So now calling someone a liar is immoral but lying to a whole country to achieve a personal goal is totally OK. Interesting...
So now calling someone a liar is immoral but lying to a whole country to achieve a personal goal is totally OK. Interesting...
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
Well, yes. If you have a belief system and the people in charge of the organization around that belief system have decided to embrace a stance that you don't agree with, yes you should leave. If you honestly buy into the whole system, then yes, you buy into all of it or you walk. But then, I really hate buffet religions.
Yes, and I think that's relevant. All religions have gone through bad leaders, some still have them. But having a poor leader doesn't make you a poor believer, after a while, the vast majority of religions that have practiced poor policies have revised them and gone on for the better.
There is an important distinction between the leaders of a religion and it's core dogma. While the leaders of a religion can dictate some worldly aspects and certain interpretations of the dogma, being of a specific faith does not imply you agree with that faith's leadership's decisions. And disagreement with those decisions shouldn't imply that one must leave the faith and start anew or give up your belief. History has shown that given time most of these organizations will change their stance to a more positive one. The Mormon Church did so.
We don't know Romneys specific stance on the Mormon church's policies, and I don't think we need to. He may have had faith they would change their ways, he may have simply not cared enough to challenge them, he may not have had the power to challenge them, hell he might have been vocal in changing them behind closed doors. I personally don't think it matters. I'm deciding if I will vote for Romney not the Mormon church.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
If a racist stops being racist and is not racist for thirty years, are we going to still consider them inadequate for office because of it?
I doubt I would, but that would depend on if they've actually changed their ways or if they're simply not expressing it anymore. Everyone has bias in some way, shape or form, it's very natural for humans to do so. But it really depends on how you express that and act upon it. I mean I would probably regard someone more favorably who admitted to having bigoted thoughts and actively worked on controlling them than someone who claimed they'd never thought a bigoted thought in their life.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
I think that's reasonable. Though, I have never seen anything about Mittens being racist, so I can't say that he is now or that we need to look into it. It just seems like a non-issue.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
I don't see Mitt's religion as being a big deal. I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up more since it is a pretty crazy religion. All religion takes a leap of faith, but some leaps are off the top of a house and some are from the grand canyon. Mormonism is from the top of freaking Everest if you can close your eyes and honestly be okay with one guy reading your religious text off gold tablets only he ever saw. But hey as long as it doesn't influence his decisions anymore than the GOP already bases their entire plan on the Bible, who cares. That reminds me, Ryan essentially said in the debate he has no issue forcing his religious beliefs on others through abortion regulation.
Mormonism used to be racist but now has plenty of black members. I'm not going to fault the guy for the decisions of his religion decades ago. I'd rather fault the guy for constantly changing positions, his absolute blatant refusal to give a single example of a deduction or loophole being closed to somehow balance out his 20% tax cut, his support for abortion legislation, etc. You know, decisions that matter right now, not ones from the 70s.
MMO-C nightly hockey chat http://webchat.quakenet.org/?channels=#mmoc-hockey
Right. There are more legitimate issues concerning Mittens other than his religion. Bringing it up, I feel, dilutes the actual issues.
I think the reason you've never seen anything about it is because no one in the media will say boo about his religion. For some bizarre reason, it's completely off limits.
---------- Post added 2012-10-15 at 09:12 AM ----------
Why not? People choose their religions, and Romney wasn't a passive participant, he was very active in the church. If someone's part of an active racist institution, enthusiastically endorses it, recruits others, and gives money, I think it's at least fair to ask them their position on the church's stances.
I don't think, "I believe the things I was told as a child" is actually a great explanation. His feet should be held to the fire if that's all he's got to defend LDS racism.
Of course, but we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. Both are problems.
I'm referring to what I think press coverage should be, not campaign tactics for Obama. Depressingly, Obama remotely questioning LDS in any way would absolutely hurt him in the election.