I would say the question is valid if it is asked to all candidates and
specifically in regards to how one would lead the country. Barack Obama barely
had consideration of his twenty years of religion until someone finally did
research on it. Unfortunately the power media shed very little light on the
topic and now his particular brand of religiosity (and relative belief system)
has translated into a leader who doesn't really feel the US is exceptional. If
we are going to ask the question of Republican candidates now, lets re-ask what
Obama's religion says about how he should run the country. Why not get all of
the candidates up in front of the nation and have a panel ask them how their
religion would influence their decision making process? Each candidate could
choose their own panel member.
Simple way to save the country...find out who the New York Times likes, vote for
the other guy.
@ ShazandraSo Mitt has polygamous ancestors. What in the world does
that have to do with his ability to lead the country? Huntsman probably does,
too. If we're going to judge a POTUS by their relatives, well we've got a real
problem in our current president, and many, many past presidents, too. See it's this kind of bias that would eliminate a perfectly good leader
because of simple lack of conviction of someone else's doctrine that would have
zero impact on their job as president. I can assure you Mitt won't turn this
country into a polygamous nation. As for your "freedom"
from all that terrible stuff the LDS church inflicted on you...that was your
particular experience with the church. Constant fear of excommunication? Wow!
I've been a member of the LDS church for upwards of 45 years and have never run
into any of the things you're describing. I've had moments of wondering if I'm
good enough , but guess what? Come to find out my Catholic, Evangelical,
Lutheran, Baptist and Buddhist friends have felt the same. Your characterization
of the LDS church is faulty and is your opinion alone. It just doesn't fit
Shazandra,Well said. I couldn't agree more.
I want every shred and scintilla of information about the person who sits with
finger near the button of destruction, in the 'most powerful nation in the
world', thank you.I would ask far deeper probing questions of the
LDS candidates than Keller did, for my own personal satisfaction. I would
rather hear Huntsman reveal that he's semi-active than Romney parrot safe LDS
platitudes, wouldn't you? Very little is off-limits to presidential candidates,
so why should religion be? And I have tried to post the questions I would ask
Mitt re his polygamous ancestors, but the paranoia edit squad here won't allow
it.That says it all for me. That's why I was LDS for the first 35
years of my life, but evangelical (i.e., Biblical) Christian for the past 25
years: There is freedom from legalism, group-think and constant fear of
reprisals or excomminucation. You need to escape from deep in M-land to
understand how liberating true freedom in Christ is. I want my Commander and
Chief to be free to think for himself, apart from a pope, a living prophet or a
space alien, so I welcome Keller's questions.
Bill in Nebraska said, Revelation changes per the times but the GOSPEL doesn't
change. Practices may change but the Gospel doesn't change. Gospel is an English
translation for the Greek word euangelion/Evangeli(cals),2098.Genesis 12:3 "And I will bless them that bless thee(Jews), and curse him
that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be
blessed."Brigham Young, Can you make a Christian of a Jew? I
tell you Nay, If a Jew comes into this church ,and the blood honestly professes
to be a Saint, a follower of Christ, and if the blood of Judah is in his veins,
he will apostatize.(JoD V. 2 p. 142).The King will reply, 'I tell
you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these Brothers of mine,
you did for me.'(Mt 25:40) The criterion for Christians will be the kind of
treatment shown to the Jewish people during the preceding of the great
@KM & @Gregg Weber - So if you decided there was no god, you would suddenly
start stealing, lying and killing? Morality is not based on religion...a quick
look at history dispels that myth. Bad news: more christians in prison than
atheist.@ThomasJefferson - If a candidate uses religion as a
credential then he invites the inquiry. The real hypocrites are the devout who
are not...Haggard, Sanford, Vitter...and on and on.@SammyB - your
assertion is blatantly inaccurate and demonstrates an ignorance to the facts in
lieu of a love for what you wish were true.@B-727 - First, I didn't
say that politicians should pass a religious litmus test. In fact, I argued
against such. My comment that "Treating religion and religious belief as a
taboo subject is a tradition that should end." had to do with policy. If a
candidate uses religion as a rationalization for policy - and that is all it is
- then that religion and those beliefs must be challenged. If not, we are going
to be busy killing all those wearing two kinds of thread, selling our daughters
and murdering those farmers who grow two kinds of crops side by side.
By the way nothing has ever been actually debunked by the critics. That is
totally nonsense. I love how someone says that the Native Americans don't have
the Hebrew gene. Actually they are looking for the JEW gene, not the Hebrew.
They don't know the Hebrew gene. The only gene available is from the tribe of
Judah, which is the Jews, not the Hebrews. You can be Hebrew and not be a Jew.
You can't be a Jew without being a Hewbrew. Remember there are 12 tribes of
Israel, not one or two.Revelation changes per the times but the
GOSPEL doesn't change. Practices may change but the Gospel doesn't change.
These are huge differences, unfortunately the critics don't understand this.
Re:Ranch"What bothers me is when religious people try to
legislate their own beliefs into secular law."No it just
bothers you when religious people exercise their political rights. Richard John
Neuhaus articulately proved you wrong when he said: "In a
democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being
religious than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain
dumb. There is no legal or constitutional question about the admission of
religion to the public square; there is only a question about the free and equal
participation of citizens in our public business. Religion is not a reified
thing that threatens to intrude upon our common life. Religion in public is but
the public opinion of those citizens who are religious.""If they can't live their religion and allow others to either live a
different religion or no religion, then they have no business at all in public
office. None. And to promise, PROMISE, to discriminate against other American
Citizens is simply unbelievable and anathema to the principles of freedom and
liberty."What's anathema to liberty is your OPINION that
everyone can vote based on their opinions except religious people.
I don't see the progressive far left questioning whether majority leader Harry
Reid's Mormonism and ability to serve his country is a problem. What a bunch of
I was aghast in 2008 when the media made a circus out of Obama's beliefs - the
whole Reverand Wright thing. Republicans made a huge mistake in engaging in
making that a center piece of the attack on Obama. It was wrong. I knew that
then. Now, the tables are turned and our candidates are facing the same
scrutiny. And Mitt Romney faces it more than anyone else. Its
sad to see when the country is focusing on issues, but clearly democrats and
many republicans are going to try to place the Reverand Wright albatross on Mitt
Romney. Even sadder is it will probably work.
@Furry: Bachmann already answered that question and quite eloquently I might
add. I guess you need a new source of information. @atl: you do
realize that most of the original 13 states had state religions, right? And whatever laws states to enact are a will of the people who are in
that state, right?And we have 50 states (57 if you are Obama) that
have many different kinds of laws, right?And anyone can live in any
state they want that reflects their own values and beliefs, right?----It's quite amusing to see secularists demand that anyone who
believes in God has to leave that belief at the door step on the way out into
society. And yet, the beliefs that the secularists have don't have to be keep in
the home. Why is that?Dear Ranch: everything is NOT about your
homosexuality. You clearly have issues with your chosen lifestyle not being
accepted by society. We don't have to accept, condone or even tolerate
homosexuality. Just as you ask Mormons to keep their beliefs to themselves you
keep your belief about your behavior in your home; you know, in the bedroom!
Ranch:"What bothers me is when religious people try to legislate
their own beliefs into secular law."And there are many who
could say: "What bothers me is when irreligious or anti- religious people
try to legislate their own beliefs into secular law.
Do yourselves all a favor. Look up "The Pale Blue Dot" image and the
speech made by Carl Sagan associated with it. If that doesn't make you realize
how petty and insignificant all this squabbling is then heaven help you.
Fred Vader wrote:"What I really think is hilarious about all of
this is the fact that Keller, Pagan, Vanka etc. are all Dems and won't likely be
voting in the Republican Primaries any way."I registered
Republican when I turned 18, and I have been Republican ever since.Jump to conclusions much?
Equally important is questioning President Obama's association with reverand
Wright, Bill Ayres and his support of gays and lesbians serving in the military.
The idea that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood don't have agenda's every bit as
demanding as religious convictions is nonsense. The secular humanism taught in
Ivy League, Pac 12 and most every major university has widespread consequences.
The idea that the NY Times comes out guns smoking against people of faith is
expected. The liberals of all shades have been the influencer in universities
for decades and now when all their ideas are failing leave it to the NY Times to
attack candidates with solutions which might actually straighten out our
donn | 8:05 a.m. Sept. 1, 2011 I notice that you leave out quotes from
Brigham that say that "no revelation received by men is perfect", you
also ignore the fact that many at the time believed that the moon was inhabited
not only LDS, and your Joseph Smith quote is second hand.
Read both the column and questions and it was very well written and
entertaining. Additionally, all the questions are legitimate in that they focus
only on issues that could impact a candidate's policies or political path. I'm
not sure what all the uproar really is. Asking this types of questions would
only help the "Mormon" candidates.
When a person occupies the high office of the president of the United States
they are no longer their own person, they have foregone their privacy to be the
consenting represtative of the citizens of the nation. If a Catholic priest ( a
man of the cloth) were to run for office his outward garb would identify much of
who he is and what are his inclinations; the Mormons wear their holy garbs under
their cloths, the voters will wish to know what is the significance of the under
garments, do they have the same power as the Catholic robes, etc. The voters
have a right and need to know.
You ask God yourself if he is supposed to be the prophet. If the answere is
yes, then you follow. . . or not if you choose
@O'really,"Everyone can speak to God and get answers for their
personal situation. The prophet is the only one to get answers for the church as
a whole. "So who picks the prophet? How do we prove who has
god's word for personal situations or god's word for the church as a whole?
Whose to say your prophet has god's word as opposed to the Catholics or another
No Pagan/PagenEveryone can speak to God and get answers for their
personal situation. The prophet is the only one to get answers for the church as
a whole. The President of the USA can and should pray.
@Donn,These are the kind of questions they'll ask Romney, among
others. I personally worry about the "White Horse" prophecy. Anywho,
until there are answers to these questions and answers to what past prophets
said (Some of the biggest names in the religion, Joseph Smith and Brigham
Young), there will always be these lingering questions. Unlike other
religions, Mormonism is relatively young and made A LOT of claims that have been
disputed, changed, or frankly are ignored today by the church. They need to be
answered before they'll be let go.
Arm of Orion, 7:44 p.m., Look the presidents of the Church are entitled to their
own opinions according to their understanding of things. So your argument is
invalidated and not sound please try again. OK,Brigham Young, I never yet
preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call
it Scripture, Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon and it is a good
as Scripture as they deserve deserve.(JoD v 13 p. 95 also see v. 13. P 264)Oliver B Huntington said,As far back as 1837,I know that he said the moon was
inhabited by men and woman the same as the earth, and they lived to be a greater
age than we do, that they live generally to near the age of 1,000 years. He(JS)
described the men as averaging near six feet in height and dressing quite
uniformly near Quaker style. Young womens journal v 3,p. 263. 1892
This whole trend is extremely dangerous to our political system. By making
private belief systems subject to public scrutiny, even the antireligious should
expect to be probed regarding their private motivations to the most minute
detail. Hewitt makes a great point that the chickens have come home
to roost, because of antimormon prejudices have now branched out to all
religious believers. It is laying the foundation for systematic religious
discrimination in politics.It really is a distraction from the
qualifications of our politicians, and will only continue to sew the seeds of
discord and distrust between our political candidates and their privately held
religious beliefs. Some politicians make their religion front and
center part of their candidacy, and I expect in such a case that those aspects
should be a matter of public discussion, but this is simply not the case with
Romney, who has not made his faith a public spectacle--rather the media has done
it in an attempt to scare and weaken conservative base.
Mormons who follow politics knew this was coming. Any time a member of the
church who is conservative rises high enough, there's irreligious or just plain
anti-religious people there to knock them down. Notice, however, that no one
complains that Harry Reid is a Mormon? I wonder why. Also note that Huntsman has
all but branded himself a less-active Mormon. Again, I wonder why.
For those who worry more about religion than policy, perhaps these comments from
the late Jerry Fallwell ring true. He said, "if I am I'll, I could care
less the religion of the ambulance driver".Regardless of who
you believe drove this once great company onto the rocks of bankruptcy...we are
on them.Elect a president who you feel has the best chance of
lifting this boat off of those rocks. Worrying about religion is like wondering
if the deck chairs were straight when the Titanic hit the icie rocks of it's
"In God We Trust." Who cares "what stripe" the nation's
leader belongs to as long as he or she is willing to subscribe to that simple
A question to all those who oppose a presidential candidates reveling as much
information about themselves as possible (that gives the voters and the public
an insight into the candidates desirability and capability for office): what is
objectionalable about that. Shouldn't a candidate be well know and understood;
and shouldn't they comunicate their reason and convictions to support their
believes. Again, what is wrong with the people knowing and understanding who
they are voting for. Are religious people (Mormons, Fundamendalist) afraid of
who they are, or have something to hid. The voters need to know for the good and
protection of the nation.
Tough questions should be asked and answered. Any good citizen should vote with
complete awareness of what they are getting into. However, expressing fear about
the threat of a "Mormon Trojan horse" in the White house either
displays paranoia and bigotry beyond reason or humorous naivete. Nevertheless,
the question should be answered. What would the Mormon church get
out of having a Mormon president in the White House? No, it won't be power or
persuasion. However, without even trying the church has and will surely gain
more exposure and perhaps, at last, be able to dispel the endless perpetuated
KM: "So non-God-believing folk keep the same commandments as believing
folk? Why? If life has no purpose and there is no judgement, why wouldn't you
just eat drink and be merry - for tomorrow we die?"And that's
why you'll always need and be happy in your religion, and I'll always be
perfectly fine without it.
This was from Obama's Chicago church's website:"Trinity United
Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd
Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the
following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be
taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever
Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:1.
Commitment to God 2. Commitment to the Black Community 3. Commitment
to the Black Family 4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education 5.
Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence 6. Adherence to the Black Work
Ethic 7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect 8. Disavowal
of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness" 9. Pledge to make the fruits
of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community 10.
Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening
and Supporting Black Institutions 11. Pledge allegiance to all Black
leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System 12. Personal
commitment to embracement of the Black Value System."Mr. Keller
didn't complain about this hostility towards the middle-class. Why?
I wonder why we never ever hear that Harry Reid is Mormon. It just makes me mad
that they are always bringing up about Mitt Romney being a Mormon and not much
has been said about Huntsman being one but we never hear anyone questioning
about Harry Reid. To me is just upsets me that it is one way and no other way
with those back in Washington. It is always to do with the Republicans but never
ever with the Democrats.
Could we get a grip! Talk about out-of-control, beyond, and for what? What a
waste of exchange. Keller? Please!
I think people are missing Keller's point, as misguided as it may be. He's
wanting people to ask Romney embarrassing questions about the history of the
Church . . . like Joseph Smith obtaining the Book of Mormon by using a seer
stone placed in his hat, comments Brigham Young made about Joseph Smith's
consent necessary to enter the Celestial Kingdom. Basically his
goal is to embarrass the candidates. I think such questions are beneath the
dignity of the process of electing a President. No person can explain the
meaning behind the history of their religion. Its just playing games.
I don't want to know a candidate's religion.
Greg WebberSo non-God-believing folk keep the same commandments as
believing folk? Why? If life has no purpose and there is no judgement, why
wouldn't you just eat drink and be merry - for tomorrow we die?
The person who quoted some thing about rights and privileges of one state not to
be denied in another state -- has me wondering,That it was probably taken
out of context? As wouldn't that mean all the states HAD to be the same so what
happens to states rights? Something fishy there? Wouldn't that mean every
citizen had the right to have the same amount of welfare from each state or even
the same charges for traffic tickets ETC!!!???? Crazy!! --- also that
poster seemed quite shy on spelling out exactly what promise it was that they
signed? Why?Insinuation can make things look unfair or slanted that are
not! Facts help!!That posters "skill" to quote some supposed law
but not quote the pledge??--- as a babysitter once I had to refuse to let
my charge play with another child and the mother came to me demanding why-- SHE
was sure I was in the wrong till she found out the child I was carting for was
still contagious though feeling well enough to walk outside!! She carefully
escorted her child backing away from us!!!
Perhaps Bill Kellers article should prompt us to ask the question in a different
context; "Is Barack Obama a Trojan Horse for his religion (liberalism) and
should be more carefully questioned about his beliefs". I think that would
be a more balanced approach to the question Bill Keller brings up instead of
exposing his own bigotry.
Bill Keller is amazingly clueless about his obvious religious bigotry. His
double standard about others who have beliefs that are different than his own is
blatant. Anybody's basic beliefsm rleigious or not, are based one way or another
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate to the government of any other. -John AdamsWho cares what
Keller or the New York Times think?
Geez, I don't believe that when a priest blesses the Eucharist in the Catholic
sacrament that it is literally the body of Christ. I could go into more detail
here abuot how I feel about it. But it would be insensitive. No, I don't feel
that it is neccessary to grill Nancy Pelosi about her belief in that.(If we are, can we grill Ken Salazar or Al Gore on whether they believe that
public lands are sacred, do they believe in Gaia?)I don't agree with
US support for Israel, I am uncomfortable that many evangelical and Mormon
candidates interpret the Bible to mean that we should support Israel. I will
decide whether to vote for them based on their stand for the issue.But I am totally cool with their right to have a religious view even if I
disagree with them. Some people have a real problem with diversity and it isn't
just the people that we normally label as being 'conservative' or 'on the
Does the candidate want to do good for the country? This is the most important
religious question. If you can't understand this, then you probably don't worry
that the current President has failed to do good for our country no matter what
his religious beliefs are.
@Valfre "How is that so? Since when are the 10 commandments only followed
by those with religious standards? You don't think those who don't have a
religion still follow such principles? Except the believing in God stuff and
keeping the Sabbath day holy, I would contend most non-religious individuals
agree with not stealing, murdering, or cheating on their wives."The 10 Commandments are more easily followed by one who feels shame in going
against them. Count them. There are more than ten. Those without any belief in
the afterlife only care about here, now, and maybe their family. Instant
gratification pleasure trumps nonexistent Pearly Gates in their eyes.It would be interesting to see a survey of religious people vs. nonreligious
people living in Las Vegas per capita stealing, murdering, or cheating on their
wives[/husbands]. You believe that they would be about the same percentage but I
suspect not so.
What I really think is hilarious about all of this is the fact that Keller,
Pagan, Vanka etc. are all Dems and won't likely be voting in the Republican
Primaries any way. It doesn't matter what any of the GOP candidates answered,
because the libs still wouldn't vote for them.The article was
nothing more than Keller following the Obama game plan to call out Romney's
religion as "weird" and now that Perry is leading the field, they are
trying to throw his religion under the bus as well.Such a lame
First, if a candidate has a religious agenda, they are not going to tell anybody
about it unless they know it will gain them voters. It is therefore pointless
to ask them about it. Second, if a candidate has a religious
agenda, it will be made obvious by the candidates past activities (especially if
they have held office before). It is therefore pointless to ask them about it.
Third, if a candidate has a religious agenda, they likely will have
a hard time hiding it in their speeches. It is therefore pointless to ask them
about it. Conclusion: It is pointless to ask candidates about their
religious agenda. This is just one more in a long list of stupid ideas spewed
onto the world by the New York Times liberal agenda.
This Country was founded on feedom of Religion. The words of seperation of
Church and State is not in the Constition. it states in the first Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establiment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof. or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
When someone with the press or goverment says something that is offensive or
Just wrong I know if they keep it up the more they look stupid. Just keep
talking and let every one know. I am sure that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are
good mormons but I not going to vote for ether becouse they are of my faith.
Everyone should study and research the issue and cannibates. There are other
Cannidates I like better then Mitt and Jon. so few political cannibates that I
liked I voted for. It am usual voting for the cannidite I dislike the least.
Donn I see what you did there you sneaky devil you (wink). Trying to discredit
Mormons and make us all look like idiots oh man you are smart smart guy yes you
are! (sarcasm off)Look the presidents of the Church are entitled to
their own opinions according to their understanding of things. Brigham Young had
incomplete knowledge concerning life on other planets and made a poor decision.
What Brigham knew and didn't know is up to him further more what if he was
speaking of a more spiritual meaning. I am sure you are aware that we use the
glory or light of the sun moon and stars in mormon theology to represent
different things yes? So argument invalidated and not sound please try again.
Speed66,Be careful not to study history a lot deeper, all ancient
cultures, their legends and myths, or you may discover that almost all of their
underlying beliefs stem from one ancient source. The gospel was given to Adam in
its purity and also to Enoch, Abraham, Moses, etc. Pieces are found everywhere.
The Sefer Yetzirah itself, an ancient writing by Abraham, is a great example
that shows great similarities to world wide esoteric teachings. Christ came late onto the scene, but true prophets had the crucial story and
pattern from the beginning.
On Sunday, New York Times outgoing executive editor Bill Keller asked the
following question in a column: "If a candidate for president said he
believed that space aliens dwell among us, would that affect your willingness to
vote for him?"Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little
planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? So it is regard to the
inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is.
Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in
vain.(J.O.D., v. 13. P 271 ) Brigham Young
"We needn't worry about a mormon in the White House.It will never
happen."I thought I'd never see a communist in the White
House either but....oh well.
Does anyone else dislike the word "fealty"? I honestly have never
heard it before and it's used many times in these posts. The biggest
problem I see in asking these religious questions is that it's setting folks up
to cross a candidate off thier list simply because they don't like or don't
understand the candidate's religious beliefs. Unless you have a conviction of
any particular religion, you are bound to disagree with certain beliefs. This
can easily scramble and intermix ones' understanding of the candidate's
political and religious beliefs to the point of not being able to separate them.
I think the idea of the trinity is illogical, but I can totally trust one's
ability to lead this country inspite of having that belief. I think
it's fair to ask if someone takes orders from a religious leader (or spouse) who
might have harm in mind for the USA. (Do we get to ask Socialists that same
question?) That's an easy answer for LDS. No! I think the evolution
question is silly. What does that have to do with leading the country? Evolution
and creationism should both be taught as existing ideas in the schools. Neither
as absolute truth.
Speed 66: "Treating religion and religious belief as a taboo subject is a
tradition that should end."I couldn't disagree more--and have a
very hard time thinking of anything that would be more divisive to the people of
this nation (as if we don't have enough internal divisions already). The Founders were absolutely right to reject all religious tests for holders
of public offices. They did so because they knew perfectly well from European
experience how emotional, irrational and even violent people can become when
their fundamental beliefs or spiritual values are challenged. Do
you really want to lower the level of political discourse in the U.S. to that
found in places like Beirut or Baghdad? Do you really want to take a giant step
closer to settling our political differences the same way they do in those
bastions of democracy (via AK-47, RPG and car bombs)? Let's leave a
candidate's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) entirely out of the political
arena and focus our attention on the merits of their policy positions. That
should be more than sufficient to eliminate candidates who are whackos, of
atl134Take some time to read the State Constitutions of the Original 13
States and then answer the question about this being a Christian Country. Many
of them required people to be Christians to run for office in the State. How
more Christian can you get than that?
Is "refutate" a word? This is a serious question.
Bill in NebraskaCan I correct one thing for you? The "separation of
Church and State" comes from Jefferson trying to get the constitution
ratified. Some Baptists had a fear of the Constitution because almost every
state at the time had an official state religion in their state constitutions
(written under the Articles of Confederation but not removed until much later)
and they were worried that they might be denied the right to serve in other
states because of the state religions. He told them that the First Amendment was
to provide a "separation of Church and State" to protect peoples
rights to their religions. You are correct however that it is only recent that
it has been viewed in the light of protecting the Government from Religion. That
is not how it was intended, the intent was to protect religion from the
Religion buys way too many political candidates a 'get out of stupid free' card.
re: ute alumni | 2:57 p.m.Ask a child where God is. A child is
humble enough to believe and meek enough to listen. They know how to kneel and
pray. They know why Christ said, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be
converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven." The proud, the arrogant, the "intelligent"
dismiss God. They have already found their answer. They will never see His
face or feel His love because they reject Him, His teachings and His influence
in their lives.No government can serve its people without practicing
laws that were given to Moses. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt do no murder.
Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not covet. They were applicable
when Moses walked down the mountain. They are the basis of our laws today.Mock God if you wish, but think what kind of world we would have without
His influence - and His laws.
"If a candidate for president said he believed that space aliens dwell
among us, would that affect your willingness to vote for him?" This type of question, trying to equate religion with the extra-terrestrial
tells me a lot about the subjectiveness/objectiveness of this piece.
I don't always agree with the DNews, but man am I impressed by it's readership.
Thank you to The New York Times for posing this question. Thank you to the very
intelligent Des News readers who posted on this thread and encouraged what he
seems to be asking for. Transparency. I want to know if my candidate has a
religious agenda and I not only want to know it--I demand to know it. I don't
want to get that info from 24 hr. news cycle talking heads, but from the pages
of respected news organizations with solid writers and interviewers. If Mitt's
leanings (for example) are too difficult for me to live with, I suppose I will
not vote for him, but I will respect his honesty and the honesty of all
candidates. The Trojan Horse of religious agenda must never override our basic
freedoms and the only way to keep it outside of the gates is through open and
frank discussion. True, there may be some who hide and weasel their beliefs into
law in spite of the 1st Amendment, but that is why we need a vigilant and alert
body of voters.
It's all good. Powerful "thinkers" always trying to think up ways to
trick devout individuals.Answer the questions and move on.Render unto Caesar...
This is not surprising from Keller or anybody in the Journo-List MSM flacker DNC
love-boaters! They do not like the Judeo-Christian foundation of our nation in
the first place. WAPO et al doesn't either. See each night the MSM BIG 3 nets as
they smear GOP pols who have the gall to believe in God! It is not only Mitt and
Jon but Perry, Michelle, Sarah, John Ryan, John Kasich et al. And oh, yes, all
of them seem to be very successful leaders. Hmmm. BHO seems to be a secular
...whatever but Keller just loves him.
@Gregg Weber,"Having no religious standard is worse than one
following most of the 10 Commandments."How is that so? Since
when are the 10 commandments only followed by those with religious standards?
You don't think those who don't have a religion still follow such principles?
Except the believing in God stuff and keeping the Sabbath day holy, I would
contend most non-religious individuals agree with not stealing, murdering, or
cheating on their wives.
You might be well served by actually reading the article instead of the DN's
conservative spin.If a candidate attempts to use his religion as a
credential then isn't he the one that has put it on trial? I don't think
Huntsman or Romney have done this by the way.Treating religion and
religious belief as a taboo subject is a tradition that should end. That's not
to say that we shouldn't accept others' rights to believe...but we shouldn't
have to pretend that they are logical especially where public policy is at
stake. Scientologists? Christian Scientist? Polygamists?@CougarBlue
- beware looking at history or you'll find that most all christian beliefs and
stories were ripped off from ancient cultures.@JNA - your assertion of a
"liberal media" is irrational bordering on paranoid and your
assessment of Obama's standing in history is pure folly.@Sasha - who is we
in "we can answer them"?@Eliot & Too - Fair questions - not
credible but fair.The official church position is disingenuous. The
LDS church is active in politics and that's okay provided they are honest about
it. Frankly, I think they should give up their tax-exempt status so they can be
Ugly, ugly, ugly. Comparing a candidate's private religious views to
the question of whether or not he or she "believes that aliens walk among
us" is an absurdity that insults the intelligence of the reader. I thought we settled this issue once and for all in 1960, when JFK's
Catholicism was laid to rest as a political issue. One would actually like to
believe that Mr. Keller said those things because he has learned nothing in the
last 50 years. As ignoble as even that explanation would be, Keller's partisan
motivation is all too obvious. The very same people who cried foul
when questions were raised in 2008 about the church President Obama attended for
20 years now feel entitled to raise questions about the religious affiliations
and beliefs of candidates running against Mr. Obama? Give me a
break. Bigotry remains bigotry and hypocrisy remains hypocrisy, no matter where
they originate on the political spectrum. No wonder the New York Times is
circling the drain. Shame on Mr. Keller and his newspaper for publishing such
So would we prefer our government to be run by a bunch of atheists?
Being religious or not is important as far as character. Having no religious
standard is worse than one following most of the 10 Commandments. There are LDS
conservatives who I would vote for, and LDS liberals I would not vote for
because I am concerned about what they would do to the Constitution, my
freedoms, or my life.Are these proposed questions for right wing
candidates any harder than the ones they asked candidate Obama? I suspect they
will be much harder on right wingers about their religious beliefs about
Mormonism, Catholicism, or some other "ism" then they will be on left
wingers about their religious beliefs in Atheism or some other "ism".
A better question is: If a candidate for president said he believed in global
warming, should that discredit him as a serious candidate for president? Yes, it
would. Global warming is complete fiction.
They keep denying me, it's quite ridiculous. Anyways:You all need
to relax. They should ask the candidates about their beliefs! Nothing wrong with
that. I would be uncomfortable if they weren't asked tough questions! Religious
or atheist, I would want to know the bottom line on where they stand.I believe asking the candidates, especially Romney, about the 'questionable'
beliefs, prophecies, and history of the church could be beneficial for his
candidacy DEPENDING on his answers. If he avoids the questions or gives no
answers, like some have done in the past to certain questions, he will really
hurt his chances with the American public. If he comes out and lets everyone
know what he's all about it will be over with.
The NY Times writer seems to draw a comparison religious beliefs and space
aliens, yet supports a president that thinks higher taxes and bigger government
can stimulate our national economy.
The editor certainly did raise some interesting points.The biggest
one...The US Constitution (and its Amendments) are the governing law
of this land. From a legal standpoint there is no higher authority. In the Oath Of Office the President swears to uphold this law.I
don't care what kind of precepts you have, America is not run by any Church. If
you want God to be the highest authority in the land there are some people in
the Middle East that I'd love to introduce you to.
It's not so much the religion/philosophy that I would scrutinize, but the manner
in which it is opperationalized. Belonging to a group that espouses a level of
irrational thinking isn't so much of problem (pretty much every organization has
varying levels of irrationality)it is the manner in which it is internalized and
played out. When Pat Robertson stated that: "all gays should be stoned to
death," - does he really mean it? Maybe but he's never attempted it. On the
other hand the instigators of 911 took their beliefs to a new level.By in large however, notwithstanding research that 80%+ of americans believe
in God, most are too apathetic or indifferent to ever make their beliefs
significant. I'm not worried about the religious beliefs of any of the
candidates as they fall into to this larger group, but I am interested in their
I don't care WHAT religion you are. Those who paint all Mormons as close-minded
and non-inclusive are no better than those who would paint all Muslims as
terrorists. I just want a President who will be fair and moderate
and wise, who will take away nobody's rights, who will fight for all Americans,
not just the white, rich, Christian Americans. I personally think
Romney, who's not from Utah, and Huntsman, who served as Obama's Ambassador to
CHINA, are much more moderate than the other GOP candidates.
Just for the record, Pagan's first post quotes Michele Bachman as saying
"Gays are part of Satan's plan."That is a lie. Bachman
never said that. Please post the correct quotation, and apologize.
Paganette:Pagan | 12:19 p.m. Aug. 31, 2011 Salt Lake City, UT'On the other hand, God has all knowledge. God has all power.' - Mike Richards
| 11:54 a.m. Aug. 31, 2011 Then where is God?Heaven?What address is that, exactly?Brilliant. You and your ilk
are profound thinkers. Thanks for your continued cut and paste.
Questions are OK, it is the way they are asked. When he mockingly says:
"If a candidate for president said he believed that space aliens dwell
among us, would that affect your willingness to vote for him?" Keller says
he wouldn't dismiss the candidate outright, but would "certainly want to
ask a few questions." he is trying to put the candidates in a class of
being nuts. As Christians we believe Jesus Christ is the Son of
God, we believe He suffered for every sin, pain, difficulty or heartache so that
we may be forgiven or feel His comfort. We believe that He took his body up 3
days after His death so that we all may be resurrected. These are absolutely
amazing things to believe, yet I have no doubt about them and I am humbled to
say that. I dont think it would be right if someone mockingly said yeah and you
probably believe in space aliens too.
Do we really have to give any emotion or time to a known heathen? How dare
those politicians believe that there is something to life, a purpose. We should
all be like Keller and think that all this order in the universe and our being
here living on the earth was just by chance and for no apparent reason. Shame
on we religious folk.
Bill Keller, the editor of the New York TImes is many things.Most of
them would not be permitted here, so use your imagination.However,
he is a stranger to the truth, has a hard left agenda and does not care about
the damage he and his paper can cause our country. That is easily verifiable by
reading his paper over the last few years. (The last few years, while their
circulation has been plummetting!)Keller's thoughts on religion are
not worthy of discussion, and his attempt to set the agenda for character
assassination by religious discrimination is despicable!I am shocked
that the Deseret News even bothers to comment upon his aspersions. It would be
more fruitful to try to hold a rational discussion with one of the "street
preachers" who spew hatred at Conference time.
What a double standard...maybe if Barack Obama had been asked tough questions
about his religion we wouldn't be in this mess right now.
I'm a Mormon and have no problem with the questions posed to the LDS candidates.
I can't speak from the perspective of the candidates from other faiths. Though I
do wonder, how does it feel for those in the "mainstream" to have
their faith questioned, too?
Put simply, liberals are ok with religious people, as long as those people who
believe don't take their religion seriously.
Questions about religion can be good and perhaps can contribute to better
understanding. It is the manner in which Bill Keller condescendingly questions
that is wrong.For instance it is interesting; even Romneys differing
postures on the topic of abortion could perhaps be explained by his religion.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes that there is an
eternal law of heaven that persons must have agency to choose that freedom and
liberty are essential to the Lords plan however choice is always accompanied by
accountability. The Church teaches what it believes to be true and just. There
is an interesting dichotomy, in the case of abortion, where one person is
deciding to end another life. As one person cannot be accountable for the life
of another, protecting the life that would be lost in an abortion is determined
to be paramount even though it would infringe to some degree on the agency to
choose of the person desiring the abortion.
Perhaps candidates that demonstrate a lack of faith, character and values should
be the ones asked the difficult questions. Comparing space aliens living among
us to having faith in God says a lot more about where the editor stands than
Is fealty to the B of M an issue? Not to Mormons. To others who do not know
about us it might be. So, just has been said countless times before, let me
repeat: there is a line between religion and performing the job one is elected
to. Voters expect that all successful candidates will do the job for which they
were elected and not mix religion with their civic duties. Mormons do that every
day. So, to be clear, Mormons believe in separating the two. Those in government
service believe in performing their civic duties without regard to religious
I thought that it had to be a prerequiste to belief that aliens live amongst us,
for any political candidate. A persons religious believes should not be a
factor for office. Perhaps were should be looking at behavior and not beliefs.
@LehicougGodwin's law states that whoever brings Nazi's up in a
debate automatically loses. I mentioned it because of the complete lack of any
relation between this subject and genocide.I'm also not an atheist,
I just wanted to show that for all you complain about the secular attacks on
religious candidates... the people who are most discriminated against when it
comes to willingness to vote for them... is the atheists.@cougarblue"The phrase "separation of church and
state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. "I am completely aware of the fact that it doesn't, but it's an implicit
requirement that in order to have freedom of religion, the church must be
separate from the state. That's why everyone knows Sharia law is
unconstitutional, even if Islam wasn't made an official religion. Making laws
based on Islam that have no other purpose (that's why murder is still illegal
despite being forbidden by religions) like say... banning pork, would be
unconstitutional because of the separation of church and state principle.
@Furry1993When we elected Bill, we got Hillary. No one seemed to
have a problem with that then. Remember Hillary heading her own committees and
hearings to socialize health care? Perhaps we should have questioned Michelle
when Barak was running. She's as extreme as he is. Remember her remarks about
'finally being proud' of her country? Outrageous.
As for what a religious candidate should answer to a question about what he'd do
if there was a conflict between his legal duties and his religious beliefs, he
should just refer the questioner to the Reverend Martin Luther King's
"Letter from Birmingham Jail," and leave it at that.I
wonder if Keller's ever read that document?
Keller's concerns about candidate's fealty toward their religion is ironic
since, as the article says, he has not fealty to the Constitution:"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States."
Perhaps nothing influences one's worldview more than religion. And there is
perhaps no more important moment for trying to truly understand one's worldview
(other than choosing a spouse) than when deciding who to vote for to lead our
country. And yet, asking questions regarding how one's religion influences a
candidate's worldview is somehow considered off limits by some? I
think you can absolutely be respectful to one's religion of choice AND ascertain
how that religion influences their worldview.
The United States is a Christian nation, in the sense that its main (indeed,
overwhelming) religious cultural influence is Christian.It does not,
on the other hand, have a Christian government, or a Christian constitution.
What Keller and his kind mistake in assuming, is that if a person
believes, as a matter of religious faith, in things which seem absurd, you can
draw conclusions about his general judgment. Except of course
people apply different standards of judgment in evaluating articles of faith
than they do generally. Keller and liberals do this, too; unlike religious
people, they don't admit it to themselves. They think that when they reject the
scientific consensus about the safety of, say, genetic engineering, or its
conclusions about human intelligence, they're doing so out of pure reason.
Which of course is hogwash.If my doctor rejected the theory of
evolution, I would have concerns -- because I just don't think you can study
fields relevant to medicine without recognizing the overwhelming evidence for
evolutionary biology. On the other hand, if my accountant, because of his
inerrant-Bible Protestantism, did so, I wouldn't worry. I don't expect he'll
apply the same special epistemological standard to my taxes.
I, for one, do not want anyone who believes in "theocracy" to become
the president. As long as they have the conviction that their beliefs are
personal and do not want to have every American live by them, I don't care what
religion (or non-religion) they belong to.
How about these questions:Why do Mormons live 7-9 years longer than
the average American?Why do devout Mormons have a divorce rate that
is half the national average?Why are Mormon women the second best
educated of all religious women with Jewish women slightly more educated on
average?Why is the LDS Church the number one sponsor of the Boy
Scouts?Why does Utah have the lowest out of wedlock pregnancy
rate?Why does Utah have the lowest drunk driving rate?Why does Utah have the lowest death rate by drunk drivers?and many
I know one question I want to ask Bachmann. She said she believes in being
submissive to her husband. Does that mean that, if elected, we will have
President Michelle Bachman or President Marcus Bachmann in actual control of the
government? Or will we have a joint presidency, like there was a joint
governorship in Alaska with Sarah and Todd Palin?That is a pertinent
question, based on religious and social beliefs.
atl134 your comments show lack of scholarly research in the beliefs of our
founding fathers. including the Declaration of Independence. We are a Christian
Nation and I can give you hundreds of quotes from our founding fathers about
that. Here is the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grief.The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in
the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. The term is an
offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state,"
as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in
1802. Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is
not to interfere with religion. The phrase was quoted by the United States
Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The
phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the
United States Constitution.
Good, then let's fire off some real tough religious question to Barak Obama!
For instance why did he attend a christian church for 20 years where the pastor
is a known racist? Maybe even question the "Muslim" influence he's
had in his life. Is Obama a real christian when he mocks people who "carry
their bibles?" If we open up religious questioning, let's do
it for all people, not make it a condition only for a select few. Once again the NY Post boldly establishes itself as a self-righteous, find
fault with others, type paper.
@ATL134I have no idea who Godwin was.And I could care
less if you are an atheist.
While they may not be the most pressing questions we should ask presidential
candidates, I hardly think Keller's proposed religious questions are
"outrageous". At least Keller is proposing all GOP
candidates should be subject to the same type of questioning and the same level
of objectivity, and skepticism. Most other news organizations seem content to
raise questions about Huntman and Romney's Mormonism, while altogether ignoring
Bachmann and Perry's ties to politically charged fringe Evangelical movements.
How about an openly gay president? Would Pagan approve.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their CREATOR " oops, I almost quoted some
church-and-state-mixing obviously unconstitutional anti-American document
again.The thing these anti-religionists seem incapable of
understanding, is the fact that a person's claimed religion is NOT a predictor
of that person's behavior. Did people vote for Pelosi thinking she would fight
abortion rights because of her Catholic faith? They were disappointed if they
did. If the candidate is extreme and exclusive with regards to their religious
views, there past behavior will expose it. Asking intrusive questions will
reveal nothing.If you want to know what a candidate will do, you
don't need to know what they claim to believe. Candidates will say anything to
get your vote. You HAVE to look honestly at everything they have (or have not)
done in the past. Then you need to weigh that against what they claim they will
do for our country in the future--and HOW they intend to do it. If their past
behavior does not jive with their plans for the future (like Obama), they should
not be trusted.
The Michael Medved piece is fantastic and right on the money.
To Ranch You are very narrow minded with a single agenda on your
"AHEM" that you cannot think straight (or act for that matter). Your
bias is a very example of the twisting of thought sayings and out of context
matters that arise from one sided thinking.To allReligion is and
always will be an issue in a persons running for office, just as religion always
has and always will be part of our country, but that does not mean that you
attack thoughts of a religious group that a person belongs to. Romney
answered questions about his religion last time, this is a liberal agenda to
attack the right, not to open debate of the issues. This is why the left can't
swing me over to their side, they are hypocrites.I vote for a person and
their stances on issues along with their voting history.
@Bill in Nebraska"At the time the Constitution was written the
founders didn't want one religion over another."That's actually
the exact reason why we aren't a Christian nation.
The Constitution and Declaration of Independence speaks qualities of a Christian
Nation. We welcome people of all nations here regardless of their religious
affiliations. The term, "Separation of Church and State" is found no
where in the Constitution of the United States. That term was coined by legal
men intepretation of the Constitution. Congress has no right to infringe on the
rights of any religion yet they did in the late 1800s. Unfortunately, the US
Supreme Court upheld that law, based on what, the concept of their own CHRISTIAN
BELIEFS. The same thing happens today from the left or the right. The left
takes a more liberal view of the Bible and its teachings where the right takes a
more literal view of the Bible. Many of our laws we have go back to the Ten
Commandments. This is not a secular nation regardless of what some want you to
believe. Those on the left have a liberal view of the Constitution where as
those on the right have a literal view of it as well. The Constitution was
divinely inspired to preserve us a nation.It is "One nation,
under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all".
@lehicoug"How different are they than the Nazi's or Communists
who equated the Jews with vermin? "Way to leap at Godwin's law
there. You know, right now atheists are the demographic that
americans are least willing to vote for so if anyone is being discriminated
against as a candidate over religion... those with no religion face the worst of
One thing is certain, the election of Obama has proven that anybody can be
elected regardless of qualification (or lack thereof), or religion (or lack
thereof), or constitutional viewpoints (or lack thereof)..... shall I go on?If you ask me, Obama being elected opens the door for anybody anywhere
to be elected, even IF they believe in aliens. As long as they get back to the
Constitution and get the current Marxist out of office, they could be Santa
Claus themselves as far as I'm concerned. Let's get the Emperor-in-Chief out of
'On the other hand, God has all knowledge. God has all power.' - Mike Richards |
11:54 a.m. Aug. 31, 2011 Then where is God? Heaven? What address is that, exactly? You belief, is fine. But when you start presuming that everyone should follow you because of
what you say... and cannot prove...? How do you expect
to be credible?
When I look at a person running for president, I look at what will this person
and his policies do to help this Country to grow and develop, to provide the
people with the same freedoms we have enjoyed for the past 200+ years. Today I
notice, that instead of wanting what we have had some want to go in a different
direction. They have different values. It will be interesting to see whether
we survive all the potential change wanted of not.
We needn't worry about a mormon in the White House.It will never happen.
If you notice the ones agreeing with Mr. Keller you will also notice those
against it. Mr. Keller is a leftist, thus probably a democrat. Pagan, no fit in
SG, Vanka, Ranch and others have all but stated they agree with the leftist
view. Those who are conservative and independent do not agree with the leftist
view. In my own opinion non of the so called pledges go against anything in the
Constitution. It is my constitutional right to vote my beliefs.I
know a very conservative Bishop that voted for Obama in 2008 because he didn't
like or trust McCain. Today if I talked to him, he would swing his vote back to
conservative. These questions are hypocritical as are most of the leftist
views, but go ahead let him ask them. It is up to the canidate to answer them
if they wish to. To those who say this is not a Christian nation should really
take a hard look at what it really is. It is a Christian nation. At the time
the Constitution was written the founders didn't want one religion over another.
We are a Christian Nation regardless what some leftist think.
To say a person cannot be influenced by a religion that has been a part of them
is ridiculous. Their attitudes and beliefs are certain influenced to one degree
or another. Does it bother me that JFK beleived in transubstantiation? Not one
bit. Does it bother me that as a Catholic, JFK held the Pope to be infallible
and to be the voice for God? Not one bit. Was JFK influenced by his religion?
Certainly. And that is OK.As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints Mitt Romney and John Huntsman 1st of all "beleive in
the God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost."
Everything else stems from that including to "render unto Ceasar that which
is Ceasar's and rendering to God that which is God's" Religion does not
have to be discarded to participate in the governments of man. The governments
of man don't have to shun the good and moral values taught throgh theh ages by
religion.If you want to know more about the religion of Mitt Romney
or John Huntsman find a couple of mormon missionaries they will be glad to tell
We have two choices. We either elect someone who believes in God or we elect
someone who does not believe in God. Man has proven that he can't do anything
on his own. He messes up everything. On the other hand, God has all knowledge.
God has all power. God has our interests in mind. Those who believe in God
have a chance of doing the right thing simply because they are "meek"
enough to know that man does not have all the answers and that they must rely
upon someone who has those answers.The "educated" warn us
to believe in ourselves. There's a "fat chance" that believing in
ourselves will ever solve any problem. Mr. Obama has proven that. He has tried
to implement "HIS" philosophy on us. He wants us to follow him. What
total arrogance! What has he ever done that would make anyone want to follow
him? What jobs has he created? Who has he helped? What is the condition of
his extended family? Who would want to be a member of his extended family?Religion makes us better. Those who believe in God believe that
"THEY" are not the answer.
The New York Times also said this:"There is a sense, encouraged
by the candidates, that what goes on between a candidate and his or her God is a
sensitive, even privileged domain, except when it is useful for mobilizing the
religious base and prying open their wallets."Isn't that the
real issue here? You can't have it both ways.
I think everyone is forgetting one thing. Regardless of what group, religion, or
beleifs a person has or lives, if that individual is elected president he or she
will do what that individual thinks is best for this country. And weather we
like it or not, their beleifs, values, culture, and the way they think,or even
breath is going to be part of their thought process. All the candates will do
thier best to uphold the constution and the laws of this country, but what it
ultimately boils down to is the dictates of their own conscience on how that
individual will make the decisions on what is best for this country.
'People People People...relax. You can always count on the lefties who are
posting to be hypocritical and attack religion.' - JNA | 11:22 a.m. Aug. 31,
2011 Reply fact: *'Fox News host: Romney not Christian'
- By Hal Boyd, Deseret News - 07/17/11
Keller seems to fit the bill of what an executive editor for the New York Times
should be: an elitist who looks down on those he can't seem to understand. No
shocker there. He's preaching to his choir. What I'm concerned
about are his "mindless followers"...the church of the secular left
who demonize and caricature anyone who has religious faith. Who are empowered
by drivel like Keller's and feel compelled to disregard my 1st Amendment rights
and destroy them. How different are they than the Nazi's or
Communists who equated the Jews with vermin? Before long an entire nation
(including school children) looked at Jews with contempt and hatred. Whenever I read comments like Vanka's I shudder. Labeling my parents and
extended family as "irrational" and "fanatical" and
imploring people to be "extremely worried" about them because of their
faith is what I fear about the secular left.Folks like Keller and
his followers have a vision of religious people being driven from society. At
the very least driven into a closet; at worst eliminated.
@Charles"let's have a set of questions for Obama and his allegiance
to the Koran"How about we ask questions that aren't completely
absurd. "Let's grill him on how he claims to be Christian but
never goes to church."A sizable percentage of people who are
Christians are Christmas-and-Easter types actually.
The LDS church had every right to be involved in Prop 8. Clearly they saw it as
a moral issue. They had the right to financially back it.Similarly,
people have the right to peacefully protest the LDS church. People are free to
loudly disagree with them. You are also free to voice your dislike of the
church and their involvement.See how that goes? As far
as constitutional religious tests, get a grip.You have every right
to vote for or against a candidate for any criteria you choose, including race,
gender and religion.What the constitution guarantees is that a
potential candidate CANNOT be disqualified for running based on those
criteria.You can also agree or disagree with this OPINION piece in a
newspaper. Just like that paper has the right to run the OPINION.Just like news organizations can question someones religious affiliation
(including Fox news)Everyone has an opinion. Some you like, some
you dont.Such is life.
I'm okay with more questions as long as people will listen. I'm sure that if
they listen to Jon Huntsman or Mitt Romney they will be comfortable with a
Mormon's capacity to be President. People don't understand who
Mormons are, they aren't comfortable with us. Go ahead and ask questions. Some
of they will seem disrespectful, but I hope we can come to an understanding!@Pagan, I wonder if Abraham Lincoln or George Washington felt God called
them to a work... could you look into it for me?
Ranch, I couldn't agree more, but probably not in the way that you meant it.Consider your response coming from a member of the LDS church and you'll get a
glimpse into what we feel and experience.Especially your last paragraph
where you say "If they can't live their religion(that means you Mr Keller)
and allow others to either live a different religion or no religion, then they
have no business at all in public office. None. And to promise, PROMISE, to
discriminate against other American Citizens( here you are totally twisting
facts, ranch) is simply unbelievable and anathema to the principles of freedom
and liberty."Mr Keller is doing exactly what you are so aptly
refuting.Why should a candidate be discriminated against because they are
LDS? To compare one man's doctrine to that of the devil?To push to
disriminate against a good LDS person simply because they are LDS, as you
express perfectly is "unbelievable and anathema to the principles of
freedom and liberty". Well said Ranch and thanks for proving our point.
Ranch,You're cut and pasting notwithstanding, do you really think
the authors of the document you are quoting even dreamed that it's meaning would
be sent through the wringer to attempt to redefine hetero-normative marriage?
Or is that a modern interpretation?
Ranch, how are they violating the constitution? You need to document based on
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and examine the writing and
thinking of the founders as to why they wrote things as they did. Your
statements do not have logic to them.
Candidates and politicians like to tell the voters lots of happy, pretty,
sunshiny things. Michelle Bachmann gets my vote at being the best at that, so
far.Here in the State of Utah, a state run by a certain majority of
people....... LDS(Mormons), there is much for the voters to learn.In Utah,
the state, county, and city government (and most "nice"
organizations), are headed by Mormon people. Since Mormons prefer to associate
with other Mormons, the majority of people, in the state, Mormons prefer to vote
for Mormons. Once in office, they like to have committees filled with people
with like principles, yep, Mormons. The legislation that is put forth, is for
the principled people of Utah......yep, you got it, Mormons. Mormons spend all
their Sundays together, as well. Men in what is called Bishoprics and Elder's
Quorum's spend several evenings every week together. There appears to be little
time or interest in hearing about others not of the faith.When one takes
the time to review the laws in Utah, it is pretty obvious who is in charge and
how they want us all to live. Romney and Huntsman know of no other way......
The posts for and against on this thread are hilarious. People People
People...relax. You can always count on the lefties who are posting to be
hypocritical and attack religion. This really isn't news. Liberal lefties are so
much more morally superior (wink wink) Please understand that the New York Times
is the written communication wing of the Democratic Party. Their candidate,
which by the way is the worst President in the history of this country
(President Obama in case you are wondering)is in a free fall, they are only
doing what they do best, trying to catch and revive him. This has always been
done under the guise of "free and open press" The only thing
conservatives should be concerned about is that you actually fell for it and
found yourself surprised that Keller wrote the editorial and came up with the
questions. Please don't take the media seriously. CNN, ABC, NBC, CNBC, AP, New
York Times, LA Times et al are on the payroll of the Democratic Party and it is
only going to get worse. Democrats will never be happy until this country is
completely secular, Godless and lying in ruins.
No fit in SG. Help me understand this. If this state is predominately LDS then
how are they going to avoid associating with each other and becoming involved in
politics. Some counties such as Washington, Davis, Cache and Wasatch are 80-90%
LDS. Are you saying they should only vote for the other 10-20% who might run
for office and should not vote for someone of the 80-90% marjority population.
That is truly twisted logic. Your statement to me makes me think that a standard
to run for political office in Utah should be that you are not LDS and therefore
would be more honest in your office. That is a wonderful way to disenfranchise a
large population by insinuating they should not associate with their own people
and they should not elect their own people to govern them.
When we talk about weird I find it weird that some religions believe the Father
and the Son and the Holy Ghost are the same, yet they are separate. To me it
makes me think that Jesus was a Ventriloquist when he was baptized, and in the
Garden and the voice of the Father was heard. In John 17 is Christ talking
about himself asking himself to give himself the glory he had with himself in
the preexistence. Those are weird beliefs to me. When I read the scriptures I
find ample proof that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are three
separate personages (Acts 7:55; John 17). If I use the same criteria that
others use against us LDS then I can claim they aren't Christians because they
believe in a Christ that does not exist. Ancient records have
proven that this trinity belief was not the belief of early Christians. They
believed the Father sent the son into this world and the Holy Ghost was one who
bore witness of the Father and the Son. I guess according to this Keller early
Christians had weird beliefs and should have been questioned extensively.
Let him ask those questions. We can answer them. In my view there is
nothing wrong with a candidate making decisions based on his religious beliefs.
I am LDS, but I am much more comfortable with a Catholic or an Evangelical in
office acting 100% in accordance with his reading of the Bible, than a flaky LDS
or a non-believer. I am comfortable with a President that prays and follows what
he feels is an answer to his prayer even if I do not share the same faith with
him. I have served a mission and asked people many times to pray and follow
answers to their prayer. It was very uncommon for someone to pray and feel that
they should do something really odd, something I would not want the President to
do. On the contrary, answers to prayers have encouraged people to make some
change for the better - quit smoking, drinking, drugs, get a job, go to school,
I suspect this NY Times article is more about getting Obama re-elected than
about concern for WHATEVER religious views the Repubs. have.NYT was
one of the lamestream media who worked so hard to get Obama elected, and they're
just hoping he will be re-elected.The lamestream media will try
anything they can think of to "divide and conquer" the Republican and
middle ground electorate with the hope that Obama can somehow pull out another
Ballplayer says:"My first response would be that "We
believe in... honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law." For a Mormon
President, that would certainly include the Constitution. "---Article IVSection 1Full Faith and Credit shall be
given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of
every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in
which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect
thereof.Section 21: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.Article XIV1: ... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.---Mitt Romney (a Mormon) has already signed a Pledge to
violate the above Constitutional guarantees of Certain Citizens.Utah
has Amendment 3. California has Proposition-8. Both of these
amendments violate the Constitutional guarantees listed above.Please
explain how you can say that a Mormon President would follow the law and
Constitution, yet he can sign such a pledge?
"If a candidate based his political beliefs on forcefully taking from
people who have more to give to people who have less, would that affect
willingness to vote for him?"Liberals are hypocrites. Plain
Keller is the ultimate hypocrite. This is just a ruse to try to put down those
he deems as inferior to his intellect. Who even reads the NYT any longer? It's
stuff like this where he is just trying to drive people to his website.His column has no probative value, regardless of what Vanka thinks. It's clear
that people have never read the Constitution when they cry for a religious
test.On the other hand, let's have a set of questions for Obama and
his allegiance to the Koran, not the Bible. Let's grill him on how he claims to
be Christian but never goes to church.How often does he read the
Bible?What are the 10 commandments and what does #10 mean regarding
the redistribution of wealth?What is the meaning of the parable of
the Good Samaritan and of the talents?Who gets to go to heaven and
how do they get there?What is the doctrine of the Atonement?Let's ask Pelosi, Durbin, Schumer, Reid, Matheson, Jackson-Lee, Waters,
Boxer, Frank and Biden all of these questions too.After all, we need
to know if they know their doctrines of the gospel!
This is absolutely absurd and for those claiming that it is okay are at the
pinnacle of hypocrisy. It wasn't okay to question Obama's relationship with his
pastor, but it is okay to question Republicans on their associations?!What
does it matter from where your beliefs are shaped whether they be from God and
His prophets (Bible, BOM) or they be from Lenin and Marx? If you don't like the
beliefs, then don't vote for them! It has nothing to do with religion. All those
who agree with Keller, does that mean we should delve into all the books and
philosophers that secularists have read to make sure that they aren't being
overly influenced by them?
Candidates and Politicians can say all they want, whenever they want.One
need only look at the Government in the State of Utah. Included would be state
government, county government, and city government. In my own life, I find the
same type of "Utah government" in Home Owner's Associations(HOA)
within the state.LDS(Mormons) people run this state, the counties and
cities. Mormons like to be with other Mormons. They like to hire Mormons. They
prefer Mormons as neighbors. They spend their Sundays with other Mormons. They
"try very hard" to be nice to non-Mormons.The Mormons voters
vote for other Mormons. The State Legislators feel more comfortable being around
other Mormons, who think as they do. Consequently, the decisions that are made,
are decisions made for the majority, which are Mormons.
'So questioning whether our elected President is Muslim or Christian is okay,
but asking questions about the Republicans religious views should be
off-limits?' - embarrassed Utahn! | 10:32 a.m. Aug. 31, 2011
Agreed. Like how I shouldn't bring up that Bristol Palin had a child
outside of marriage...? But Glenn Beck can make fun of Obama's
daughters during the BP oil spill? 'BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy?
Daddy? Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?' - Glenn Beck transcript for the
Glenn Beck radio show, 05/28/11 This can also be found on: *'Glenn Beck smears Obama's 11-year-old daughter' - by Simon Maloy - Media
Matters - 05/28/11
The Mormon Church claims that it is politically neutral, but it spent a ton of
money on Prop. 8. Abortion and gay rights are political issues and the church
has a stance on them. Bachman and Perry are both running on platforms that tout
their religious beliefs. Like it or not, religion is in the debate and it's
time for us to ask questions about how that religiosity will affect our
political reality. I, personally, tend to support people who are willing to set
their personal religious beliefs aside and govern secularly. The fact that
Perry and Bachman are so outspoken about those beliefs tells me that they are
not willing to engage in politics in a secular manner. We are not a Christian
nation, and we should refuse to vote for people who seek to impose a particular
sort of religion on us no matter what that religion is.
Fair enough. Here's a question I would like to ask in order to get a look into
the faith of secular, liberal candidates:"If a candidate for
president said he believed that wealth could be created by simply printing more
money, would that affect your willingness to vote for him?"
Keller knocked it out of the park! This is exactly what needs to be done: dig
deep into the religious beliefs of all presidential candidates, especially those
who wear their affiliation on their sleeves!Deceptive religious
supporters will respond with, "but you are creating a religious test for
public office!"My reply: in today's environment of religious
fanaticism, you bet we are! There is nothing wrong with "testing" a
person's religious beliefs as a qualification for public office, so long as the
branches of the government do not officially do so. But private citizens? You
bet we should be extremely worried about religious fanatics and irrational
thinkers in public offices!Great job, Keller.
So questioning whether our elected President is Muslim or Christian is okay, but
asking questions about the Republicans religious views should be off-limits?
Another example of the hypocrisy from the right-wing.
I would ask equally tough questions of people who profess no religious belief.
As a Mormon I would welcome these questions if I were running for office. My
first response would be that "We believe in... honoring, obeying, and
sustaining the law." For a Mormon President, that would certainly include
I don't care if a person has religious beliefs. That doesn't bother me.What bothers me is when religious people try to legislate their own
beliefs into secular law.Romney, Santorum, Bauchmann, et. al have
signed pledges promising to Legislate against certain other Americans based on
their religious beliefs.That is a real problem to me.If
they can't live their religion and allow others to either live a different
religion or no religion, then they have no business at all in public office.
None. And to promise, PROMISE, to discriminate against other American Citizens
is simply unbelievable and anathema to the principles of freedom and liberty.
'I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for President.' - 1999 - As recalled by minister James Robison in a telephone conversation
with Bush, and first reported in the book The Faith of George W. Bush (2004) by
Stephen Mansfield. *'Sarah Palin has 'God on her side'? - By Hal
Boyd, Deseret News - 07/14/11 'Bristol Palin, the daughter of potential
GOP presidential hopeful Sarah Palin, said her mom has "got God on her
side," *'Perry More Comfortable With Idea of a Run' - By
MICHAEL D. SHEAR - NY Times - 08/31/11 'In an interview with The Des
Moines Register this weekend, Mr. Perry used spiritual references to suggest
that a presidential bid would be something that God wanted him to do.' *'Michele Bachmann: God warns with disasters' - By Jamshid Ghazi Askar -
DSNews - 08/29/11 'Gays are part of Satan's plan' - Michele
Bachmann, 2004 conference This, is a valid question.
Everyone claims they have 'god on their side.' But what does 'God',
want them to DO? Abstracts about religion are fine. They give us
some small, generalized insight into what a canidate MIGHT stand for. Or, they are just, cover. What are they hiding?