CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › O'Donnell Loses His Shit Over Romney
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

O'Donnell Loses His Shit Over Romney

post #1 of 21
12/14/07 at 2:54am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence O'Donnell, via The Huffington Post
After the Today Show used video clips of me talking (ranting, to some) about the racist history of the Church of Latter Day Saints as a lead-in to Matt Lauer's interview of Mitt Romney, I feel compelled to clarify the obvious: religious affiliation is not a good reason to vote for or against a candidate for president. I mean any religious affiliation, including Scientology (if that's a religion). I know at least one Scientologist who would be a better president than many of the current candidates. I might know more, but they tend to be a bit secretive about being Scientologists, so ...

I don't hate Mormons. Some of my best friends are Mormons. Well, okay, one of my best friends is Mormon. Or used to be. He's not sure anymore. He's glad he grew up Mormon, likes the values he learned, the respect for family, etc. He's just not sure about some of the crazy beliefs of the religion. He would like to distance himself from some of that stuff and still be a Mormon--the way Rudy Giuliani can be pro-abortion and very fond of divorce and sequential marriage and still be, or at least call himself, a Catholic. But Mormonism isn't as flexible as Catholicism. It's a hook, line and sinker deal. You buy it all--every word of the Book of Mormon and its supplement, the Book of Abraham--or you're not a Mormon. My friend is a surgeon. He says the Mormon doctors he knows are like him. They have doubts about some things in the books and there are some things in the books that they simply can no longer believe. He can't imagine any Mormon who graduates from medical school or Harvard Business School like Mitt Romney thinking any other way. But if Romney were to admit to such doubts and reservations, the Church of Latter Day Saints would be forced to say he is no longer a Mormon. And a candidate for president without a religion ... well, that could only happen on The West Wing.

(...) Mitt Romney has chosen a different course. He said: "Some question whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today." And then he left the podium without taking any questions.

(...)Romney felt politically forced to give the speech specifically because evangelical Christians seem to know a little too much about the faith of his fathers. Many evangelicals believe and have said publicly that Mormonism--contrary to Romney's assertions--is not a Christian religion but an abomination of Christianity. Here's a sampling of why: Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri; that Jews were the first people in America; that Indians descended from Jews and are a lost tribe of Israel; that Jesus came to America; that after the next coming of Christ (which will the second or third, depending on how you count his trip to America), the world will be ruled for a thousand years from Jerusalem and Missouri; and to answer Mike Huckabee's now famous question, yes, they believe "Jesus and Lucifer were brothers, in the sense of both being spiritually begotten by the Father."

(...)On McLaughlin, I was asked to review a political speech. My approach to reviewing political speeches is to examine what deceptions are employed. Romney's speech, like every speech by every candidate for president, had its deceptions. No one else was willing to talk about those deceptions because that would involve talking about a candidate's religion, which we must never do, even if the candidate has just done it...
read the whole blogpost

I listened to MacLaughlin Group on podcast and he does indeed get emo. (I know it's like grandpa TV, and I love it.)

But O'Donnell has a point about Mitt completely dodging the tough (or any) questions on some of the more supposedly unsavory aspects of his religion. And he also has a point on how this is not exactly like JFK's situation.
Reply
post #2 of 21
12/14/07 at 7:32am
Huffington has a saggy cunt.
Reply
post #3 of 21
12/14/07 at 10:52am
Quote:
And a candidate for president without a religion ... well, that could only happen on The West Wing.
What an odd thing to say. Bartlett was very religious and Santos was as well. I'd like to know what the hell show Huffington was watching.
Reply
post #4 of 21
12/14/07 at 1:42pm
I think he's talking about Vinick; the guy is a former writer/show-runner for 'The West Wing' and even played Bartlet's dad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence O'Donnell, from the article
When I created the West Wing's Republican candidate for president played brilliantly by Alan Alda, I wanted for dramatic purposes to give him the worst problem I could think of. Sex with the interns being a bit dated, I chose to make him a closet atheist. When the press started to close in on him with questions about when he last went to church, he refused to answer. He said he would answer any question about government, "but if you have questions about religion, please, go to church."
Reply
post #5 of 21
12/14/07 at 2:09pm
See, I just don't get this. Unless you're agnostic I don't see how you can call into question unsavory aspects of other people's religion. All religions have a crazy history and crazy beliefs. I have no problem with members of any religion out there whether it be; Mormons, Christians, Catholics or any other religion out there with the exception of jehovah witnesses they can all go fuck a baby in the mouth. (phrase that pays!)
Reply
post #6 of 21
12/14/07 at 2:19pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke
See, I just don't get this. Unless you're agnostic I don't see how you can call into question unsavory aspects of other people's religion. All religions have a crazy history and crazy beliefs. I have no problem with members of any religion out there whether it be; Mormons, Christians, Catholics or any other religion out there with the exception of jehovah witnesses they can all go fuck a baby in the mouth. (phrase that pays!)
O'Donnell's point about Mormonism is that it its followers must accept the whole shebang. IF that is the case, then these questions are relevant. Also, he's running on this as part of his platform. JFK made his speech and then said the wall between church and state is absolute. Romney's not saying that. He made a Kennedy-esque statement, then went to comfort evangelicals by demonizing athiests.
Reply
post #7 of 21
12/14/07 at 2:51pm
Thread Starter 
While I was reading his blog, I was thinking about any parallels there might be between O'Donnell's interpretation of Mormonism and Islam.

JVC, by all means, feel free to refute LO'D's claims. I wish that Romney would have the opportunity to do it instead. Let me add that I don't agree with everything that O'Donnell says. I tend to think all religions are crazy. But I would ask a scientologist candidate if they believed in Xenu and Thetans, especially if they were running on the platform of faith, and if their congregation was required to adhere to the religions beliefs.
Reply
post #8 of 21
12/14/07 at 3:17pm
How could O'Donnell forget Kolob?
Reply
post #9 of 21
12/14/07 at 6:36pm
O'Donnell's talking crazy, but he does have a good point, which is that if Romney says he believes unconditionally in the tenets of Mormonism, then he should be called on the more questionable aspects of that religion, especially if he's made statements like saying he's divinely inspired to become President.

Also, somebody should ask him about Mountain Meadows. Just because.
Reply
post #10 of 21
12/14/07 at 8:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu
...if Romney says he believes unconditionally in the tenets of Mormonism, then he should be called on the more questionable aspects of that religion, especially if he's made statements like saying he's divinely inspired to become President.
And the Baptists and the Catholics and all the others should be called on the more questionable aspects of their religions, but for some reason they're off limits. The closest anyone has come is that one question about evolution, and there wasn't even any follow-up on that. If we're gonna have these moronic, shallow-ass religious types given leeway, then why not the Mormon?

And that's coming from a dyed-in-the-wool, semi-militant atheist, mind you.
Reply
post #11 of 21
12/15/07 at 1:43am
Thread Starter 
The difference is that there are plenty of Catholics who have had abortions or gotten divorced. (RU-DEE!) O'Donnell's point, if it withstands scrutiny, is that Mormonism ain't like that.
Reply
post #12 of 21
12/15/07 at 1:53am
Mormons aren't like that, he is right about that. Nice people, Salt Lake is very pretty...just a bit crazy but what we consider "normal' society.
Reply
post #13 of 21
12/15/07 at 2:19am
I went to school with a bunch of kids from BYU and--weirdly--they were much, much more open about discussing their beliefs than this guy seems to be. I think the reason he's so afraid to talk openly about Mormonism is that it would force him into validating a bunch of concerns the traditional Trinitarian Christians have with Mormonism and piss them off even further in the process. Claims that he'd be unable to truthfully deny and tend to piss off people who know their faith in the Christian community: 1) Mormons believe their church is the one, true inheritor of the Apostolic succession. Basically, Romney would have to tell 3/4ths of the US that their faith, which he claims to "respect," is illegitimate in his eyes. 2) Like Islam, Mormons believe that their sacred texts are the definitive take on the Abrahamic tradition, which would force him to publicly admit that he doesn't hold the Bible to be the doctrinal norm of his faith. 3) Mormons deny the doctrine of the Trinity/the idea that Christ and God are ontologically indistinct beings. 4) At least according to the kids from BYU, Mormonism takes the materialistic view of ontology/cannot reconcile their beliefs with the dualist beliefs of the larger Christian community.
Reply
post #14 of 21
12/15/07 at 3:07pm
Thread Starter 
I think its obvious the reason he is so afraid to talk about the specifics of his beliefs is because it will cost him votes. Romney has that say (or avoid saying) anything to win kind of drive that he shares with the Clintons. He might also share that basic level of managerial competence with the Clintons but the level of pandering coming from his campaign is off the charts.
Reply
post #15 of 21
12/15/07 at 3:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
And the Baptists and the Catholics and all the others should be called on the more questionable aspects of their religions, but for some reason they're off limits. The closest anyone has come is that one question about evolution, and there wasn't even any follow-up on that. If we're gonna have these moronic, shallow-ass religious types given leeway, then why not the Mormon?

And that's coming from a dyed-in-the-wool, semi-militant atheist, mind you.
I would argue that any political candidate that chooses to make religion either a major part of their reason for running or their political platform should be questioned on that religion. I'd be all for people hammering Huckabee on some of the same issues.
Reply
post #16 of 21
12/15/07 at 8:33pm
I've gotta say, I'm feeling a bit of shadenfreude that, after years (decades?) of the Democrats being automatically categorized as the God-hatin' party, religion is now becoming an albatross around the neck of the Republicans. They're running a bunch of guys who just don't appeal to the hardcore religious, and the one major candidate who does is likely to face opposition from everyone else. I think the schism between the objectivist/libertarian Repubs and the fundies is way bigger than most people are acknowledging at this point.
Reply
post #17 of 21
12/16/07 at 2:43am
I think this election is going to forece the Republicans to achknowledge the two different verisons of there part.

The old Liberial wing of the Party that was the Nixon/Ford/Roseavelt/Rockeller wing of the party, the lower taxes yet social progressive wing.

The other wing is the low taxes, insane spending social conservative wing, which has run the party since Regan got elected.


The Liberal wing of the party may be dead at this point, which is a same as most Republician Presidents hailed from that wing of the party.
Reply
post #18 of 21
12/16/07 at 3:18pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu
I would argue that any political candidate that chooses to make religion either a major part of their reason for running or their political platform should be questioned on that religion. I'd be all for people hammering Huckabee on some of the same issues.
Normally I don't want to sound like an echo chamber, but in the interest of impartiality, I will ditto this statement. Huckabee absolutely should be asked the tough questions about some of his more out-there religious beliefs. Its a genuine problem that the press is cowered into not asking them, even though the candidates have decided to leverage their faith as part of their platform.
Reply
post #19 of 21
12/19/07 at 3:38pm
The problem is, regardless of the merits of their founders, there are people who sincerely believe in both religions, and that also makes a difference. I guess I'm kinda thinking of Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle" here. But no individual should be personally held responsible for the past sins of their faith.
Reply
post #20 of 21
12/19/07 at 6:58pm
Thread Starter 
Romney handled some tough questions on Meet The Russert this week. That said, he sorta wants to have his cake and eat it too. He put no distance between himself and his faith, but also talked up his family's history of civil rights work.

The closest he came to directly addressing the issue of Mormonism's discrimination towards blacks was to say he was relieved when they began allowing blacks into the church. He said nothing of how someone could accept a religion that did discriminate against blacks.
Reply
post #21 of 21
12/20/07 at 2:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barzun
But the faith is illegitimate. All faiths may well be, but we know those two are, because they were founded in broad daylight. And it makes a huge difference and that's why a Mormon will never be president, and Scientology will never be offlimits to Late Night hosts.

As for there being true believers, yes, but- there has always been a mutual regard/ hostility-which-represents-regard between major faiths- even though fringe elements of any one might openly disrespect another, it's always a certain kind of disrespect- but Mormons and Scientologists are simply not taken seriously- everyone else looks at them and says, "What, are you stupid? Joseph Smith! L Ron Hubbard! Come on." In the real world, if a known conman starts a religion and you pour your otherwise legitimate spirituality into it, you might be due some sympathy, but you're not due any respect. You're at best a cultist, at worst an idiot.

I'm surprised to come off as so intolerent about an issue I had never known I had any opinion on. I myself am irreligious but have Buddhist sympathies. But I just think there are legitimate and obvious reasons Mormons and Scientologists aren't and can never be accepted, and they're bigger than "well, they're new." If Tolstoy had founded either church, you might have something, for a Tolstoy or a Gandhi or a genuine religious figure could withstand the scrutiny of the modern age- but conmen can't, and no number of members and no amount of money will make the rest of the world suddenly forget how a faith started.

That said, Romney is probably harmless, while Huckabee seems genuinely evil. But neither should be taken seriously.
No. All religions were presumably founded in daylight at some stage. Mohammed existed. The fact that Scientology and Mormonism were recent doesn't increase or decrease their validity. If faith is a disqualifying factor, then all faiths are out - I don't think you can cherry pick which are acceptable. Episcopalianism is OK but Methodism isn't? Is that where you want to take us?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › O'Donnell Loses His Shit Over Romney