Occasionally, I see headlines like the one below (The Mormon factor won't go away for Romney), and, over the next few months, as the MSM rolls out a vigorous defense of its liberal-in-chief, I'm certain we'll see plenty of whispers and silent gasps that Mitt Romney is a Mormon (and he was even a Mormon Bishop before he became a politician!): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/mitt-romney-mormon-bishop_n_1386592.html
 |
| What's this man's religion? |
Maybe the MSM and its liberal friends would bluster, "Well, Harry Reid's not really a Mormon!" Excuse me? In 2007, I physically sat in attendance when Senator Reid declared, "I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it" (italics mine). http://byudemocrats.org/?p=32
Wait, so why attack Mitt Romney for his odious beliefs and, let's face it, weird lifestyle, when Senator Reid says they're the very reason he's a Democrat?
As I shared this past December, 76% of Republicans said they were comfortable with having a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a Mormon) as President of the US. Democrats? Only 46% said the same:
https://plus.google.com/110524638589641892271/posts/iCdBL3RvZSW
WHY?
Dare I be so recklessly bold as to submit the survey results were likely contextual to Mitt Romney's presidential run and merely represent liberal opposition to a conservative president? Are Democrats simply ignorant of Senator Reid's declaration of faith or do they brush it under the rug, so long as he supports abortion and ballooning the size of government and the welfare state?
So, tell me, my liberal friends and MSM, when are we going to start gasping and whispering that, horror of horrors, SENATOR MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID IS A MORMON!?
4 comments:
Harry Reid supports abortion? From the sources I've found, his official stance on it is the exact same as the LDS church's stance on it. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/08/what-is-harry-reids-position-on-abortion/
If only Romney were so obedient in his approach to immigration...
Also, if Romney loses the election, it won't be because of liberals--it will be (at least in part) because vast numbers of Republicans who don't want a Mormon or a black man as president will choose to stay home (or possibly vote 3rd party).
Am I understanding correctly that identifying Senator Reid's views on abortion required extra-curricular research? How much does this confirm the principal (and I thought overarching) thesis of my post?
How is Romney's immigration approach out of step with the Church's stated position on immigration? http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/immigration
As for the suggested scenario of Romney losing, there's at least one golden nugget of truth buried there: it wouldn't be because he lost the 20% of Americans who describe their views as liberal (take a guess at how many describe them as conservative): http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx
I already knew what his views on abortion were, but since you obviously had no clue, I looked them up for you. Huffington Post, no less. You're welcome.
As far as immigration goes, do a little more digging on what the church's stance is. There are other recent posts on that at the Church Newsroom. (Hint: it involves allowing people who are here illegally to stay here and work, legally). I'll let you find that one yourself (but let me know if you have trouble, and I'll dig that up for you too). In other words, it's nothing like Romney's stance on deportation. It's a shame so many church members don't even know what their own church teaches on that issue.
I will concede, upfront, I was unaware of some of Senator Reid's views on abortion, and I'm glad to hear they presumably line up with his stated, core religious beliefs.
On the other hand, I'm unsure his "official stance" on abortion (at least when it counts) is as clearly carved in Mt. Horeb stone tablets as implied ("exact same as the LDS church's"): "At a crucial moment, Majority Leader Reid went to the floor of the U.S. Senate to deliver his speech against the Senate version of the Stupak amendment." (Source:
Huffington Post, March 24, 2010, Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation
of America.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cecile-richards/call-on-women-to-get-the_b_512203.html
At any rate, even though Senator Reid's stance on abortion made up only about 5% of my overall thinking on (or amount of discussion in) the post, I'm comfortable in submitting the favored link to a Huffington Post subsidiary (which I heard about for the first time in this discussion) in 2010 favors my underlying point (which I'm still waiting to hear about, while we wade about in the weeds).
Regarding the somewhat less core religious belief(?) of immigration ("It's a shame so many church members don't even know what their own church teaches on that issue"), I gather from my limited study of the issue that the principal difference between Mitt Romney's position and the Church's most recent statement (there may be digging I'm missing) is whether those who are here illegally are allowed to work legally, as Romney argues for self-deportation, incentivized by prohibitions on work for those here illegally. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement My humble, lay opinion on the Church's official position is that its focus on the issue is to avoid rounding people up and throwing them in deportation vans, inhumanely and forcibly breaking up families. Mitt Romney's stance seems, to me, "obedient" to this central focus.
At the end of the day (or early hours of the morning), we're doing a backstroke in the tangential waters of who's political views line up 1:1 with the Church's. For purposes of the post, I'm more concerned about the hypocrisy of attacking Mitt Romney's religious beliefs when it's politically convenient (e.g., http://townhall.com/video/msnbc-host-attacks-mormonism btw, does MSNBC count for MSM?) and completely leaving Harry Reid out of the same religion-based discussion. Again, I look forward to seeing some discussion provided or dug up on this point.
Disclosure: I thank #2 for waking me up and allowing me to continue this discussion.
Post a Comment