Honestly , I hate the role that religion plays in politics. I mean really, the day is several generations off when a Christian politician can run for prez without making a show of semi-regular church attendance, and god knows how many more decades until an actual non-xtian could launch a serious campaign for that office. But it’s undeniable, an atheist running for president has no more chance than a man with a beard. Or a gay man. A Jewish candidate, a woman, or a black candidate might actually break the glass ceiling in my lifetime, and I suppose that’s cause for thanks on its own.
But I’d love to see the day when a candidate answered the religion question with “none of your business.”
I should have asked if there are any numbers on how an atheist would fare. That’d be worth knowing.
I mean really, the day is several generations off when a Christian politician can run for prez without making a show of semi-regular church attendance.
The Reagans didn’t attend church (at least not in public), not even ‘semi-regularly,’ when they were in the White House.
god knows how many more decades until an actual non-xtian could launch a serious campaign for that office
There was a time when outspoken atheist Jesse Ventura could have made a serious (though not likely successful) run for President.
But it’s undeniable, an atheist running for president has no more chance than a man with a beard.
Most of the Presidents in the late 19th century had full beards.
But I’d love to see the day when a candidate answered the religion question with “none of your business.”
That would be refreshing
I meant currently. Or did you not notice the savaging the press gave Gore for having the temerity for growing one in the days after Selection 2000? Jesus, imagine if he’d had one during the actual campaign.
On the Ventura thing, I would equate a serious run with one likely to achieve victory. And frankly, I liked what he had to say in the Playboy interview about religion, although later he toned it down…and turned out to be a horrible executive.
As far as the Reagans in church, well, you got me there, but that has to be an exception going back to every elected president since (not including) Kennedy. And there were a lot of extenuating circumstances, although of course there always are.
Has anyone studied anthing about the Mormon religion? I suggest a very readable book by Jon Krakauer (he wrote “Into Thin Air” about Mount Everest) called “Under the Banner of Heaven”.
There are religions and there are cults and the Mormons and Scientologists are cults, not religions (although most religions certainly have cult aspects to them).
Both of these cults were started in America and both were started by known con artists with criminal records to prove it. They have nothing to do with Christ and his teachings and everything to do with their founders quest for fame and fortune as well as their megolomania.
I second “Under the Banner of Heaven”. It’s a fascinating and well-written read.
it’s out in paperback or get it from your local library.
either way it’s a page turner, highly readable.
I was with you until you mentioned Christ. Is it your contention that any religion not based on Christ is a cult?
Would you consider any christian sects to be cults? I sure would, from personal observations….
The only reason i mentioned Christ in that post was that those two are aligned with Christianity.
Oh i certainly think many cult aspects are in Christian religions…. the Opus Dei wing of the Catholic Church surely has to be considered there (and i was raised Catholic).
Hey Wil,
I was one and studied their doctrines for more than 40 years (I wasn’t a member after the age of 20 though). I haven’t read the book you mentioned. I had to stop reading those so-called tell alls and expose`s that abound out there in nut land I have read enough of them to last me beyond any life expectancy. Most of them are filled with such trash and lies they are beyond fiction, even most of the ones who claim they were members at some time. So I can’t comment on the book you mentioned. I am curious why you think they are a cult, other than their detractors and persecutors like to call them that?
Seems to me all religious or spiritual practices (since we are speaking of religions here) fall in this category, or none of them do.
They had 10 million members of the church in 1998, now nearing 12 million. Sort of excludes “small” as cult is defined.
It doesn’t matter, just think it isn’t particularly more cultish than other religions.
Hugs,
Shirl
Gov Mitt Romney’s father was Governor in Michigan from 1963-1969 – George W Romney. As I was living there at the time, I have no bad recollections of the father’s governing style or accomplishments. Wikipedia covers his career at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney
I had forgotten about the episode in which George Romney spoke of being “brainwashed” after Vietnam. Rather similar to John Kerry’s statement to Congress, with similar results re a presidential run.
in the Mormon faith. Be damned if I’m voting for any man who has a wife who won’t get into heaven unless he says her “secret” name when he dies. If she dies first I guess she’s fucked until he kicks off. No Thanks, can’t vote for a practicing Mormon, it goes against my principles. I can be friends with Mormons but I won’t be helping elect any to higher office to make decisions for the good of the people.
The danger is not necessarily from the/any religion itself, the danger comes from religious zealotry. This leads to yet another question, at what point does one pass into the realm of religious zealotry? To this an appropriate response would be that where religious concerns are used as a standard of behavior or where such concerns override the welfare of most individuals, religion has overtaken the secular.
A candidate that has demonstrated a narrow by-the-book view of his/her religion would be of considerable concern. A simple declaration that one is (fill in a religion) is considerably less disturbing.
I totally agree, I would vote for a Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Hindu, Muslim, whatever, as long as they shared my core values and as long as they didn’t try to impose their faith on others. I have no problem with a Muslim in office, but if he tries to impose sharia law on me, I have a big problem. I have no problem with a Southern Baptist in government, but if he tries to govern out of Deuteronomy, then I have a big problem.
In 1967, the only potential presidential candidate speaking out about the calamity in Vietnam was a Mormon, George Romney. If the election had been held that year, I would have voted for him.
Would I vote for his son Mitt? Never. I don’t understand what his appeal was to the ever so vaunted liberals of Massachusetts.
A lot of interesting speculation. I was raised in and a part of the Mormon Church until I was 20 years old.
It brings to light how well the “branding” and “framing” has worked over the years. A cult? Hardly. The Mormons I knew and was raised with in our local church were gentle, quiet and reverent people who worked hard and did their best to live up to the principles of their Christian religion. Their teachings and dogma are no less strange than the Catholics or the Baptists or any other number of Christian sects. I found that it was not my cup of tea, just as I found the Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, the Baptists, the Congregationalists, the Church of God, the Assembly of God, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Jehovah Witness, the Lutheran, The Methodist, and hundreds of other Churches not to my liking.
Most of the things I found objectionable about the Mormon Church, I found in all the other Churches. The zealots in this country have been after and persecuted the Mormon Church and its members since 1830. There are many books by Evangelical and other crazies out there that have some of the most horrendous lies about the Mormons and their beliefs that I have ever seen. For the most part, all they have ever asked is that they be allowed to worship in the manner that is their choice just as all the other crazy religions are allowed.
Frankly, I don’t think anyone’s religion is a qualifier or disqualifier for a candidate for public office. I also would hope that the day will come soon where none of us knows whether a person is Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, or a totally off the charts Metaphysician. It is none of our business and none of the country’s business.
In 1960 I was of voting age to experience the Hoopla and hand wringing about the horrors of electing a Catholic as president. “They” all knew that if JFK was elected, the Pope would run the country. How did that work out?
I wouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney because he is a neocon nut case, far too ultra conservative for my tastes. But his being a Mormon or any other religion, (which by my measure are all strange) has nothing to do with it.
So It is interesting to speculate about such things, I suppose. But it would be nice if you actually knew what you were talking about before you did so. . .not referring to your comments Booman, but those who think they KNOW about Mormons.
Just my opinions from experience, yours may vary.
Hugs
Shirl
I find the Mormons particularly creepy (sorry, Harry) and would never vote for one, as I would never vote for any candidate who wore religion on his or her sleeve, be it Catholicism or Zen Buddhism.
I think we should keep religion and politics completely separate, and that each person’s faith, or non-faith, is entirely his or her own business, and no one else’s, including and especially the voters to whom they wish to pander.
P.S. Don’t forget UPI — the once-great wire service for which Helen Thomas once worked — which is now controlled by the Moon empire.
I think it comes down to do I trust their sense of judgment on public policy issues… and realizing that personal religious beliefs, if the candidate takes them at all seriously, do play into that sense of judgment. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the candidate adheres to the official position promoted by the leadership of whatever religious faith they follow. (A sizeable number of American Catholics are willing to let a woman determine for herself whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy regardless of the Church’s position, just as an example).
But it does mean the candidate had better be prepared to answer questions on what his or her positions ARE on issues where a perceived conflict or connection between personal religious beliefs and positions on public policy issues might exist. And how they answer the question – how willing the candidate is to state honestly what their position is and why – is at least as important as what that position actually is.
How much respect and consideration does a candidate give to those who believe differently than he does? Does he listen and consider all sides of an issue before making a policy decision, or does he come in having already made up his mind based on religious beliefs? Does he attempt to hide his position if he thinks it may be unpopular with the public (or certain sections thereof), or does he state his position honestly and clearly regardless of his current audience? Does he give the impression he’s willing to impose his beliefs on those who do not share them, as a matter of policy? And how do his past actions – speeches, policy statements, votes, support for legislative issues, etc. – reflect consistency with stated beliefs (religious or otherwise)? Does he espouse policy positions that are, in MY best judgment, utter lunacy or discriminatory or unfair?
In general, past actions are a far better indicator of a candidate’s judgment and policy positions than stated religious affiliation – even Jesus said, “By their works you shall know them,” and that advice still holds up pretty well today.
for the most reasoned and to the point comments yet, on this particular topic.
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement.
Big hugs and loves,
Shirl
Remember there was serious doubt as to whether JFK’s Catholicism would make him unelectable. He repeatedly made unambiguous promises that his decisions as president would not be influenced by the Vatican or the Pope. As far as I know, he kept the promise.
I think it’s completely legitimate to question self-proclaimed religious candidates on the influence their religious beliefs would have on their official decisions — and to press as hard as necessary to get specific answers. Liberals tend to shrink from the duty of such questioning for fear of being accused of bigotry, but it’s absolutely necessary. Will they stand up for separation of church and state? Will they support freedom of reproductive choice regardless of their religion’s views? Do they believe evolution is the most accurate statement of how species originated, and would they advocate science, not faith, as the best way to investigate physical reality? And so on.
As one who considers that religion, at least the ones originating in Southwest Asia, have done the world more harm than good, I have long practice in swallowing my doubts and voting for people whose beliefs seem little different from those of the Flat Earth Society. I have seen that some of the beliefs I suspect most have been held by such political heroes as JFK, Martin Luther King, Bill Moyers, and many more. The real question is not the religion but the political beliefs of the candidate, and how willing the candidate is willing to publicly disavow some of her/his faith’s social dogma.
for a member of any religion — as long as they’re not intent on forcing their religious practices on me or anyone else. I’m not concerned with their private practices (as long as they involve consenting adults at least), but rather with public policy.
The Constitution states (Article VI):
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
but that can’t stop people from holding their own prejudices against certain groups.
At least in individual districts people can overlook the minutia such as religious preference and elect a representative based on their policies — we can look to Harry Reid in Nevada and Keith Ellison in Minnesota for examples. A national campaign, however, might be a totally different story…
Especially compared to most of the named 2008 Democratic candidates, so I guess the answer is yes. The same goes for most other religions, I wouldn’t vote for most religious candidates but the religion itself isn’t an important factor. I am a huge admirer of the gospels, so I am more than willing to anyone who actually follows that path rather than exploiting it for personal gain.
The biggest exception is scientologists. Hubbard was a sociopath with inumerable mental problems, and I absolutely don’t trust anyone who falls for the b.s. that came from his drug-addled brain. The same holds true for Moonies, though that might change after the nutjob founder finally dies. I wouldn’t have supported a Mormon candidate either while Joseph Smith or Brigham Young was living.
…I learned in an episode of South Park.
Granted, that’s not much, but overall Mormonism seems to me to be a pretty wacky set of beliefs.
Then again, what religion isn’t wacky? As Sarah Silverman said (imagining a discussion with her future kids if she, being Jewish, procreated with her current Catholic mate) in her movie of the same name – “Well, mommy believes that she is one of the Chosen People, and daddy believes that Jesus is magic.”
Someone mentioned to me that Mormonism is currently the fastest growing religion in the U.S.
That said, Mitt Romney can suck my balls, no matter what religion he adheres to. He can’t stop being governor of my commonwealth soon enough.
Here’s hoping his presidential campaign goes down in flames, though I suspect he’s really running for V.P.
I would not vote for anyone that would allow their religious beliefs to outweigh or get in the way of their duties.
I would not vote for a Jew that would not work on Saturday. Nor would I vote for one that is blindly pro-Israel.
I would never vote for a member of the Radical Religious Right that likes to twist Christianity to conform to their personal beliefs, instead of the other way around.
I would not vote for an atheist that would try to push their lack of belief on others, or even worse, try to do things to spite the believers. That is just as bad as believers doing things to spite the non-believers.
I can’t think of any case where I would vote for a Scientologist, Moonie or Hare Krishna for president.
Would I vote for a Mormon? Incredibly unlikely, but possible. Out of the thousands of devout Mormons that I have met, I can only think of one that I would trust their politics enough. Just look at the voting record of their states (they basically own Idaho too)
Of course, I would be willing to vote for that Jack Mormon, Seldom Seen Smith, running on the Free Glen Canyon platform.
I would vote for a Mormon under the same conditions that I would vote for a member of any other religion: if and only if the other candidate was worse. Or to put it another way, having strong, open religious beliefs of any kind is a major negative for me when considering candidates.
Words cannot begin to express how sick I am of people and their religions.
My rule is this. If a sincere person says: “my religion inspires me/calls on me to blah blah blah” then FINE. Good for them. They have some warm and fuzzy spiritual coat that helps them through life. There are very religious people that I admire greatly (like Bill Moyers) who can find encouragement from their faith to find common ground with people of OTHER faiths, or no faith.
However, if they say, “my religion says WE must …” than I will not vote for them, ESPECIALLY if the “must” involves how other people live their lives, who they love, what they do with their bodies.
Mitt is one of the second sort, and I would never vote for him.
Odds are I’m much older than you and therefore don’t possess your tact. When someone starts any conversation with me about what their religion compels ME to do or believe, I go right to the “Fuck Off Dickwad” rejoinder.
Ironically, the husband of a couple who, before they moved to Houston, were close friends with my wife and I was one of these types. He was and continues to be convinced that since I obviously knew more about Jesus than he did and still didn’t claim him as my personal superman action figure that I required a weekly breakfast with him so that he could save my wretched ass. Of course I let him pay for breakfast before the “Fuck Off Dickwad” blurted out of me. And of course I smiled when I said it. Even though we no longer see each other very often, we’re actually still friends. I think it’s because he thinks I’m his ticket to heaven and I like telling him he’s a dickwad.
I don’t often get told that I’ve exhibited ‘tact’, so THANKS.
If it’s someone I like, I try to brush off such talk, or say “thank you” to their blessings while trying hard to to stare in pity at their crutch. If I don’t like or value them, “fuck off” is pretty likely to pour forth, followed by “idiot” or “bigot” (if they’re ranting about how sacred marriage is and no filthy gays should get to yada yada). I like to remind that last sort that the Bible was pretty keen on slavery and wife stoning too.
Really, if the Great Cosmic Muffin fills someone with warm buttery goodness, then yippee for them. Just don’t start pushing the crumbs down my, or anybody else’s, throat.
We sounds like we have much in common when it comes to the superstitious.
I’m to the point where it would be difficult for me to vote for a Christian as currently self-described.
I’m an artifact; an actual republican who thinks that the only two virtues worthy of one who would represent me is their willingness to bear arms to defend our constitution and their commitment to the whole of society, not simply any part.
This is eminently practical I think, and it disqualifies all members of all religions who either are incapable of acting as if they have no religion when acting as a public representative or who refuse to do so because they think it’s their job to convert heathens. This also disqualifies all who would advocate policies that only benefit one segement of society rather than the whole. It’s more difficult to find policies that actually benefit the whole rather than come up with trickle down or trickle up bullcrap to rationalize making it the policy of the country to advance the agenda of a small part of it. It requires that representatives actually think of our country as an organic whole rather than as a collection of parts to be placated either through tax cuts or ear marks by Republicans or entitlements by Democrats.
First I thought the title said “Would You Consider a Moron?” and I said to myself “we already did.”
The sort of semi-hilarious meta-concept here is noting just how IMPORTANT professed religious beliefs are in making a politician electable in this country.
I’m trying to think of any non-Muslim country where that’s equally true… anyone know of one? Honestly I can’t think of a single one.
Pax
but it’s like the difference between a Language and a Dialect: “Languages have Armies and Navies.”
The difference between a religion and a cult is size–and perhaps its survivability after the death of the leader and his/her family.
Anyone notice that Mitt Romney’s old venture capital firm, Bain Capital, is one of the new co-owners of Clear Channel?
Romney cut his ties with the firm back in 2001, although it sounds like they’re still quite closely connected.
And in related Romney-related news, the other new co-owner of Clear Channel, Thomas H. Lee Partners, was in the middle of hte Refco implosion of last year that scared the bejeezus out of the futures market. Here’s a really long post on that particular scandal for those interested.
So this community is about the same as the country at large. Half of us will not consider voting for a Mormon because they are a Mormon.
I don’t know what to think about that. Like I said, that attitude would be condemned if applied to any other major religion, but it seems half this community rejects the idea that Mormonism is actually a legitimate religion.