Counting the southern evangelicals?
Actually I can understand why TOO and others are confused about being able to be
a "good" Mormon and also a Democrat. Sure, the Church's stance is
that it doesn't endorse a specific political party etc. but the
Church's ownership of Deseret News runs counter to that claim. Deseret
News could become more "balanced" politically speaking or the Church
could choose to divest itself of Deseret News, but won't do either.
Therefore, defacto endorsement of the Republican Party continues, and the
Church's statement about not endorsing a political party appears
As I've said before, all of you who think that a Church member cannot be a
Democrat are stating false doctrine. I don't know how many times the
Church has to state that. It seems as if you give more allegiance to the
Republican party than you do to your own church leaders, but I give up. I am
sure that your minds will not be changed no matter how many letters are read
from the pulpit before each election.
"I am both religious and a devout Democrat. The two do not only not
contradict each other, but mesh into exactly what Jesus' teachings
are...care for the ill, the orphans, the widows, etc."That is a
commandment for individuals not a green light for government to take from the
haves and give to the have nots. Taking deprives a man of his agency.
There have been several arguments back and forth with TOO, regarding voting for
Obama even though he supports gay marriage and abortion. TOO's detractors
are correct in stating the Church does not tell us how to vote, but they have
failed to explain why they will vote for Obama when they know he supports gay
marriage and abortion (and wants religious organizations to provide abortion and
contraception against their moral code). I would like to read their
explanations. And Obama did once vote for a law that says if an abortion fails,
and the baby is born alive, the Dr. does not have to revive the baby, but can
just leave it to die. To answer the question, is anyone really FOR abortion, the
answer is YES. NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood might say that they wish
abortion were safe (of course, not safe for the baby!) and rare, but their
actions show that they don't really care if abortion is rare.
To Merich 139: So attending church weekly and saying that it is important to
your daily life makes one “rabidly religious”?To Furry 1993
President Obama “earned” his silver spoon? I guess the way he
“earned” his Nobel Prize. Inciting racial tensions, hobnobbing with
Weather Underground bombers, accepting kickbacks to get Obamacare passed,
appointing tax cheats to high office, hiring lobbyists after promising not to,
promising “shovel ready” jobs that didn’t exist (so he was
either lying or very naïve, but conservatives knew those jobs weren’t
there), and blaming Bush for the deficit even though he has run it up higher
than any other president, sending guns into Mexico but forgetting to even track
them, talking big about a solar company that he knew was in trouble, and which
did in fact go bankrupt – these are how he “earned”
anyone’s respect? Plus, as a senator, he voted “present.”
This seems to fall in line with Romney's latest assertion that President
Obama is pushing some sort of "secular agenda". So let me get this
strait, the accusations about the President's religion range everywhere
between "he's a leftist Christian" (remember Reverend Wright?)
"he's a secret Muslim" and now a "secret Atheist". Proof
that he's a secret Atheist of course, is this poll as anecdotal evidence
that suggests the non-religious are more likely to vote for Obama than Romney.
Brilliant. This despite the fact that President Obama has evoked the name of
Jesus more times in 3.5 years than George Bush did in 8 years (look it up). I
get that most Americans do want a president who believes in God. I think it
probably has more to do with mistaking a belief in God and being humble or
lacking outright "arrogance", but I digress. But perhaps the reason why
non-believers would be more apt to vote for President Obama is because he
doesn't seem eager to enforce his personal religious beliefs on the
country. Where as Romney is probably seen as some one more likely to do just
that. My guess
I would guess that Obama's belief system is much more aligned to the
secular humanism that is prevalent in academia.a.k.a. Pro=choice,
pro-Palestinian and leaning toward a radical social democrat.
"And I doubt that he's "for" abortion. Who is "for"
abortion?"I think somebody who would deliberately overturn the
code that allows people to refuse to perform abortion for religious beliefs
(like some religions do not like its members joining the military) could be
considered to be "for" abortion. Obama has done just that. What
arguments do you have that suggest he is not for abortion, considering that
information?And Melanna, that law sounds an awful lot like that plan
you talk about, the plan that 2/3 of us voted down. Except this law isn't
forcing us to do good, it is forcing some people to do evil unless they give up
their careers. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?
@patriot Thats funny I always see extreme and false rhetoric designed to
try to convince people that anyone that does not hold the same views as the
persons spreading said propaganda as the "enemy" in an attempt to divide
people as a very serious threat to our society. I guess it depends on your point
Barack Hussin OBama is an enemy to all who value their faith. Big government
socialistic societies see religion as a threat to their heavy hand. Always have
and always will.
@ TOO: You know, there was a leader who thought that the best way to make sure
people did what was right and correct was to pass laws dictating desired
behavior.2/3 of us decided it was more important to have choice and
voted him down.But hey, let's follow his plan anyway, right?
@ TOO: "We value scholarship that enhances understanding, but in the Church
today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting
doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows
with apostolic authority." - Elder D. Todd ChristoffersonWho are
you to publicly question someone else's temple worthiness? Especially in a
public forum, especially against the position of the LDS Church that such things
are not to be done?Perhaps you should worry about the beam in your
own eye, and let alt134, Wonder, and any other LDS members who choose to support
Obama worry about their motes by themselves with some input from God and their
Bishops?(By the way, how do you feel about that commandment
prohibiting false witness? Is supporting someone who violates that also a
violation of the Recommend requirements? If so, perhaps you should stay home in
November - because there will be no one on the ballot at any level who has not
@TOOI am pretty sure your religious leaders recently talked about he fact
that you should not be calling others faith and membership into question
especially in public forums, but I guess since you are picking and choosing what
parts of your religion to quote to try to score political points it does not
really matter what your leaders actually teach, right?
atl134Actually, I firmly believe that it DOES matter which way you
vote. During the year we studied the Doctrine and Covenants, there was a quote
from Bruce R. McConkie that said:"To be valiant in the testimony
of Jesus is to take the Lord’s side on every issue. It is to vote as he
would vote. It is to think what he thinks, to believe what he believes, to say
what he would say and do what he would do in the same situation. It is to have
the mind of Christ and be one with him as he is one with his Father”I am pretty sure that if it is in the Sunday School manual it is
considered doctrine.Also, read the book, Many are Called but Few are
Chosen by H. Verlon Andersen. It was recommended in General Conference to all
members of the church by President Benson.
@tenxSo how did you conduct your survey? did you ask yourself and then
agree it must be right? I think its safe to say what ever your method was your
research methods leave something to be desired since the real studies show the
fact is that less then 9% of the population relies on the government for part of
their income and less then 3% rely on it as their sole source of income. Maybe
you should leave research to the experts.
@TOOYour assertion is that people who are voting for Obama are unworthy of
entering the temple, otherwise you would not be quoting that temple recommend
interview question. R and D doesn't matter, the LDS church does not think
it is wrong for somebody to be a liberal, a socialist, or an Obama supporter,
yet you disagree on that.
Actually, Obama isn't "for" gay marriage. I believe his position is
that he believes there should be civil unions. And I doubt that he's
"for" abortion. Who is "for" abortion? Should I say you are
for abortion since you say they are ok in some circumstances?
atl134And it's people like you who love to take things out of
context. The question isn't R vs D. I've voted for
Democrats. It's simply a matter of beliefs. Obama is for abortion and gay
marriage. That's the point. Way to make yourself look very ignorant
though. You did a great job, I must say. Taking things out of context is one
thing that Libs do best.
@TOO"The recommend question is simply asking if you affiliate or
sympathize with any individuals who go against what the church teaches."I once joked in a temple recommend interview that I was a registered
Democrat when this question was asked. The bishop chuckled and said that's
not an issue. But hey, you're doing a good job of showing why the church
has so few active Democrats/liberals... they don't feel like dealing with
people like you. And the worst part is... you'll take my assertion that
people like you harm the church, and you're already thinking that one verse
about separating wheat from tares. You think purifying the church politically is
a good thing. You... you're the type of person that leads to people
thinking that LDS members have to get in line and take orders from Salt Lake
City, including the politicians. Guess what, Harry Reid is a temple recommend
holder. Deal with it.
Wonder, atl134I know the church does not endorse. I did not say
they did. I have been a member all my life. The recommend question is
simply asking if you affiliate or sympathize with any individuals who go against
what the church teaches.The church is against gay marriage. The
church is against abortion (yes I know, unless certain circumstances arise).
Obama is for both of these. The question is simple. Either you support
him and go against this question or you don't.
@TOO: If you are LDS, you apparently don't think you should listen to your
church leaders. Here are quotes from the First Presidency: "Church members
should avoid statements or conduct that may be interpreted as Church endorsement
of any political party," and "Principles compatible with the gospel may
be found in various political parties." (see the letters that come from the
First Presidency every election cycle). You apparently think you know more
about church teachings than the First Presidency. Now, ask YOURSELF the
question you just implied I would fail to answer correctly.
@TOO"Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or
practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group
or individual?"The church does not: •Attempt to direct its
members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. The church does: •Expect its members to engage in the political process
in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church
come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of
opinion in partisan political matters.
To LDS members who claim Obama is a good man and vote for him:Do you
affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary
to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?Does that sound familiar? Obama supports abortion, gay marriage, and more.
Could someone please explain to me this so-called, "Obama's war on
religion." In the past 4 years I have not seen any churches closed due to
any of the Obama policies. I have not seen anyone prevented from attending the
church of their choice (other than dictated by family members). The only thing
I've seen is requiring church-employers to provide adequate health care to
their employees (which they should). Sounds like a made up war to me.
My survey shows that entitlement people prefer BO while those that work for a
living prefer Romney. Only problem is the entitlement people are just about to
go over the 50% line so that any politician who promises a free ride will be
What nonsense!Perhaps if the poll showed Evangelicals for Romney
(altho they pretty much despise him), that would make more sense.Fortunately, the only people who care about religion and politics are the few
on the extremes. Sadly, they have the loudest scream-ability.I am
both religious and a devout Democrat. The two do not only not contradict each
other, but mesh into exactly what Jesus' teachings are...care for the ill,
the orphans, the widows, etc.Romney and the GOP will do anything
To the LDS community everyone that is NOT LDS is non-religious. This article
seems to be out of place in this paper.
Why you buy ink by the barrel you have to use it to print something, whether it
makes any sense or not, as observed by this article that has zero merit.
I agree with hutterite I am not interested in living in a theocracy if I want a
preacher I will go to church.
How is any of this important? I want a president, not a preacher.
Oh, my goodness. Does that mean I'm an apostate now?
I am a little surprised usually when the DN uses such a bluntly misleading
headlines they do a better hatchet job to the article they are
"compiling" from to cover their tracks.
A study found that the three safest states in America were Maine, New Hampshire
and Vermont, the three most atheist states in the nation. Now I'm not going
to say that religion correlates with dangerous areas because it doesn't if
you look at the 50 states as a whole (btw Utah was 5th safest behind those 3 and
minnesota), I'm just saying that this idea that religion = good while
atheists = moralless is ridiculous and frankly to suggest atheists have no
morals is bigoted.
Roland Kayser, consider Britains political leanings.
I find this "article" typical of something Deseret News would report...
anything that would lead the flock to believe their beloved Romney is the right
choice because of "religion". quite comical indeed.
@chris bI suppose you could go back to the 1950's when that was
added and ask them.
I also am very religious (LDS) and I will vote for Obama (as will many of my
I saw an interesting poll from Great Britain recently. The stronger a
voter's identification was with Christianity, the more liberal that
voter's politics tended to be.
I am very religious, and I support Obama. And, this article is propaganda. Deal
IQ has never been a necessarily good indicator of wisdom, good judgment or
effective decision making. As for religiosity and the highly educated, one study
found something different, stating that "This correlation between highly
educated people having high levels of religious behavior in Western nations is
supported by other studies: in Australia, 23% of Christian church attenders have
earned a university or postgraduate degree, whereas the figure for the general
population is 13%. Commentators on the survey attribute the educational
levels to sociological factors, such as age, class and income, making no claims
about intelligence.  Similarly, studies of Mormons in the US show that
Mormons with higher education attend church more regularly than uneducated
Mormons. Survey research indicated that 41% of Mormons with only elementary
school education attend church regularly, compared to 76% of Mormon college
graduates and 78% of Mormons who went beyond their college degrees to do
graduate study attending church regularly." Or, put another way, Mormons
who attend church more achieve higher levels of education. Cause and effect
could go either way. S 'Education and Religion' by Bruce
Sacerdote and Edward L. Glaeser, Harvard Institute of Economic Research
Discussion Paper Number 1913 (2001)
Good grief, here we go again, the righteous Republicans vs the Democratic evil
doers. God is not spelled G.O.P.
To codger |4.34 p.m.And the President proudly proclaims, "I
wasn't born wuth a silver spoon in MY mouth". Well, no, he got his from
the government.--------------Not true. President Obama
got his "silver spoon" the hard way. He EARNED it.
My husband and I are obsservant recommend-carrying Latter-day Saints. We are
both very spiritual and deeply religious people. We wouldn't vote for
Romney for any office, much less President.
You know what? I really don't think these polls do much to create bonds on
good will among the various factions found in this country. Based on the
comments read just here, it seems it only creates further tension.Further, you can't label people. I think of my self as super religious
and right now I'm more likely to vote for Obama while my friend is very
atheistic and more likely to vote for Romney. I know these polls try to
generalize everything and everyone, but life is far more complex then the media
and politics try to make it out as. I think once we stop trying to fit people
into bubbles, we might actually be able to get stuff done.
We've all made this decision once before: Lucifers plan was shot down.
Wait a minute, so Reverend Wright is considered Christian which interpreted
means Obama is Christian. Wow, using the term loosely aren't they.
And the President proudly proclaims, "I wasn't born wuth a silver spoon
in MY mouth". Well, no, he got his from the government.
Ok Gurney, so your definition of Reynolds draft stock having "slipped
slightly" is going from a top 15 pick to a late round pick, if at all? Kind
of a Liberal interpretation!Come to BYU where we can take you from a
1st round prospect, to the free agency line!
The headline is somewhat misleading. Or incomplete, at least. The headline
states Romney leads among the 'very religious' while Obama leads among
the 'nonreligious'. But the body of the article states that Obama
also leads among the 'moderately religious'. It's an important
omission because the headline implies that mainly the nonreligious support
Obama, when that is not true. A more accurate assessment is that mainly the
rabidly religious support Romney.
It's actually kind of ironic in a way that the nonreligious people would
support Obama; they generally don't believe in life after death, and so
you'd think they'd try as hard as they can to get someone in office
who won't leave the country in financial ruin. The religious could at
least hope for a better life after Obama is through destroying our constitution.
So to summarize, Obama leads Romney big in 59 percent of this poll, while Romney
leads Obama big on the other 41 percent.But certainly that headline
wouldn't be nearly as appealing to DNews readers!
Considering the GOP's "War on Thoughtfulness", not a surprise.
So, on that basis we can assume that Obama is both clueless and godless.
Well, I wonder what those "one nation under GOD" people would say?
No surprise. In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether
IQ relates to denomination, using representative data from the National
Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a
representative selection of white American youth, where they have also replied
to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific
journal Intelligence, demonstrated that Atheists scored an average of 1.95 IQ
points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and
5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions.
makes you think
Big surprise. Does someone actually pay for such surveys?