A Mormon in the White House?

The debate over Mitt Romney's religion

At the Values Voter Summit, Republican primary candidate Rick Perry was introduced by a megachurch pastor, named Robert Jeffress, who offered the audience an extraordinary false choice: "Do we want a candidate who is a good, moral person or one who is a born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ?"

Answer: We want a candidate who will cut capital gains taxes.

Now, Jeffress would go on to explain that Perry is a "genuine follower of Jesus Christ," which is widely understood to mean that his opponent Mitt Romney is a member of a satanic sect. When one considers that Romney was governor of Massachusetts, the possibility can't be dismissed. But Jeffress, it turns out, was referring to a "theological cult." Many Americans, evidently, believe that Mormons such as Romney are heretics, too impure to take on the virtuous job of being a politician.

Some of us have no standing—and absolutely no interest—in wading into theological debates. The Constitution states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This, regrettably, doesn't shield candidates from the prejudices of some voters, and tragically, it doesn't shield us from candidates who believe that repeatedly citing God is a policy position.

Though all that may be annoying, does it mean we should recoil from any discussion of religion in political discourse?

Let's just stretch the imagination for a moment. Suppose a candidate had a deep fidelity with a faith that is known to occasionally keep women from driving, one that believes 90 lashes for speaking out of turn is an acceptable form of punishment, and one that overlooks forced circumcisions and allows honor killings. Let's say that this faith leaves little distinction between the state and God. If any tenets of your faith conflict with the liberty of others, does religion become a political matter?

If your faith drives you, as it does Michele Bachmann, is it out of bounds to ask—as she was during one Republican debate—why she believes wives should be "submissive" to their husbands? (As it turns out, she gave a rather fascinating answer, and I now strongly advocate for a similar position in my own household.) And seeing as Barack Obama is a religious man, why shouldn't we question his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who, you will remember, used his pulpit as an ideologue to preach racism and other unseemly business?

No doubt, some on the left are offended that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes gay marriage, though they align the Mormon church with other "theological cults"—such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and most denominations of Protestantism. I get it. If any church publicly supported Keynesian boondoogles, I'd have a problem, too.

But Mormons seem, for the most part, because of a long and complex history, to go out of their way to avoid mixing religion and politics. Is Romney covertly behind some Mormon-centric legislation I haven't heard about? Do Sen. Harry Reid, who is Mormon, and Sen. Mike Lee, who is Mormon, agree on any substantive policy?

We can't know what impact the Mormon question will have on this election. Polls can't accurately reflect that kind of sentiment. But if you dismiss millions of people solely on a religious basis as unworthy of public office, you are intolerant and have taken a deeply un-American position.

Jeffress isn't a bigot because he has a theological argument or because he brought up religion. He is a bigot because he rejected a man based on his personal faith rather than dismiss him for his terrible health care policy like a normal person.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Suki||

    Good morning Mormon bashers!

  • ||

    If you love the drug war and want more of it, vote for a mormon.

  • ||

    so you prefer the current Muslim?

  • Meh||

    As long as we live in a country where our representatives our voted on for their political policies because they aren't even going to pretend to represent their constituents you can be damn sure I'm going to discriminate based on religion.

  • Meh||

    *are. WTF, I need a drink.

  • Nicholas Card||

    Hear hear!

  • Meh||

    No. HERE. HERE. I need a drink HERE.

  • ||

    Yes, I am a Mormon basher...but not for the reason you might think. Yes, I think their religion is WRONG, but that's not too important. It has always been wrong. What really upsets me,is the threat that Mormons present to The United States of America. These people have vowed to avenge the death of Joseph Smith. They wish to 'take out' our country, and transform it into a Mormon Theocracy. Do you think I'm exaggerating? Read, Ioni Omni Speaks...articles #4 and #10. You would do well to read all of the articles in order to understand the mechanism of politics and religion in the U.S.A. If you disagree with what you read, do the research, as I did. This information needs to be available to ALL Americans.
    Sincerely, Ioni

  • ||

    Back on Speterember 17, H&R had Courtlan Milloy as loathesome colunist of the month. Well, please check this out.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

  • ||

    Milloy is yet another field hand on the Dem plantation. God forbid that a black man should stray from the orthodoxy of "only by the hand of govt can a black succeed". Cain reflects the experience of an entire generation of black Americans; Obama reflects the experience of any other American who was raised overseas and in places (Hawaii) where being non-white is an advantage.

    Cain succeeded on his own merits and folks like Milloy cannot stand it because it puts the lie to liberalism. So, they go to the front of the line and project their hostility onto Repubs. The TP loves Cain and it's mostly white. People like him because he is relentlessly upbeat and positive, even if they disagree with his message.

  • Lockesian Bigots||

    the orthodoxy of "only by the hand of govt can a black succeed"

    That's libertarian orthodoxy. Haven't you seen Libertarians explaining to WI how the agricultural city-State is necessary for any man to succeed?

    They've even told him: WE NEED GOVERNMENT to protect....well, you know the story.

  • ||

    STFU Indian.

  • Progressive||

    John, is it time to switch to being anti-State again?

    How do you do it anyway -- even days, pro-city-State, odd days, anti-State?

  • ||

    STFu Indian. No cares what you think.

  • Rodeo Jesus||

    You care enough to get your panties in a twist...why not stop shitting up this place with your censorship attempts?

  • Progressive||

    Libertarians want government for me, but not for thee.

  • ||

    That's libertarian orthodoxy
    ----------------------

    no, no it is not. Libertarian orthodoxy would hold that govt's job is to safeguard people's rights. One of those, much as you hate it, is to own property and I don't hear liberals offering to give theirs back any more than anyone else is.

    Govt was, in fact, established TO PROTECT specific rights. Of course, we could revert to Old West means of protection which means if you walk onto my land uninvited, you may be carried away.

  • Progressive||

    Progressive orthodoxy would hold that govt's job is to safeguard people's rights too. Welcome to the club of pro-government progressives.

  • ||

    sorry, but perhaps you are in the wrong club. Good luck finding the libertarian who believes that govt-protected rights include mandated standards re: gas mileage, food choices, light bulbs, wages, and a litany of other things. By the way, conservative orthodoxy holds that govt is to safeguard rights, too. Better rethink your liberal cred.

  • Progressive||

    mandated standards

    You don't think that regulating the surface of the earth with a mandated standard of lines and divisions isn't a big-government program of private for the privileged, enTitled owners that causes privation for the non-owner class without other balancing government programs?

  • Mensan||

    wareagle, don't bother. White Idiot (aka Progressive, Lockersian Bigots, etc.) is a troll who comes on here babbling incoherently about the oppression of agriculture and city-states. It's pointless to argue with him, and honestly, he's just boring. It's best to simply ignore him.

  • Religio-Economics||

    pointless to argue

    Got apoplexy?

    That happens, especially when he excoriates your primary religio-economic beliefs based on the divine domination hierarchy of Genesis 1:26-28.

    That nature is to be used and has no value other than human value is indeed BIBLICAL.

  • how funny that you lie||

    You lie about what YOU have been told.

    The discussions are pubic record, when you're told "government helps people protect their property" and then lie and claim that you were instead told "we NEED government", you're simply lying.

    Feel free to post the entire conversation, instead of the obvious out of context stupidity you insist on.

  • WE NEED GOVERNMENT||

    lie and claim that you were instead told "we NEED government"

    Not lies. "We need government" is libertarian orthodoxy. This isn't an anarchist website.

    Do a google search of "we need government" on site:reason.com and you'll see more than one libertarian poster saying those exact words:

    We. Need. Government.

    Example: "We need government to protect property rights."

    We. Need. Government.

    It's there, dude. You're in denial.

  • Intellectual Deficiency||

    "Not lies. 'We need government' is libertarian orthodoxy. This isn't an anarchist website."

    White Imbecile,
    The art of being unhinged, page thirty-twelve.

  • WE NEED GOVERNMENT||

    Are you back to WE HATE GOVERNMENT now?

    Libertarians, the party of convenient, non-principled debate tactics.

    A reed shaken with the wind...

  • how funny that you lie||

    Funny that you blather about principles after being proven a liar.

    You never posted the conversation where you were told what you claimed.

    Because you know it never happened and you are a liar.

  • Religio-Economic Scoffer||

    You're the liar. Libertarians wrote "we need government" multiple times.

    Did you do the Google search of "We need government" on reason.com?

    Several times, when I've spoken against the agricultural city-State, Libertarians have said that the State is necessary, and that they are not anti-state anarchists.

    The most frequent use of "we need government" comes in the form of:

    "WE NEED GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS."

    With that statement I agree. Private property rights come from the State.

    Thus proving that private property is contradictory to the Non-Aggression Principle.

    But they aren't contradictory to the Biblical account of a magical skyG_D creating a dominionist hierarchy.

  • you know I proved you lie||

    If they've said it several times you should have no trouble quoting ut, with attribution, like you do when you spam the thread. Suddenly you make it MY job to prove YOU aren't a liar.

    Source your claim with attributed quotes liar. Stop telling me to search Google to do your work for you liar. If its so obvious, link to it liar.

  • you know I proved you lie||

    If the google search is so easy, why are you lazily expecting ME TO DO IT FOR YOU?

    Is that the kind of laziness your lifestyle engenders?

    You made a claim, and have failed to support it. Primarily because you know you were lying.

    Any chance you're going to cite that made up quote that starts "we need government" that you're pretending someone actually said by disingenuously putting quotation marks there?

    If its orthodoxy you should have no problem CITING YOUR SOURCE AND QUOTING ACTUAL CONVERSATIONS.

    So, care to try again to prove you're not a liar? No out of context stupidity, the whole conversation please.

  • Religio-Economic Scoffer||

    Actually, you made the claim that I'm lying about libertarians disclaiming anarchism and stating, more than once:

    "We need government..." (...to protect rights....to protect property rights, etc.)

    To deny libertarians say that is to be either stupid or a liar. Which are you?

  • you know I proved you lie||

    Still no quotations actually attributed.

    "Actually, you made the claim that I'm lying about libertarians disclaiming anarchism"

    No, liar, I did not.

  • you know I proved you lie||

    "To deny libertarians say that"

    PROVE IT WITH QUOTES OR ADMIT YOU CAN'T.

    YOU claimed it. NOW PROVE it white spam machine, you never seem to be short of stupid citations when you're crapping all over the thread.

  • LIBERTARIAN STATIST||

    "...nobody with a brain wants zero government. Just minimum government. There is no contradiction. We need government to protect private property..."

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_2562045

  • T-shirt||

    Cain is ignorant and over his head. If you like Cain then you are ignorant too. His 999 plan is a joke. The pizza mogul will never become president. He is just trying to raise his profile so he can speak, write books and make lots of $$$$$. Because that's what its all about moving SKU's and padding one's pockets.

  • ||

    In his case, it will probably be the racial drag from his own GOP that sends him plummeting back to earth.

    What a fucking asshole. Seriously, how does that guy sleep at night?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Milloy has a very punchable face. I think this means something.

  • Progressive||

    The Non-Aggression Principle is a debating convenience, not really a principle.

  • Unmittigated Aggressor||

    The Non-Aggression Principle is a debating convenience, not really a principle.


    Ain't that the truth!

  • you know I proved you lie||

    Still no quotations actually attributed.

    "Actually, you made the claim that I'm lying about libertarians disclaiming anarchism"

    No, liar, I did not.

  • LIBERTARIAN STATIST||

    "...nobody with a brain wants zero government. Just minimum government. There is no contradiction. We need government to protect private property..."

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_2562045

  • MoreMoney||

    I found a gold tablet in my back yard that said to vote Mormon.

    Jesus wrote it when he visited White Indian.

  • ||

    +100000!!!

  • ||

    Jesus liked to make fun of him, too?

  • MoreMon EE||

    Jesus was a communist.

  • Concerned Catholic||

    No, He wasn't/isn't. He is all about free will, where a communist and most liberals are not.

  • Religio-Economic Scoffer||

    Accept human torture and sacrifice of a sinless virgin -- or burn in hell forever.

    Because I love you. And gave you free will.

    LOL

  • Copernicus||

    He (the character in the story) was a communist in that he encouraged people to live a "communal" existence. In this sense, he was the first hippie. Peace, love, understanding.. No material possessions, no plan for tomorrow.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    "encouraged" is not a word a communist uses.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    Nothing wrong with communism, when it's done on the small scale like a hippie commune, where everyone participating is there by choice, not coercion, and where someone not pulling their fair share can be booted out. Communism on the grand scale like the Soviet Union fails because a coerced people tend to be unmotivated to play the game when there's nothing in it for them. Jesus was more about the hippie commune, where all the adherents were there of their own free will.

  • o3||

    "...shield candidates from the prejudices of some voters..."
    _
    u mean the christards.

  • Old Mexican||

    ... and the socialistards... and the tardy-tard-tards.

  • o3||

    which socialists have denounced mormonism ?

  • ||

    Every one since Marx called religion the opium of the people you fucking half wit.

  • Old Mexican||

    John, he's now a third-wit. See his new name?

  • o3||

    no john, marxism isnt socialism. try harderz

  • ||

    Since Marx and Engels both described Communism as "Scientific Socialism", I think they would disagree with you.

  • o3||

    old mex - name the socialists who denounced mormonism please.

  • Concerned Catholic||

    Socialists see the individual as subservient to the state. The inidividual is only subservient to God, unless he or she freely enters into a contract.

  • Religio-Economic Scoffer||

    Capitalists see the individual as subservient to the privileged rentier class. The individual is only subservient to God,nobody. Period.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    "The individual is only subservient to God,nobody. Period."

    We shall see.

  • ||

    Jeffress wants to pick up where the right rev Huckaphony left off in '08. I believe it's called the Church of JESUS CHRIST of LDS. I am no theologian, but I suspect that hints to at least a passing relationship with Christianity. For whatever faults Romney might have, wanting to be moralist-in-chief is not among them.

  • pmains||

    Not defending Jeffress, but these people have Christ in their name, too.

  • ||

    and their website indicates a fairly strong belief in Jesus and the example he set, too. And? The Romney religion meme is a distraction.

  • ||

    and their website indicates a fairly strong belief in Jesus and the example he set, too. And? The Romney religion meme is a distraction.

  • DLM||

    The Romney religion meme is a distraction.

    I thought that was the point.

  • T||

    Yeah, that's nice and all, but a lot of people in the more mainstream denominations don't consider Mormons to be Christians. I'm not the guy to ask, but it is what it is.

  • rsi||

    My mother didn't considers Catholics to be Christians.

  • Jack and Coke||

    I know a Catholic who scoffed at the idea that he was a Christian. Those religious types...they really know their stuff.

  • Tony||

    My imaginary friend is more realistic than your imaginary friend!

  • Mensan||

    Tony, quit saying things I agree with. It's creeping me out.

  • Old Mexican||

    Tony, quit saying things I agree with. It's creeping me out.


    Tony, quit saying creepy things - it scares Mensan there, the poor retarded lad.

  • ||

    Tony you don't have any friends real or imaginary. I have no doubt God loves you. But you are such an awful confused human being, only something of infinite power and love could do such a thing.

  • ||

    Tony you don't have any friends real or imaginary. I have no doubt God loves you

    I believe you have described a paradox I had never before considered:

    "Could an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God create something he couldn't love?"

  • caspertheholyghost||

    Yes. Rick Santorum. As well as the other Santorum.

  • ||

    I don't care what religion you are, just don't ram it down my throat...Bachmann, Perry, Santorum.

  • Lockesian Bigots||

    Yeah. That's what I say, don't ram your religio-economic faith in capitalism down my throat.

    To date, however, no philosopher has ever successfully divorced Lockesian property rights from monotheism.

    The Right to Property
    by Jason Godesky | 18 July 2005
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/2.....-property/

  • ||

    STFU Indian no one cares.

  • Progressive||

    Apparently you care, because your contradictions are being exposed, and you're angry. Very angry.

    Weird for a place like "reason" to want to stifle debate. Isn't debate welcome here?

  • ||

    STFU. Stop shitting on every thread with your same tired incoherence. Talk about the subject at hand or go away.

  • WI||

    Isn't BiGotry mentioned in the article, By God?

    Lockesian privation property "rights" are based on the divine rights of domination hierarchy written in Genesis 1:26-28.

  • ||

    Isn't debate welcome here?
    -----------

    debate, yes. Endless diatribes against private property on threads that have nothing to do with private property, not so much. Besides, as a progressive, you should be familiar with the places where debate is not welcome. Most of them are run by liberals.

  • WI||

    threads that have nothing to do with private property

    Lockesian privation property rights are a religio-economic faith based on the BiGot!ry of monotheism. Didn't you read the original article?

  • ||

    the article is about religion and politics. You are the only one referring to Locke and property.

  • By Gott||

    Bigotry is mentioned in the article.

    Lockesian property rights are based on bitotry.

    Divine rights of domination hierarchy that provide a foundation of "privation property rights" are found in Genesis 1:26-28.

    Property rights are as bigoted, By Gott!, (i.e., religious) as divine rights of kings.

  • Intellectual Deficiency||

    "Bigotry is mentioned in the article.

    Lockesian property rights are based on bitotry."

    White Imbecile,
    The art of the non sequitur, 3,345 iteration.

  • By Gott||

    Are you saying Lockesian property rights aren't related to the Judeo-Christian dominionist view of nature?

  • Intellectual Deficiency||

    Are you saying Lockesian property rights aren't related to the Judeo-Christian dominionist view of nature?


    White Imbecile,
    Intellectual Sloth and other pleasures from ignorance, paged mostly.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    Are you saying Lockesian property rights aren't related to the Judeo-Christian dominionist view of nature?


    That is what I'm sayigng, yes. Property rights are the logical extension of the Self-Ownership principle. The fact that you're saying otherwise is evidence of your own and sloven intellectual deficiency.

  • By Gott||

    Property rights are the logical extension of the Self-Ownership principle.

    Wrong. The concept of divine property rights have been around in Western Civilization long before some libertarian candy-coated them with the secular "self-ownership principle."

  • DLM||

    I don't care what religion you are, just don't ram it down my throat...Bachmann, Perry, Santorum.

    Be honest. You're just particular about exactly what gets rammed down your throat, not against the act itself.

  • caspertheholyghost||

    Was that a dick joke?

  • Lockesian Bigots||

    Yes, most religious people are bigots, By God!, which is the etymological root of bigot anyway.

    But then...Lockesian property rights advocates are bigots, too, By God!

    To date, however, no philosopher has ever successfully divorced Lockesian property rights from monotheism.

    The Right to Property
    by Jason Godesky | 18 July 2005
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/2.....-property/

    Just so we know who all the bigots are.

  • ||

    STFU Indian.

  • DLM||

    STFU Indian.

    Do you this set to auto-post now?

  • GMTII||

    Well...well...well we have now found Toni's imaginary friend. Talk about you and Toni's (Custard Last Stand)! Yuck!!!!

  • GMTII||

    That was for LB and not you John.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    John Locke's ideas of natural property are a formal explanation of the way western people have naturally organized the principles of property ownership consistently to minimize conflict and use of force over property. So there.

  • WI||

    the way western people

    Western Christianity, By God!?

    Privation property "rights" comes straight from divine hierarchy over nature in Genesis 1:26-28, with a little secular coat of paint to hide the rot underneath.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I can't argue with this. You already lost, by responding to shit that no one said.

  • Wii||

    You said "western people"

    I said "western christianity."

    You're just in denial that religion has any impact on something like property rights theory, even though it obviously does.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    You're just in denial that religion has any impact on something like property rights theory, even though it obviously does.


    Yeah, lions are naturaly territorial because of their religious beliefs.

    You would cry like a little girl if having to drink your own piss due to lack of fresh water sources if in your "original affluent society," White Imbecile. You're as soft and lazy as the rest of the college-grad lads that believed every tall-tale their 3rd rate sociology professors told them.

  • By Gott||

    lions are naturaly[sic] territorial

    I don't see rent-seeking lions abstractly claiming vast acreages and charging rent from other lions, and forcing them to starve if they don't pay rent to the abstract ownership class.

    That's what privation property is all about - rent seeking by locking up food (and other necessities,) making them impossible to get except through the rentier.

  • o3||

    obviously the catholic church felt strongly about property rights. the church pronounced priests must be unmarried so their property would revert to the church.

  • Concerned Catholic||

    Another hipster dumping on the Catholic Church. How defiant. But I forgive you.

  • Old Mexican||

    White Imbecile there would cry like a little girl after the sight of one of his fingernails breaking while digging the earth for a root to eat, if in his "original affluent society." So don't take him seriously.

  • White Indian||

    "original affluent society"

    Good memory, good!

    Thanks, OM, for confirming that I'm livin' rent-free in your head.

  • Old Mexican||

    The debate over Mitt Romney's religion


    Or: How to focus on truly irrelevant things instead of the only important thing, which is bashing Obama's record as an economics ignoramus.

  • Apatheist||

    I think we should be bashing Romney's record as an ecomonics ignormaus as well. In fact his general record as an ignoramus but his choice of religion, which he doesn't seem to be all that passionate about anyways, isn't one of them. Yes, even though Mormonism is very entertaining.

  • Doctor Whom||

    But Mormons seem, for the most part, because of a long and complex history, to go out of their way to avoid mixing religion and politics.

    And then there was Proposition 8. I guess majoritarian bigotry is okay when you agree with the majority.

  • ||

    Yeah but very few people in the world support gay rights. SO it is not like Mormons are alone in that.

  • ||

    prop 8 was supported en masse by black churches in CA. But progressives are too spineless to confront that reality; their innate white liberal guilt precludes them from doing so. Instead, they turn to Mormons and bash them. And thanks for admitting to your own bigotry; that's pretty much what disliking those who are different from you is, right?

  • T||

    I dislike those who are different from me, but since I dislike all of you equally, I'm not bigoted. Right?

  • ||

    that's pretty much what disliking those who are different from you is, right?

    Careful now wareeagle, since by definition we are unique individuals; therefore we are all different, no?

    I don't know anyone who likes everybody, so are we all bigots?

    Perhaps we need one of those anthropology students from Florida to weigh in on this.

  • ||

    just making the point that folks like doctor-whom term those with opposite viewpoints as bigots which, by extension, would make the good dr. a bigot, too, no? Not meant as a blanket statement for all, just folks like him who default response to an opposing thought is to call it names.

  • Jack and Coke||

    "prop 8 was supported en masse by black churches in CA. But progressives are too spineless to confront that reality"

    I kept pointing out that fact to a liberal friend and all he could muster as a response (on Facebook, no less) was, "F**ck the Religious Right." I could never get an answer as to how many California blacks are part of the "Religious Right," but then I didn't really expect to.

  • ||

    Okay...I've had it. Can we all agree not to reply to White Indian's posts (or any post mentioning the agro-city state)? I propose if you see someone replying to him, politely ask them to not feed this troll.

    He has every right to post here, but I'm sick of his absurdity. Debating the insane is a colossal waste of energy. Ignore him and he'll go away.

  • ||

    I'm in.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    That's the approach I'm taking, too.

  • Apatheist||

    He's not insane, he's just trolling and it seems to be working with some people. He thinks he is very cleverly exposing libertarians as hypocrits for living in civilization but that makes him a moron, not insane.

  • Mensan||

    I agree with this approach, and I normally skip over his posts altogether. The only problemis that he uses so many different names that once in a while I read as much as a full sentence of one of his posts before realizing it's White Idiot.

  • White Indian||

    You can't ignore an effective rebuttal of your core religio-economic faith in capitalism.

    If you ignore it, there it stands, in defiance of your claims and premises that you should be checking.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    You can't ignore an effective rebuttal of your core religio-economic faith in capitalism.


    You would cry like a little girl if having to chase your food, White Imbecile, in your "original affluent society."

    Cry, cry, cry. And then die.

  • cynical||

    What part of "ignore" do you not understand?

  • yip yip yip yip yip yip yip||

    It's difficult to shut up a foo-foo domesticated poodle.

  • I pray old spic dies||

    Old spic is white indian

  • rofl||

    Awww, WhiteIndian is butthurt - has to resort to using racial slurs. What a nigger.

  • Solon||

    The agro-city state was a failure.

  • ||

    I tried giving him the Lonewacko treatment. But that has failed. Best just to ignore him.

  • Intellectual Bankruptcy ||

    "There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate...It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure...[It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate."

    ~Ayn Rand
    “The Argument from Intimidation,”
    The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 139

  • Intellelctual Deficiency||

    "You can't ignore an effective rebuttal of your core religio-economic faith in capitalism.

    If you ignore it, there it stands, in defiance of your claims and premises that you should be checking."

    White Imbecile,
    The virtue of believing in fantastic tall-tales my college 3rd-rate sociology teacher told me.

  • Ran Droid||

    Ayn Rand is a third-rater? Dude!

  • Intellectual Deficiency||

    Ayn Rand is a third-rater? Dude!


    White Imbecile,
    The art of obfuscation, 3rd rate printout.

  • ||

    When did Reason become such a proponent of asshats? Religious freedom is a fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed right. You have the right to be as stupid as you like. However, it's ridiculous to suggest that when a candidate makes public declarations of stupidity, that voters shouldn't deem them unworthy of public office. The fact that this would eliminate virtually every candidate, underscores the wisdom in doing so.

  • T||

    When did Reason become such a proponent of asshats?

    Really! This site was better when Marty Zupan was editor.

  • ||

    Of course refusing to vote for someone who has publicly said something stupid would also rule out anyone who declares Keynesian stimulus effective or anthropogenic global warming "settled science". It's simply a matter of which stupidities we choose to give what weight.

  • squishua||

    David Harsanyi, writer (shill) for Mormon Glenn Beck's site "The Blaze" hilariously opined:

    Mormons seem, for the most part, because of a long and complex history, to go out of their way to avoid mixing religion and politics.


    Yeah right. Visit a bar in Utah sometime, or try buying booze stronger than 3.2% anywhere but a state owned, poorly stocked, overpriced liquor store.

  • Duwayne Anderson||

    ".... Mormons seem, for the most part ... to go out of their way to avoid mixing religion and politics."

    That has to be one of the most ill informed comments of all time. The Mormon Church practically runs Utah politics -- even to the point that many LDS politicians seek out the church's guidance on specific votes. The Mormon Church was instrumental in preventing the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) from being ratified. They were instrumental in getting Proposition 8 passed. They openly opposed the Civil Rights movement, and punished members that opposed the Vietnam war. And, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the most uniformly Republican religion in America. To be Mormon is (almost) to be a Republican.

    What the Mormon Church does well is *lie* about their political involvement. What they do well is to keep their political involvement out of the public eye. They don't give overt political speeches, but they do make sure their members know how how the "brethren" want them to vote.

    Duwayne Anderson
    https://profiles.google.com/DuwayneAnderson/about

  • ||

    ++THIS

  • Zap the NAP||

    What the Mormon Church does well is *lie* about their political involvement.

    What Libertarians do well is *lie* about their Non-Aggression Principle.

    The non-Aggression Principle is a disposable debate convenience. Hardly a principle, eh?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Duwayne Anderson,

    The Mormon Church was instrumental in preventing the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) from being ratified.


    Yeah, a national tragedy...

    ... right?

  • Hate Potion Number Nine||

    If you're talking about principled objection to overreaching federal power, maybe.

    Somehow I kinda think that the motivation of the LDS was to keep them wimmin' their place.

  • prolefeed||

    And, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the most uniformly Republican religion in America. To be Mormon is (almost) to be a Republican.

    Well, not exactly. Mormons skew fairly heavily R, maybe 2/3 Republican or so, depending on whether you count active or non-active members.

    Note that even Utah has a D member in Congress.

    Christian Scientists are even more R-leaning, IIRC.

  • prolefeed||

    Oh, and Harry Reid might dispute the assertion that Mormon = Republican.

  • wef||

    Yes, Willard Mitt Romney is indeed unfit for the office because of his professions of faith in demagogic blather, BS artistry and Krugmanesque economic crankery as fodder for the stupid masses. For example, from last night:

    "I'm afraid that people who've looked at this in the past have been played like a fiddle by the Chinese. And the Chinese are smiling all the way to the bank, taking our currency and taking our jobs and taking a lot of our future. And I'm not willing to let that happen....And on day one -- I've indicated, day one -- I will issue an executive order identifying China as a currency manipulator. We'll bring an action against them in front of the WTO for manipulating their currency, and we will go after them. If you're not willing to stand up to China, you'll get run over by China. And that's what's happened for 20 years."

    If that cult-like appeal to tribalism and repetition of retrograde mercantilist idiocy doesn't frighten you, then you're part of the problem.

    (And for Moroni’s sake, then a whiny bring an action in front of the WTO - what a pathetic, hollow, wet-noodle response to a supposedly dastardly 20 years of oriental evil.)

  • jester||

    here, here.

  • Divine Right to Dominion||

    Divine right of kings went down.

    Now, the divine right of domination found in Genesis 1:26-28, nature as only a resource for man, is going down in flames.

    There are no divine rights. All hierarchy is illegitimate.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Joseph Smith was called a profit. DUMDUMDUM, DUMDUM!

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Prophet. But he profited until he didn't.

  • ||

    The problem I have with Mormonism is kind of the problem I have with all religion, writ large. Mormon catechism is such preposterous bullshit that I simply don't trust the faculties of anybody who subscribes to it. If you honestly believe that Joseph Smith dug a set of golden plates out of a New Hampshire hill at the direction of the angel Moroni, and translated them using a rock in a hat to reveal the Book of Mormon, you may be a pleasant and upstanding human being. I nevertheless do not want you with your finger on the nuclear button.

  • catechism||

    The problem I have with libertarianism is kind of the problem I have with all religio-economic faiths, writ large. Libertarian catechism is such preposterous bullshit that I simply don't trust the faculties of anybody who subscribes to it.

  • ||

    That's because you're a fucking moron who thinks libertarianism is a "religio-economic faith".

    Go eat a giant bag of deep-fried dick.

  • Economics as a Religion||

    Rome under the Republic had a civic religion, consisting of the reading of entrails and other sensible precautions. The civic religion of the modern world is social engineering, which depends on similar techniques of divination…

    The members of the American economics profession, as [Thurman] Arnold contended, performed a vital practical role in maintaining this unique system of corporate socialism American style. It was their role to prevent the American public from achieving a correct understanding of the actual workings of the American economic system. Economists instead were assigned the task to dispense priestly blessings that would allow business to operate independent of damaging political manipulation. They accomplished this task by means of their message of “laissez faire religion, based on a conception of a society composed of competing individuals.” However false as a description of the actual U.S. economy, this vision in the mind of the American public was in practice “transferred automatically to industrial organizations with nation-wide power and dictatorial forms of government.” Even though the arguments of economists were misleading and largely fictional, the practical — and beneficial — result of their deception was to throw a “mantle of protection … over corporate government” from various forms of outside interference. Admittedly, as the economic “symbolism got farther and farther from reality, it required more and more ceremony to keep it up.” But as long as this arrangement worked and there could be maintained “the little pictures in the back of the head of the ordinary man,” the effect was salutary — “the great [corporate] organization was secure in its freedom and independence.” It was this very freedom and independence of business professionals to pursue the correct scientific answer — the efficient answer — on which the economic progress of the United States depended.

    — Robert H. Nelson
    REACHING FOR HEAVEN ON EARTH

    Economic efficiency has been the greatest source of social legitimacy in the United States for the past century, and economists have been the priesthood defending this core social value of our era.

    — Robert H. Nelson
    ECONOMICS AS RELIGION

  • ||

    Shut the fuck up, White Injun.

  • ||

    Please don't feed the troll.

  • rsi||

    I can't even figure out what he's going on about.

  • rofl^2||

    Hey, that name seems familiar. Robert H. Nelson, hmmm... could it be... THIS Robert Nelson, the one who CONTRIBUTES TO REASON? http://reason.com/people/robert-nelson

    And who is also a member of the libertarian, Kock-funded Mercatus center? http://mercatus.org/robert-nelson

    Hey, you know who else Nelson considers as engaging in "secular religion"?

    "The New Holy Wars: Economic Religion Versus Environmental Religion in Contemporary America" by ROBERT H. NELSON

    "The present debate raging over global warming exemplifies the clash between two competing public theologies. On one side, environmentalists warn of certain catastrophe if we do not take steps now to reduce the release of greenhouse gases; on the other side, economists are concerned with whether the benefits of actions to prevent higher temperatures will be worth the high costs."

  • Fletch||

    It's all ball bearingsreligion these days. ~Fletch

  • jcr||

    All kinds of reasons not to vote for Romney. No reason to add his religeon to the list.

  • DLM||

    All kinds of reasons not to vote for Romney. No reason to add his religeon to the list.

    The best reason TO vote for him is that he is not Barack Obama. I think we could survive four years of Romney. I'm not so sure about Obama.

  • ATL Mike||

    I cannot believe I'm giving you a unique view, but I'm compelled to comment.

    Mr. Harsanyi, print this article, cut out the "if you dismiss millions of people solely on a religious basis..." sentence and tape it to your refrigerator.

    Now take the remainder of the article and line the underside of your rabbit's cage. Like we do with the rest of your nonsense.

  • BRM||

    OK so as to give some perspective to the issue of Mormon church's cult status, it is not just the wild eyed bible thumping fundamentalists that don't like the LDS, no mainstream protestant denomination sees them as a true branch of the Christian faith either. Neither does the RC church or any branch of the Orthodox church. They hold beliefs that are not part of the accepted cannon of the Christian Church. Kind of like how most Jews view the hollywood celebs that do Kaballah. Just because someone says they are Christian, they can be outside the mainstream so far as to not be. Back in Paul's time, there were people who were Gnostics. These people thought Jesus had spoken in some secret code and if they just studied it harder, they would see all the divine wisdom. They existed in parallel with the Mystic christians who thought of nothing, but experienced their view of Jesus as ecstasy. Both groups were squeezed out during the Nicean conference of bishops from which the Nicean creed and ultimately the apostles creed were derived.

    So, the LDS issue is hardly new, and it is not just a small segment of extremists who don't recognize them as christian. For example, the ELCA would make an LDS member be baptized in order to convert the the Lutheran church just as they would a former atheist.

    That said, is someone's religion fair to consider? To answer that, one needs to know what context the religious qualification is being considered. If an otherwise reasonable and experienced candidate was deeply religious, but was a clear-eyed practical person who had good ideas for the handling the problems at hand, I would vote for him/her even if their church was not otherwise acceptable to me. On the other hand, if the candidate was a member of a normal average church, but couldn't pick out apples at the grocery store without a moment of prayer, I would have to reject that candidate.

    The first guy gets the vote, even though his church is otherwise undesireable because I am hiring him to do a job. If he is the best option for that job, then his religious choices go on the back burner.

    I will be voting for Obama if my other choice is Romney. I won't be voting against him because he is LDS, I will be voting against him, because I think that he is plastic and false. His record in MASS is not that great. He strikes me as a tool. Obama is a tool, we all know that. But by reelecting that tool, you keep the Dems in the hotseat for 4 more years, during which time, the economy is going to keep sucking, their "spend and spend" approach to government will fail, and then if the GOP will finally get some nads and get behind some good candidates, the Dems will be gone for a while.

  • prolefeed||

    I will be voting for Obama if my other choice is Romney. I won't be voting against him because he is LDS, I will be voting against him, because I think that he is plastic and false.

    And you think Obama is non-plastic-y and truthful? Seriously?

  • ||

    It's like Kennedy and the Catholic thing in 1960 as well as Joe Lieberman's Jewish faith being brought up when he was Al Gore's running mate in 2000. Chances are a Morman could be the next President which is a first. Personally, he can worship a bust of Elvis for all I care.

  • Jack and Coke||

    "Personally, he can worship a bust of Elvis for all I care."

    If that can be proven, he has my vote.

  • ||

    Isn't a Morman half-man, half-fish?

  • rsi||

    Peoples religious beliefs influence their political, economic, cultural beliefs, etc.
    If people want to bring them into the political fray, those beliefs are fair game.

  • ||

    There are a lot of LDS people in the world, and although we don't all agree on politics, we do agree that private charity is better than government charity, personal savings and being debt free are better than government welfare and the private sector is better than government/business collusion. I am a Mormon and libertarian.

  • LIBERTARIAN STATIST||

    "...nobody with a brain wants zero government. Just minimum government. There is no contradiction. We need government to protect private property..."

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_2562045

  • ||

    I would prefer a Satanist in the White House, than the progressive idiot we have in there now.

  • No||

    Even if some libertarians said things that do not vibe with standard libertarian mantra, that does not mean that all libertarians, or the libertarian philosophy, is bunk.

    Also, WI is just getting a boner because it found some philosophers that sound smart.

    It's easy to draw bullshit connections to subjects - that's why there's so much "intellectual" bullshit.

  • tadcf||

    American politics is always shaded, unfortunately, by religion. Anyone, even though they may have the best political answer, will have difficulty if not a Christian.

  • DDavis||

    Of course Jeremiah Nutjob was a legitimate campaign issue.

    That whole episode told you all you needed to know about Obama. Either a sincere wack job himself, or an insincere political hack who would say or do anything for a vote. Probably a bit of both.

  • ||

    Many people are values voters and choose not over specific plans but which person seems to have the values closest to the voter and is still competent. Competence at doing something you don't want isn't particullarly valued. Luckily Morons actually do have similar values to the majority of the populace.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    I loved reading this article. There's plenty about Romney that makes me uncomfortable, but none of it has anything to do with his faith. And it bothers me that the media insists on highlighting it constantly, as if he were the high priest of the Mormon Church. That just seems like a cheap way of undermining him as a candidate, trying to play on the perceived prejudices of Republican voters. You don't hear them highlighting the religious backgrounds of any of the other candidates except for Rick Perry (in hopes his fundie views will make voters uncomfortable, I guess) - guess the rest are just too mainstream.

    I've known many Mormons through the years, and worked with several of them. I might not agree with some tenants of their faith, but nothing about their Mormonism adversely affected their character or their ability to do their job. Actually, I found them to frequently be more moral than many other Christians I've known, and not in a Bible-thumping, holier-than-thou way. Heck, maybe what we need after all is a Mormon in the White House.

    Oddly, you never hear about Harry Reid being Mormon. Of course, he's not a Republican, either, so the MSM isn't seeking ways to make him look bad to the voters.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    I do agree with the point, though, that matters of faith frequently should be called into question. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's influence of Obama is a great example. But then, that's not a question of religion in general - I really don't care what denomination Obama is, only who within that church he might be listening to and taking to heart, and that sort of influence doesn't have to happen in a church.

  • ||

    The TENETS of the Mormon 'church' are not what is at steak here. It matters not that their god comes from a planet near Kolob, or that Negro people are dark because they were 'bad' in a previous life, or that Mormon men can become a god of their very own planet. What does matter is the FACT that Mitt Romney took a solemn oath when he became an Endowed Mormon to avenge the death of their first prophet, and founder, Joseph Smith. The United States government is the projected recipient of that revenge. Jon Huntsman also took this oath. Mormons want to 'acquire' this nation in order to make it into a Mormon Theocracy. You don't believe that these, nice, gentle, eager to help people would do something like that? I challenge you to read the articles at 'Ioni Omni Speaks',and see if you revise your thoughts on Mormonism and the job of being president of this country. All of the articles would help you, but, #4 and #10 are particularly important.
    Sincerely, Ioni

  • insurance dutch||

    Jeremiah Nutjob was a legitimate campaign issue.

  • Steven||

    Though, Mike Lee and Harry Reid are both anti-abortion. So there is at least one policy question that they agree on.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement