Interesting that you mention scientology. Consider Tom Cruise. With him, if you take a closer look at him because of his scientology, you see the kinds of peculiar behavior, complete with ranting and agitation, which makes you think “OK, the kook smoke is being caused by some real kook fire. ”

Why would you look at him because of his scientology? Isn’t that being hostile? Or is it because you think there is something worth looking at? When you blindly accept the unacceptable, you give it a power it doesn’t deserve.

I do find it interesting that you are taking almost every possible position on this.

You think I am hostile and then use words like goofy and kooky and myths to describe their beliefs. You mention cafeteria belief which implies that for many people in a particular belief even they can’t buy it. You say having those beliefs at birth makes it acceptable but that if they chose them later…well than that says something. I have no issue with anyone having any plan for their own life, I hold people wishing to run the most powerful nation on earth to a higher standard.

You did say something, I’d like to get a follow-up on

You said” I’m sure judeo-christians believed literally in the idea of what’s his name getting swallowed by the whale for centuries. It’s only in the modern era that it’s semi-ok to think that you don’t need to belief in such tales literally…

Semi-ok??? Why should it ever not be totally ok to state the obvious that it is a crazy notion? And if someone did still believe in the fish tale, does that say anything to you? Is there a point at which you say, “Sorry, that is one bridge too far?” Believing in witches and some of the beliefs of Mormons and Scientologists fall so far outside the mainstream that many (certainly not just me) have some serious questions. (You might talk to the GOP base for instance) Part of the issue with Mormonism is that several of their claims are so recently made that it is easy to prove they are factually implausible if not downright fabrications.

You also said
I would judge someone differently for adult conversion to kooky religious beliefs than I would judge them for a lifetime of acceptance of the beliefs they were raised in like the water a fish lives in.

I guess we can be in agreement on Glen Beck then ? I guess for me, it’s like someone who believes in Santa Claus as a child. I’d agree with you there. No Harm No Foul. If that person as an adult said his belief in Santa continues and that your not believing in Santa makes you somehow less moral and less principled. I have a huge problem with that and I think it poisons the dialogue. When you seem to imply that they likely don’t even believe their own stated core beliefs, it makes it unacceptable to me.

Blind acceptance is what leads people to make catastrophic mistakes in judgment. To me, we’d all be better off if everyone said what they believed and didn’t use religion as some magic trump card unless they are willing to let us see the card they are playing. You’d expect it in any other argument someone puts forward.

Finally you said
I believe that most folks have a natural need for the kind of elevation that faith brings.

What the hell is that supposed to imply? Talk about an insulting statement to the rest of us. And I am the only one bigoted here?

I am unwilling to assume that someone is is a kook simply because they are a practicing mormon, and when I have ample firsthand viewing experience that the person in question seems quite sane, insightful, thoughtful, and relatively mainstream, their religious beliefs cease to be an issue for me. That’s my mileage.

My point about Scientology was that they are no crazier than Mormon theology. Scientologis just haven’t been around long enough to escape the cult label. Would you not judge someone running for President differently if they were a Scientologist?

I’m not sure how one would go about weighing such things. This seems like far too easy an equivalence, but I’m not intimately familiar with either faith. And surely one would need to be intimately familiar with both to make any sort of fair judgement on such a matter. Otherwise, one would run the risk of tossing them into the same bucket because its an appealing convenience.

I am unconvinced that there’s any real reason to be concerned when someone’s personal faith includes the belief in apocryphal origination myths. I’m sure judeo-christians believed literally in the idea of what’s his name getting swallowed by the whale for centuries. It’s only in the modern era that it’s semi-ok to think that you don’t need to belief in such tales literally because it’s not salient to what the story is trying to teach. So when it comes to apocryphal origination myths, my reaction is a big fat “so what?”

I think you are only half-right about the time factor, because you’re leaving out how a faith’s standing the test of time serves to suggest it has some merit. Scientology has yet to show the ability to endure a century, so we don’t really know yet whether it WILL escape cult status. It probably will of course, as their seems to be money in it, which is all it usually takes.

I believe Mitt Romney was raised as a mormon, and I think that’s awfully different from converting to a kooky religion as an adult. I would judge someone differently for adult conversion to kooky religious beliefs than I would judge them for a lifetime of acceptance of the beliefs they were raised in like the water a fish lives in. Psychologically, they’re fundamentally different dynamics.

To me it would be a bit like finding out Obama was an Animist, worshipped Zeus or practiced voodoo? I personally, could never look on him with the same respect for his judgment and would question where else it would be flawed.

It really wouldn’t bother me much if Obama went to a voodoo church, especially if he had been raised in that faith from birth. I believe in freedom of religion and I believe that most folks have a natural need for the kind of elevation that faith brings. So I respect it, and I refuse to be a religious bigot about it.

Now, if I came to find out that Obama was sacrificing chickens and reading bones in order to make foreign policy decisions, that would be another matter. Religious faith is simply not founded on reason. And that which is not founded on reason is not accessible to reason. So my test is whether or not I have reason to believe a person’s religious faith pollutes their ability to think and act rationally in their official role. Romney has not shown this flaw.

If you believe unbelievable things, you shouldn’t get credit for that in any way. If you don’t believe them you should say so and if you use the absence of a principled statement to guarantee that you will get votes because you are playing people then you are part of the problem in American politics. George Bush couldn’t possibly have had the 20-30% people still with him if they had had their minds thinking instead of joining onto the he’s a born-again just like me bandwagon.

And “Among the teachings of mormonism are ideas of merit”? Wouldn’t that be true of every group? Would you say Hezbollah would have an equally dispassionate assessment of their pluses and minuses? or would they be immediately rejected regardless of their merits? They do have charities for their people after all.

My point about Scientology was that they are no crazier than Mormon theology. Scientologis just haven’t been around long enough to escape the cult label. Would you not judge someone running for President differently if they were a Scientologist? To me it would be a bit like finding out Obama was an Animist, worshipped Zeus or practiced voodoo? I personally, could never look on him with the same respect for his judgment and would question where else it would be flawed. For me, magic underwear, multiple space gods, Jesus in America and Eden in Missouri cause the same concerns. If he wants to renounce the nuttiness as just that, I’ll gladly give him another look. Your mileage may vary.

So if one looks at the teachings of mormonism, I think it’s pretty easy to think “well if person x ascribes to these teachings, then there is the potential that person x is kinda kooky.” But at the same time, I like to take my own measure of a person. I come from MA and am a longtime Mitt Romney watcher and explainer, but not much of a fan of the guy aside from appreciating that he does have a very good understanding of economics.

During my time watching him, he hasn’t given me any reason to think he’s a kook, lacks critical thinking skills, however you want to say it. He seems like a pretty sane, sensible guy. So I think the rule for a pol who has something like “mormon” on the resume should be “ok, that deserves a closer look.” But if the closer look doesn’t show concrete and specific reason for concern, that’s the end of it for me.

Interesting that you mention scientology. Consider Tom Cruise. With him, if you take a closer look at him because of his scientology, you see the kinds of peculiar behavior, complete with ranting and agitation, which makes you think “OK, the kook smoke is being caused by some real kook fire. ”

Romney hasn’t shown this.

What does it say about us when Americans won’t vote for a man because
–his hair is too perfect
–his smile is too big
–they don’t like his religion
–they don’t like the way he dresses

What happened electing a man for his outstanding abilities? He understands the principles that made America great and will give the government (and our money) back to the people.

Gov. Romney has a seriousness that is reassuring, and his economic chops are better than anyone in the current administration. If the economy, rising taxes, and unemployment are issues in the 2012 campaign, then Romney has a chance of unseating President Obama (assuming the President pays the usual popularity penalty for overseeing a nation in decline).

I don’t know whether the country is ready for an android/reptile, but I like to think we are sufficiently open-minded. We have made great strides recently. I refer of course to the election of an imbecile in 2000, which forever shattered the glass ceiling that had for so long limited opportunities for cretins.

First Graders can’t vote. That said Obama will have a couple free points in 2012 simply due to demographic shifts.

Justin,

What Palin decides to do will probably largely depend on her career as a highly paid pundit in 2012. If she can advance that career by running she will.

Whether she can win the nomination is another matter entirely. It will depend on the who else runs.

Remember if in 2004 you’d said that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, or John McCain would win in 2008 you’d probably have picked Biden. Before Palin got tapped to be VP most political junkies would not even have recognized her name. In January 2008 nobody would have predicted the last non-McCain candidate in the GOP primary would be Mike Huckabee.

The next relevant election in the U.S. is the Democratic primary in 2016 when the successor to President Obama will be decided sometime between the New Hampshire primary and the Super Tuesday primaries.

Talking about anything else is pointless.

Palin does not seem very mature by comparison, instead seeming petulant and combative. She seems to lack a broad or deep understanding of many issues in the eyes of those outside the right. She has not demonstrated anything like a sophisticated knowledge of things like economics, foreign policy, healthcare, etc.

Many on the right seem to really enjoy that Palin sticks in the craw of those they view as the liberal intelligentsia. And she’s pretty, and she’s scrappy. Is that sufficient basis for a Presidential run? I don’t think so.