More Anti-Mormon Tactics
A disturbing event in South Carolina came to light recently. Christmas cards purported to be from Mitt Romney were sent to a number of people around the state. They state that they were "Paid For By The Boston Massachusetts Temple," which is not remotely true. They also highlight a number of "differences" between LDS doctrine and that of Protestant Christianity. The cards are simply classic Anti-Mormon tactics.
The real problem with the cards is that they suggest that Mitt Romney and the LDS endorsed them. First off, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not endorse any candidates and very rarely becomes involved in politics (and then only to make a statement against same-sex marriage, for example).
Whoever produced these postcards should be prosecuted - not for the Anti-Mormon statements but for the pretense of acting on Romney's behalf. Should the person or persons be jailed? No, but they should at least receive fines or some other fitting punishment. We don't need any underhanded antics or other illegal, unethical, or immoral actions by individuals trying to falsely attack the beliefs of a candidate.
You can read more here.
Iowa Republican Debate
I think the CNN headline is telling: "GOP Candidates Stay Polite." There is hope for America when we can have a political debate (which I did not watch) and have mostly positive comments (i.e., focused on personal policy and not on each other). I know that sometimes candidates need to point out flaws or weaknesses in their opponents but that can be done cordially or with humor. That is one thing I really like about Mike Huckabee - he is very polite and runs a positive campaign. I still think that his popularity is more infatuation than substance (it could turn into substance later but now it isn't) and might die down quickly.
Why Kucinich is a Dangerous Candidate
Dennis Kucinich is a representative from Illinois. It is commendable that he takes strong stances on issues and is not shy to share his beliefs. However, his ideologies on one hand tear at the fabric of America (which is a little ironic considering there is a large "Defend the Constitution!" splashed across his campaign issues site) and on the other display what is great about America - that we can have such broad viewpoints.
- He seeks universal government health care in a form that is more extreme than any other viable candidate. I'm not commenting on socialized medicine but he seeks the most extreme form possible. Extreme is actually a common theme with Kucinich.
- On his website it states: "In an interconnected world of trading partners afloat with nuclear weapons, war is unthinkable. The Europeans have turned away from the catastrophic wars of the last century which took over 100 million lives to embrace a new understanding of diplomacy and dialogue as well as a new understanding of patriotism. So must the United States. The world depends on it."
- Europe has turned away from war? Hardly. War is unthinkable because countries have nuclear weapons? War could be catastrophic but it isn't unthinkable. Besides, even if they have, war has not and will not turn away from them. As much as I hate war (I think we should avoid war at almost all cost), I also recognize that we will never see an end to war through political discussions. Some people (and ideologies like radical Islam {or Communism, Fascism, etc.}) just will never respond to diplomacy. It may not even be wise to try diplomacy with everyone (as nice as that would be).
- "Saving Capitalism": He has a "plan to instill ethics, accountability and fairness in global trade and big business." Basically the plan is to save capitalism through socialism, thereby incapacitating capitalism. He wants to save it from itself. Capitalism isn't perfect but we need less regulation and more education to fix the problems it may create.
- He's for ending poverty in the world (which would be nice) but against genetically engineered food (which allows more people to grow more food).
- He's against racial discrimination ("I proudly endorse a comprehensive non-discrimination policy, including nondiscrimination based on race"), which is wonderful, but for Affirmative Action ("Affirmative action is necessary, affirmative action is right, and affirmative action must be preserved"), which is a policy that discriminates based on race.
- He supports same-sex marriage. We have enough problems with marriage (high divorce rate, high cohabitation rates) without completely destroying the sacred institution of marriage by allowing people of the same-sex to marry. This has nothing to do with being homophobic, which is so often thrown back at anyone who stands up for traditional marriage; this has everything to do with supporting the moral foundation of our nation. I'll be friends with, work with, talk with, and serve with people who are gay or lesbian but I don't support their homosexual behavior and I don't think we should change the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples.
- He wants the immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq. You may support the war or not support it but that would be a disaster for Iraq and the Middle East. It would tell the extreme Islamic militants that they won. I respect the Islam faith, there is much great about it, but some people twist the doctrines and plan to either convert the whole world or destroy those who won't convert. The radical militant Islamists are no different than Genghis Khan was back in his day.
- On logging: "The United States was originally blanketed with a billion acres of forest. Now only 40 million acres remain uncut." We also didn't have 300+ million people in the United States. "We must end public lands logging...." Which would result in more forest fires. We need to conserve the environment intelligently and not go to either extreme.
This list could go on. You can read more about Kucinich's views here. There is also a short biographical sketch about him here.
I think that Kucinich is a dangerous candidate because his political views are on the extreme left of the ideological spectrum. That does not mean that I think that they are all wrong but he's just way too extreme. We've already had a general liberal drift in this nation over time, especially morally. Things that used to be unacceptable are now acceptable. We don't need more extremists because extremism only creates rifts between parties and people. Kucinich is farther to the left than any of the Republican candidates are to the right - even Ron Paul balances out quite moderately. We need to return to our roots and our values. We don't need a radical shift away from the country our Founding Fathers established, we need to return to that. Kucinich would take us in the wrong direction.
The Rise of Huckabee and the Status of Romney
Mike Huckabee has been in the news a lot recently. He suddenly flew up in the ranks in polls and is now a front-runner. Why do voters like him so much? Well, he's charismatic. He does decently well on the stage and is witty. He's also a minister - people tend to like ministers and trust them. The evangelical contingency in the country really like him and are throwing their support behind him. After all, he's easy for them to support, he is one of them; whereas someone like Mitt Romney is a member of a cult and well, we just don't talk about any of the other candidates' religious views. After all, the only Republican candidate who really needs to pass a religious test is Mitt Romney.
This is what is so hypocritical of so many evangelical Christians. Why are they so threatened by the LDS Church? What is it about Mormonism that they don't like? I'll address a few of the issues.
- Mormons believe that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit) are 3 distinct personages who are completely united in purpose but still separate individuals. They also "look human" because humans were created in the image of God.
- Relatedly, Jesus Christ has a glorified, physical, resurrected body.
- Mormons also believe that God did not stop speaking to prophets after the Bible; He speaks to prophets today. Thus, the Bible is not the end-all of God's Word. God provides new revelations to His servants, the prophets. So, the LDS canon of scriptures is not fixed, set, and closed like evangelical or Catholic scripture is; the LDS canon of scripture is open and expanding.
- Expanding point 3: Mormons also believe that God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and called him as a prophet. Most other Christians do not believe in prophets in our day. They believe that God stopped speaking to prophets when the last page of the Bible was written (which, by the way, was not the book of Revelation; also, ignoring the numerous edits of the Bible that occurred before and after it was compiled into the format we know now. The Bible is true, it just might not be completely translated correctly. God did not write the Bible by hand, humans did and people are imperfect and make mistakes).
I could go on but a lot of the clash between Evangelicals and Mormons is over the fact that Evangelicals (at least their theologians) don't believe in the God of the Bible - they believe in the Trinity, which is a view of God tainted with Greek philosophy. Mormons believe in God as described in the Bible (Who talked with prophets face to face, Who sent His Son to atone for the sins of mankind {which Son expressed numerous times His separateness from His Father}, Who created humans in His own image).
So what does this have to do with Huckabee and Romney. Well, as I stated above, Mike Huckabee is a minister. He worked as paid clergyman for his profession. He has the support of evangelical Christians. Mitt Romney is a member of the LDS Church. His values are the same (largely) as evangelical Christians. However, because LDS doctrine is undeservedly viewed as heretical by evangelicals, many of them can't overcome religious bigotry (or, to use a new term - religism) and support a Mormon. It's a shame because Mitt Romney is really the only true conservative of the major candidates (i.e., Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee). This also means that Huckabee is the most threatening to Romney because evangelical Christians would likely (and probably begrudgingly) support Romney over Giuliani and McCain.
I think that Mike Huckabee is an OK candidate but it seems that most of his support is because he said some witty things in a debate and he's a minister-turned-politician. He just does not have the skills that Romney or McCain have.
Now that the economy is a top issue for voters, Romney looks like an even better candidate given his successful business and fiscal background. Maybe Huckabee would be a good president (and Romney not so good) - we have no way of telling that at this time - but it just seems that so much of Huckabee's support is based on shallow motives without substance. Then again, maybe I just don't know enough about him.
Romney’s Faith in America
Mitt Romney recently gave an address titled "Faith in America." I believe it was one of the defining moments in his campaign. I also believe that it was a defining moment in recent U.S. politics. As mentioned in the talk, our nation is becoming too secular. We are forgetting our Maker, forgetting the foundation of our nation, and thus, forgetting who we are. America is only as strong as her faith. There are many who clamor for the suppression of religion, who see it only as a limiting force in life. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended; they were by and large deeply religious men. Many of them did not regularly go to church because they were not very impressed with the churches of the day but all of them believed in God and established America as a place where people were free to worship how and what they would.
I thought Mitt Romney's speech was stirring and powerful. He has great charisma and presents himself well. He is a man of faith who not only says that he believes but lives his life in accordance to his beliefs.
YouTube Debate Thoughts
Now that the Republican debate is over I'll post a few thoughts and reactions.
1) I enjoyed the candidate videos from Ron Paul and Mitt Romney and the other candidates who did not show attack ads. Fred Thompson attacked Romney and Huckabee while other candidates attacked Sen. Clinton. There are too many issues to address in campaigns; candidates do not need to resort to attacking other candidates.
2) Mitt Romney came across as wishy-washy in some instances (especially when asked about water boarding). You have to understand his personality and modus operandi to understand why he came across that way. Mitt Romney is very analytical. He likes to have all sides of issues presented to him before he makes decisions. So even though there were a couple times that he did not appear to answer questions directly (e.g., water boarding and gays in the military), I think he did the right thing even if it appears to be dodging questions. He basically said that if he is elected president, then he'll make firm decisions; it is hard to make good decisions without all the facts.
3) Ron Paul made some good points but did not present himself well. I actually was not very impressed with him during the debate. I want him to do well, he could make a lot of positive changes in the country, but he just might not be political enough.
4) John McCain made a great point about water boarding. He has good moral ground to stand on regarding the use of such interrogation techniques.
5) The three candidates who stood out the most and came across the most positively were Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. Fred Thompson did relatively poorly and Tancredo just didn't stand out. Huckabee and Romney both have a lot of charisma though. John McCain is just too grizzled. He's a great guy but he just does not have the polish of the other two candidates and unfortunately image matters a lot in politics.
I thought the debate was good overall but not enough issues were addressed. The final question was about Giuliani supporting the Red Socks. There are too many real issues to talk about to spend time on that, no matter how humorous it is. We needed to hear about education, science (not just space exploration), and other important issues. Granted, immigration, taxes, and the Iraq War are major issues but I would have liked to hear more.
YouTube/CNN Republican Debate
The YouTube/CNN Republican debate is tonight. Expectations are high for both Republicans and Democrats. It provides both camps the opportunity to learn a little about what each candidate stands for and how each candidate responds to "average" people (granted, the video questions are selected by CNN staff and potentially censored as well as fit to specific candidates to potentially create controversy - after all, that's what the media does best, report and create controversy).
Hopefully everyone remains level-headed and reasonable. Anything less than that makes them look silly, albeit human. However, we don't expect our leaders to be human; we want them to be more than human - infallible.
I'll post my thoughts about the debate once it is over.
Why Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is a medical doctor turned Representative from Texas; he is a bit of a dark horse candidate in the Republican party right now. He has tremendous support on the Internet, especially on social sites like Digg.com and Del.icio.us. He used to be largely ignored by the media but is receiving more coverage now. What is it about Ron Paul that makes people like him as a candidate. A qualitative review of comments on Digg reveals that many people support him because he is opposed to the Iraq War. His opposition stems mainly from the point that the U.S. shouldn't have become involved as they did in Iraq; he is also opposed to how much money is being spent to fight the war. Ron Paul is libertarian, he is a classic Republican who supports small government and small budgets. He votes for almost anything that would shrink the size of the federal government, not to weaken but to limit its scope to something closer to what the Founding Fathers established.
Ron Paul is also a social conservative: he is anti-abortion based on personal values and political beliefs (i.e., not having the federal government tell the states what to do); he favors personal property rights; he supports gun rights; he is opposed to socialized (and managed) health care; he is opposed to a minimum wage; he is opposed to affirmative action; and he is also opposed to the IRS, stating that we need a major tax system overhaul. If you look at his overall voting record he is fairly moderate but with a moderate social and strong fiscal conservatism foundation.
Could he win the election, assuming he was nominated? I think it is likely. There's not a lot of dirt on him, he has a consistent voting record and hasn't suffered any major scandals. However, one problem for him as President would be to try and get his policies passed through the Legislative branch. It is easy to talk about reducing the size of the government but actually doing it is difficult. No one wants their pork chopped from the budget. Welfare recipients would be upset when their checks are reduced or canceled, IRS employees would be up in arms when their jobs are threatened by tax reform, et cetera. Whether or not Ron Paul could accomplish all of his reform goals, he could certainly accomplish some of his goals.
Note: This post does not constitute an endorsement of Ron Paul.
Positive Aspects of John Edwards
Following my post about writing nice things about the candidates (regardless of political beliefs or general personal qualities), I've decided to focus on John Edwards. I'm not putting my support behind him but I would like to make a brief case about why he could be a good President.
John Edwards seems like a person you would like as a friend. He comes across as genuinely nice, in spite of his tort law background. Although, tort lawyers at least put on the facade of focusing on people, on being personable. After all, they are fighting capitalism for retribution when the individual is trampled by the herd stampeding to drink from the corporate water hole. So what if the tort lawyers take their own barrel-fulls from that same corporate water hole, they've helped the little guy.
Back to John Edwards. He is a good family man. He has a nice not-quite-rags-to-riches story. He seems like someone who makes informed decisions before he acts and is willing to listen to opposing viewpoints, after all he is a lawyer. They are successful when they know how to anticipate opposing arguments and counter then with arguments of their own. John Edwards seems like someone who would be able to work with both sides of the political spectrum while still striving towards his ideological goals.
You can visit his website here: John Edwards for President.
Note: This post, as mentioned above, does not constitute an endorsement of John Edwards.
On Supreme Court Justices
One important role of U.S. Presidents is appointing new Supreme Court Justices as the need arises. Each president in recent history has averaged 1 or 2 appointments during his term(s). Because of this, we need to elect a president who will select Justices carefully and wisely. Picking Justices shouldn't be about partisanship or policy, it should be about promoting justice and fairness. What is the role of a judge then? Is it to change the law? Is it to interpret the law?
The great South African novelist and activist Alan Paton summed up the responsibility of judges in his classic and unequaled Cry, the Beloved Country:
We need judges who do not strive to change the law, rather, interpret according to the law. We have legislators to make the law. This is why it is important that we elect a President who can put aside petty politics and select judges who will do their jobs and make their rulings based on the law without striving to change the law. The role of Supreme Court Justices is quite specific in the U.S. Constitution: Link to Constitution.
Again, we need to be wise in our selection of President for much hangs in the balance.
Tags
Blogroll
Recent Posts
- Truth, Freedom, and Religion
- Respecting the President
- More Anti-Mormon News Bias
- What It Cost to Support Prop 8
- The State and Future of U.S. Health Care
Recent Comments
- Seda on Respecting the President
- lflanagan on The State and Future of U.S. Health Care
- Jared on Respecting the President
- Quantumleap42 on Respecting the President
- More Anti-Mormon News Bias | US Political Scene on The LDS Church Contributed $190,000 in “In-kind” Donations to Prop 8
Archives
- April 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007