I like the Senate Majority Leader, so that kind of takes me out of the argument.

I just finished reading the hubbub about Mormons baptizing dead folks; specifically dead Jewish folks.

Some Jewish folks are angry about this.

I mean the Mormon Church has this strange computer set up with every human beings name on it. and they baptize these unseen individuals.

To me it all amounts to pagan ritual and I have written about this before.

But no, I could care less if the candidate is a member of some religion; now Santorum scares the hell out of me because he would smother us with his pagan view of humanity.

No I don't consider a candidates religion but it isn't me Romney has to worry about, I am not voting for him anyway.

Evangelical Republican primary voters care about this issue a whole lot, and they don't like him, they really don't like him.

I guess I look at it like this:

Lots of people are born into a religious tradition and a religious community.  Lots of these people remain with those communities throughout their lives, mainly because they're just get-along kinds of people who put more weight on maintaining unstrained ties with their families and communities than they place on striking out in some defiant intellectual direction that alienates them from their established social ties.  Politicians especially  tend to be get-along kinds of people - that's their skill in life, and that's why they keep getting elected and put in charge of things by other people.

Lots of people don't really believe the doctrines of their declared religion, or are at least very selective about what they believe.  But they keep their own counsel, don't rock the boat, and therefore stay out of bitter theological arguments with the more zealous among their family members and neighbors.

We have a polite convention in our society: So long as people don't appear to be fanatically involved in the weirder aspects of their religion, and so long as it appears to be mainly a social thing with them, then we don't humiliate them in public by demanding that they declare themselves on the various contestable points of their community's doctrine so that we can find out where they really stand in their core.  We make do with reading between the lines and then let sleeping dogs lie.

I guess you could call this convention "hypocrisy."  But it makes the world go around.  Traditionally, the people who rail the most against hypocrisy have been prophets and other religious fanatics.

The thing that bugs me about Muddy's approach is that he keeps suggesting that it is somehow incumbent on the Romney campaign to address the "Mormon question."

I wonder how such a conversation with the public inquisitors would go.  If it were based on reality, and not the conventions of politics, I imagine it would go like this:

Questioner: Mr. Romney, do you really believe all those crazy Mormon doctrines?

Romney: No, not really.  Do you really believe all of the doctrines of your crazy religion?

Questioner: No, not really?

Romney: Well then go fuck yourself.

blasphemers and Jews who work on shabbat should be stoned to death.

I'm no shabbat-arbeiter (ed note: why should Saturday be different from all the others?), but....

All that's needed is for Romney to sign a Grover Norquist-like pledge that says: "If elected, I promise NEVER to try to convert anyone to my crazy religious beliefs ... Really ... unless 308 million more habitable planets become available for colonization, then ...  we'll see.

I wondered if Mitt's avoidance of releasing his tax returns might have had something to do with his church finding out that he tithed much less than ten percent of his many millions, but I don't care if that is the case. I do strongly object to the LDS church pouring money into the fight against the California Proposition 8 election or any other political issue they have a stand on. They paid fines for some infractions and I would bet in a heartbeat that they were caught and convicted in a very small percentage of their violations.
 I would consider it a completely fair question to ask of Romney if he would either publicly support or disavow what his church did in that instance.

Great post, Genghis. 

I had a Mormon business partner who died on a hand ball court several years back. His behavior was as normal as apple pie and he never eschewed the occasional cocktail. We both agreed that once you accept a notion like a virgin birth, it's all down hill from there. He spent more time than me helping others. I also have a Mormon neighbor who helps me out regularly. At first he introduced religion frequently. I told him I was brought up Baptist and while not a church goer there was one Baptist belief  I always cling to, "Once saved, always saved." End of discussion. 

I have several times in these pages attempted to satirize some things about the Mormons and while it may not have been good satire, it was plainly satire. Calling the Mormon religion "weird" in a serious cant about the opposition is a different matter. I retain the right to satirize any religion, including the Baptists, or any other religion, with the only proviso that I do it better than in the past. 

I was tempted to write something moderate about Romney and his religion. In fact, he has made some of the most heartfelt, I think, comments on the subject. I tend to think of him as out of a business mold and suspect he is a moderate. Then last night I was reminded that he is in league with a major component of the Republican party which essentially does not believe in the separation of church and state and continues its efforts to denigrate the gay and lesbian community and deny them rights.

What is being learned from the tax returns is that the Romneys have contributed to right wing social conservative foundations, one of which has an active "pray away the gay" program, to mention one of their interests. In light of this kind of private support for "fringe" charities---not the Mormon church---I am not at all ready to concede in any way that Romney's religious-related beliefs would not color his actions in the office of the President of the United States---especially in the facilitation of the aims of the Christian religious right.  

In a sense, Romney being a member of the Mormon church itself is the least of my concerns.   

Genghis, this is an excellent post, and I understand that you saw a need to make this latest brouhaha something of a teachable moment.  And you did it well.

I guess I have a different take, and that is that it disappoints me to my kishkes that there was any need to have this kind of a teachable moment with the kind of audience that frequents this place.  Honestly, I don't understand how anyone with a progressive bone in his or her body doesn't get that that a Mormon--including a guy like Romney with a long and open public record--should not have to bear the burden of proving that he or she will not make policy on the basis of his or her religious beliefs.  That's just nonsense and I have no respect for that argument and I think it's as bigoted as any argument one might hear down at the John Birch clubhouse. 

And the notion that it's difficult for some folks--at least around here--to understand the difference between political analysis and political dogwhistling, is absolutely unacceptable to me.  At a minimum, bigoted dogwhistling was conflated with political analysis around here, and that's just something that shouldn't be tolerated, period, end of story. 

But you're more patient then I am Genghis, and that's undoubtedly a good thing, and I do appreciate the post; again I'm just sorry you felt the need to write it.

Bruce S. Levine

New York, New York

P.S.  I understand destor's point about discrimination against atheists.  Such discrimination is entirely unacceptable to me as well.  But it doesn't justify a tit for tat response to people who retain religious beliefs.

Thanks for highlighting this issue, Genghis.

A couple things.

1. I disagree with your premise. In a perfect world, people would vote for candidates based on their own socio-economic interests. In reality, they don't. With regard to religion, it would be nice if people didn't care about a person's faith. But like a person's skin color, unfortunately it does matter. Acting like it doesn't is ignorant.

2. Romney's church plays a big part in his life. Personally, I would not support someone who tithes millions of dollars to the church only to see those funds used for less than "godlike" initiatives. "Pray the gay away" is one example, as kudra mentions. Prop eight is another.

3. 35 words of my post were devoted to Mormonism. 900 words were ignored. For clarity's sake, let's be clear that "Romney's not a witch" was not about Mormon-bashing or Mormon-baiting. It was about Romney being unlikable and unelectable.