<p>While I would give Romney a pass on the semantics, he should not get a pass on addressing the issue of his membership/leadership role in a Church that practiced blatant racism up until 1978 (when he was 31) and even now with its “Curse of Cain.” He used his father’s civil rights participation to prove that he is/was not a racist, but never reconciles his simultaneous participation as a Church leader, in an organization that discriminated against African-Americans. In my mind, either the discrimination really didn’t bother him much, or he was a member/leader of an organization whose tenets he didn’t really believe in. Which is it?</p>
<p>Or worse - he only changes his beliefs/behavior when he is told to do so by his Church.</p>
<p>Is the Mormon church’s discrimination against blacks any worse than the discrimination practiced by my religion of origin (Roman Catholicism) against women? This is a real question. I know little about the Church of the LDS, but I gather that they allow blacks to be members but deny them full participation in the hierarchy. Unless there’s more to it than that, I don’t see much to choose between the two positions.</p>
<p>mini,
Hi. I don’t know if the comment was directed at me regarding racism. In any case, my comment had not to do with racism, but more to do with a “questionable” reference to a statement by a candidate about their family or background.</p>
<p>Sokkermom thank you for explaining yourself this time.</p>
<p>With Rudy fading fast, looks like Mitt’s the nominee. He’ll be subject to a lot more scrutiny in the upcoming months, but this particular thing is a non-issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like RC, the Mormon Church does not allow women to hold leadership positions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Contrary to your opinion, I know at least 2 voters for whom this is a huge issue.</p>
<p>Interesting juxtaposition: “I saw my father marching with Martin Luther King” = “my father supported MLK” when it’s Romney.</p>
<p>But</p>
<p>“.[while in Congress] I worked to initiate the internet” = “I personally invented the internet” when it’s Gore.</p>
<p>In the one case, we give Romney the benefit of the doubt since the underlying facts are aligned. In the other case, we overlook the obvious interpretation by a normal person and impose a stretched reading to bash the guy as a liar.</p>
<p>Having said that, I agree that we should listen to what the politicians say and mean and stop dwelling on little word gotcha’s. But we should do it for both sides equally.</p>
<p>“Hi. I don’t know if the comment was directed at me regarding racism. In any case, my comment had not to do with racism, but more to do with a “questionable” reference to a statement by a candidate about their family or background.”</p>
<p>But we really don’t know about his family background either. It would be quite possible for George Romney to have marched with MLK and still held to the curse of Cain - they aren’t contradictory. What did George teach his children? Was Mitt different than his father in “wholeheartedly” embracing his church’s doctrine even though his father didn’t? When did Mitt change? Or did he change? Did he speak out against the church doctrine he wholeheartedly embraced as stake president? Or did he wait for Spencer to have his revelation? Suppose his church leader has another revelation? </p>
<p>Mitt was no ordinary LDSer. As stake president, he presided over multiple congregations, and enforced doctrinal purity (as well as teaching his own kids.) Did he hold to the teaching of the curse of Cain? Did he preach it? Did he teach it to his children?</p>
<p>Have you any shred of proof that his religion has impacted his official duties? Did you worry about JFK’s religion and if he believed every word of the church doctrine? Do you know what he taught his children in private? Is it any of your business?</p>
<p>He has said NO religion will impact his duties as President. He is also entitled to have whatever religion he wishes so long as that is kept to his private personal actions.</p>
<p>Actually Hayden, Gore said, “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initative in creating the internet.” That certainly sounds like “I created the internet”, especially since he does not say “I was one of many” which would have been a more accurate statement. In fact, it is not clear Gore was telling the truth anyway. I don’t think his contribution was material to the creation of the internet.</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Al Gore - Inventor of the Internet](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpxtKcLSFWw&mode=related&search=]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpxtKcLSFWw&mode=related&search=)</p>
<p>“Have you any shred of proof that his religion has impacted his official duties? Did you worry about JFK’s religion and if he believed every word of the church doctrine?”</p>
<p>The entire point of JFK’s speech was to say that, while he was a follower of his religion, he never took orders from the Pope. The evidence we have from Romney is precisely the opposite. He says, point blank, that he embraces “wholeheartedly” the doctrine of his church, and I have no reason to doubt him. </p>
<p>The issue is not religion, nor racism, but character.</p>
<p>What he said </p>
<p>“When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God,” Mr. Romney said. “If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.”</p>
<p>I don’t care if he changes his mind and converts to Wicca so long as it does not govern his public decisions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From where I sit, Gore said something that was both literally true and true in its essence. Romney’s a lot further out on the limb, but I’ll cut him slack anyway. But I honestly don’t expect that level of rational discourse to be adopted by the right wing. The perpetuation of slime bomb’s like the Al Gore myth just exemplifies the complete moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the right wing.</p>
<p>(Stickershock, thank you for answering the question I posed to FF so eloquently.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fat chance in Hell Republicans don’t care about the religion of candidates.</p>
<p>Well, you got one here.</p>
<p>When I heard the statement, I took it to mean that George Romney literally marched with MLK.</p>
<p>Mitt’s use of language is pretty imprecise in this case.</p>
<p>Unlike Gore’s statement (where we all knew he didn’t create the internet), there was no reason to believe that the statement should be taken figuratively, rather than literally.</p>
<p>Now that he’s cleared things up that he meant figuratively, not literally–we can move on…</p>
<p>Will this election cycle ever end?!!!</p>
<p>Fundingfather: a side bar. What did your son do about the job offers?</p>
<p>Romney should title his campaign as I’ll say anything to get elected even if that means making up **** about the Civil Rights Movement. What a Brooks Brother d-bag.</p>
<p>Post 34 “….there you go again…”</p>
<p>……using facts to make an argument that proves that Republican Party operatives and their right wing allies lied about what Al Gore had to say with regard to the internet……</p>
<p>I have written several times about how facts and the truth are not appropriate tools to use in CC discussions with the Rs and their allies. The Rs and their allies have no respect for the truth when it runs counter to their false propaganda. That being the case in order to be polite and respectful of the right wing posters when they post a lie you should just accepted it and not try to bring the truth into the discussion. Being honest and truthful when discussing things with Republicans is considered impolite.</p>