The No Kool Aid Zone

I think the issue comes down to your view of the job of politicians, beyond that of representation. They are part of the legislative body, and as such enact into law their views of right, wrong, fair, appropriate. etc…

I don’t buy the argument that you cannot legislate morality, because all legislation, at it’s heart is the enaction of someone’s view of what is appropriate action or inaction for all people – which IS in large part, the definition of morality. Fair businees practice, environmental protection, tax brackets, tax cuts, tax increases…part of all of those legislative imperatives come from a base of moral conviction. For some their moral center may be misguided or skewed, but that is still what they act upon.

NOw for a Mormon, I realize that we obviously disagree on Jesus, and salvation, and some things that are very important spiritually. Do those things crossover into what is important politically? I am not sure that is the case. But certainly our moral center must be compatible. DO I share a significant amount of moral ground with Mormons? I don’t know, but I think that is the key for me. I’d vote for a Mormon with a strong sense of right and wrong before I would vote for our “Christian” brothers Jesse or Al any day.

Hefe ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 1:13 pm

I should have split that up into several posts… Not because of length, but because of post count. Oh well, this completely uneccessary follow-up should do the trick.

Hefe ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 1:14 pm

OK, this isn’t jsut to get a third comment, but a thought just came to my mind on this subject. Really, honestly, what is the difference between voting for a mormon and voting for an atheist or agnostic?

Hefe ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 1:29 pm

No politician is an atheist, or even an agnostic. Well, I should say an admitted A or A.

Sure I could vote for a Mormon, I probably have in the past and didn’t know it. I can’t see how what I know of their ideology would interfere with governance.

Warren Throckmorton ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 2:03 pm

Oh, I suppose I could. Of course if it was a choice between him and Hillary, I definitely would.

Mark M ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 3:11 pm

Interesting idea. Most Christians I know of classify Mormonism as a cult and Senator Clinton, for what it’s worth, classifies herself as a Christian. So then it’s the question of a Christian versus a Cult member. I think you’re right – I think most of the religious right would still vote for Romney – but that’s because their true motivation is to keep blindly and desperately believing that the Republicans are the Christian party and the Democrats are evil.

gurufrisbee ~ Nov 30, 2006 at 10:45 am

“Classifies herself as a Christian” – well said, Gu.

I do think (agreeing with you) that it’s about time that this charade end that identifies the Republican party as the “Christian party”. That doesn’t mean I won’t still most often vote for Republicans, but if we haven’t seen through the emperor’s clothes by now…

Interestingly enough, I just got my (unsolicited) copy of National Liberty Journal, put out by Jerry Falwell (he sends a copy to every evangelical church in America, I think), and there was Jerry, smiling alongside Mitt and Mrs. Mitt. No mention of Mitt’s faith…I’m not going to criticize Jerry for doing that, it’s just interesting.

Byron ~ Nov 30, 2006 at 11:12 am

I’m not sure I could vote for a (professed) atheist or agnostic…actually, I am pretty sure I couldn’t vote for an avowed atheist, at least knowingly. Then again, I doubt an avowed atheist would share many of my political leanings.

Byron ~ Nov 30, 2006 at 11:15 am

Byron,
You may not vote for an confessed avowed atheist – but what about candidates who give no public discourse on their particular views on faith. IN this particular age, that may seem rare, but I would be hard pressed to name which members of congress are “professed Christians”, which are actual Christians, and which are agnostic and quiet about matters of faith? And do any of these things sway my vote to a significant degree. I’m not sure they do.

Hefe ~ Nov 30, 2006 at 11:27 am

I tend to read VERY little into what political candidates SAY about their faith/religion/denomination preferences. I figure if someone is a Christian, it should be clear enough from what they do and support. Obviously that gets muddied up some when they align with political parties whose overall platforms clearly aren’t Christian anyways, but I try to sift through the muck anyways. And it absolutely influences who I vote for – more than anything. I can’t even fathom having my Christian faith not totally form my perspective on something like politicals.

gurufrisbee ~ Nov 30, 2006 at 12:11 pm

GU, complete ditto here. I think we all share what you said in common, even though our practical perspectives may differ.

Hefe ~ Nov 30, 2006 at 12:32 pm

How about a practical atheist – such as many are in both parties? Again, I am sure I already have.

I practice with my voting what I do with my professional ethics: First, do no harm.

I would like to do good with my vote and support but at times I vote against what would be worse circumstances.

Warren Throckmorton ~ Nov 30, 2006 at 1:17 pm

Hefe,

I like to think of it as being a difference in priorities. At least that’s what it feels like when I constantly hear Christians voting for Republicans because they almost always only ever bring up abortion and gay marriage (which I agree with them about) but they almost always appear to have given no thought at all about issues like peace, poverty, environment, etc.. So it must be different priorities.

gurufrisbee ~ Nov 30, 2006 at 1:21 pm

Gu, there may be some difference in priorities, but I don’t think it is the catch-all that you percieve.

Issues of peace, poverty, environment don’t come down to priorities as much as they do perspective. Those on the right would find those things important, but have a different perspective on how they should be approached. You and i have different perspectives on peace in Iraq, different perspectives on how to address poverty in the US, different views on just about everything expect Intelligent Design. I think we may have a similar view on gay marriage, but our prespective on the public policy side of that differs. There is no one that I know who does not want peace in Iraq, or to help the poor and needy. BUt I don’t think you cann assume that just because some don’t accept your view on the solutions that it is therefore not important to them.

Hefe ~ Nov 30, 2006 at 2:07 pm

I never said that just because someone doesn’t share my view that something isn’t important to them. Nothing good comes from these kind of discussions when you start making assumptions about others and putting words in their mouth.

If you want peace, you wouldn’t support a war of choice. If you want environmental protection and preservation you can take the general Republican perspective or you can make a bigger priority out of it and be willing to spend more and do more like the Democrats generally are. If you really want to make a priority out of eliminating poverty, you can become a socialist and truly go for it – and you can take a lesser position that still wants to help it, but that’s not making it as big of a priority as you could. Making something a lesser priority never means you don’t care about it – it just means you don’t put it as high on your list as you put other things. And that’s normal and fine. I mean if your child is crying for something to eat and you make them wait for two minutes so you can go to the bathroom, that isn’t saying your child’s nutrition is unimportant to you – it’s saying that the degree of immediancy of feeding them wasn’t as high of a priority as not soiling yourself.

Take abortion. I generally vote Democrat and some could interpret that as me being pro-abortion. That’s totally not true. In fact, most Democrats aren’t pro-abortion, they are just pro-having the right to have an abortion. It’s not anywhere close to the same thing. I think abortion is murder. And it outrages me that it’s legal. But I don’t make it the major priority in forming my political position for several reasons (the other side doesn’t offer a consistent ethic on protecting life anyways {not with the death penalty support and pro-war stances, anyways}, there isn’t a significant difference in making it legal or illegal alone since they will still happen and if they do I’d rather have it be with a doctor in an office than a back alley with who knows what, etc.). I don’t see that as a “practical perspective” difference with you – I see that as a “priority” difference with you.

gurufrisbee ~ Nov 30, 2006 at 2:39 pm

On the Falwell-Romney front…

Falwell says he hasn’t endorsed Romney

So maybe that Mormonism is a problem…

Expat Teacher ~ Nov 30, 2006 at 9:11 pm

Doesn’t look like it, Ex…in the article, Falwell assures us that he could support Romney if he was the Republican nominee.

Strange bedfellows indeed…

Byron ~ Dec 1, 2006 at 9:13 am

It seems to me there is no issue here if we are talking about 2008 and Hilary versus Mitt. Of course we vote for Mitt. You don’t have to snuggle to vote, you just vote for the better of two candidates.

If the issue is about who to support in the primaries, then it is more complicated. I would like to see a true fiscal and social conservative in the mix. But is one out there? Brownback? Brownback versus Hilary probably leads to Hilary. That is where one must decide one’s pragmatic strategy. Since I don’t know who is in the race for real, it is pointless to speculate.

I was sorry to see Frist step out of the fray.

Warren Throckmorton ~ Dec 1, 2006 at 9:49 am

Warren – I agree that there is no issue if 2008 is Hilary vs. Mitt – it’s Hilary in a landslide. Clearly the better of the candidates and that’s before you ever get into the candidate’s religous affliations.

I think the biggest issue I would love to see changing in these elections is the emergence of a true third party where the entire platform for the party is actually created as solely as possible on Biblical values. That would be awesome!

gurufrisbee ~ Dec 1, 2006 at 10:39 am

Hey,

More on Romney…Andrew Sullivan has this cheery:

When Romney ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, he wrote a letter to the Mass Log Cabin Club in which he pledged: “[A]s we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.” During the same campaign, when he was accused of having once described gay people as “perverse” during a religious meeting of Mormons, Romney’s campaign issued a forceful statement decrying the accusation as false and reiterating that Romney respected “all people regardless of their race, creed, or sexual orientation.”

Will he really win the social conservative vote with statements like that?

Expat Teacher ~ Dec 1, 2006 at 12:44 pm

As I said, not in the primaries which is why conventional wisdom has Mitt needing to distance himself from such things as he is now doing by agitating for a vote on gay marriage in MA. Run right in the primaries and run center in the general election – that’s the formula.

Warren Throckmorton ~ Dec 1, 2006 at 1:29 pm