An Early Fitzmas for Henry Waxman

post from Firedoglake on 06 December 2007 07:39:00 PM. © Firedoglake

It's a good thing we have supercomputers nowadays, because otherwise there'd be no way on earth the White House could keep pace with the revelations of its lies. Now on top of the Iran NIE, and CIA torture tapes (see Emptywheel about that), there's this[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/06/an-early-fitzmas-for-henry-waxman/

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Are a candidate's religious beliefs fair game

post from Jesus' General on 06 December 2007 07:35:00 PM. © Jesus' General

or "My Inner-Frenchman on Why Mitt's Mormonism Matters"

Other than a few irresistible satirical pieces, I've stayed away from the question of whether voters should consider Mitt Romney's religion before casting their vote. I preferred to sit back and bathe myself in schadenfreude as I waited for the true-red Republicans of the Intermountain West to react to being blackballed by the most powerful faction of their party's base.

But my feelings changed a few weeks ago after I read a Burnt Orange Report post on why a candidate's religious beliefs should be off limits. I've been considering writing a response since then, and what better time than now to do that than now, on the day after Romney gave his so-called "JFK speech."

I'll begin by saying that I fully support the "no religious test" clause of the Constitution. I am not advocating that anyone be barred from holding office on the basis of religion. I do believe, however, that it is proper for voters to consider a candidate's religious beliefs before casting a vote for him or her.

The weight one should give to this consideration is dependent on four variables. First, what is the candidate's level of religiosity? Is he or she unquestioningly committed to the church's doctrine or is the candidate more independent in his or her thinking?

Second, how dogmatic is the candidate's church? Is questioning allowed? How does it treat dissent? Do they believe their scriptures are literal or metaphorical?

Third, what does the candidate believe regarding the relationship between people and God? Does the candidate believe God speaks directly to him or her? If so, does the candidate believe he or she has special powers of Revelation that are unavailable to most people? Does the candidate believe that the God guided the hands of our founding fathers and continues to guide the hands of our leaders today?

Finally, how would the church's doctrine influence the candidate's presidency?

Now let's consider these variables in regard to Mitt Romney and I think you'll see why I think it's important to address a candidates religious beliefs during the campaign.

The first two variables provide us with clues about how much Mitt's religious beliefs would influence his presidential decisions.

The first variable, religiosity, is easy, perhaps even easier to determine for Mormons than for others. In addition to his public statements proclaiming his religiosity, Mitt holds a temple recommend. They are only issued to the faithful. As a high priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood, he holds the highest level of priesthood a Mormon may hold. He's also served as a bishop and a stake president (leadership positions serving areas roughly equivalent to parishes and diocese) He is unquestionably a faithful Mormon.

Mitt is a member of a very dogmatic sect. Dissent is not allowed. The late N. Eldon Tanner, a councilor to the prophet, once preached "When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over." Apostle Boyd K. Packer justified a large purge of intellectuals in the early nineties by saying, "There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher Of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not...Some things that are true are not very useful."

Now that we've established that Mitt is a committed member of a very dogmatic sect, i think it's fairly safe to assume that his religious beliefs would play an important role in a Romney presidency. but what are those beliefs and how would they influence his decision making? Let's look at the other variables and see what we find.

As a High Priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood, Romney believes he receives revelations from God. He believes God directs him to do the things he does, and he never makes an important decision without asking God for guidance and receiving a revelation first.

As a committed Mormon, he also believes that God played an important role in the creation of this nation; that he "guided the hands" of our founding fathers. He believes that the United States is favored above all nations by God, and that Jesus will return to rule the Earth from the city of New Zion, which will be built by the faithful in Jackson County, Missouri.

It is also likely that he believes that he, and his Mormon supporters, are the Elders of Zion whom Joseph Smith prophesied would save this nation as it "hangs by a thread." (JoD 7:15) How could he not believe that as he enters the presidency at a time he believes we are in a life and death struggle with "islamofascism?"

So, like George Bush, Mitt thinks he speaks with God, believes that the United States is favored by God, and likely believes God has a specific mission for him to perform.

Now, let's look at how specifically his belief system would affect the way he governs. For the sake of brevity, I'm going to limit this discussion to one piece of Mormon Doctrine, the one based in the story of Nephi, Laban, and the Brass Plates found in the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon, along with the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible (KJV) is considered to be of the Church's "four standard works" of scripture. all are considered to be the word of God (although the Bible to a lesser extent because, unlike the others, it was not translated by the Urim and Thummin or received directly from God via revelation.)

The Book of Mormon begins with the flight of a family from Jerusalem. Once outside the city walls, the father, the prophet Lehi, has a revelation that he must take the "Brass Plates," a record of the Jews, with him to a new land across the ocean. He commands his sons, Laman, Lemuel, Nephi, and Sam to go back into the city and get the plates. The older brothers, Laman and Lemuel--who because of their later wickedness, would be cursed with dark skin and become the first Native Americans--weren't happy about it. The Brass Plates belonged to Laban, a powerful Jewish official--it was a dangerous assignment. After a bit of wrangling, the brothers decide that Nephi will go into the city alone to do the task.

Nephi finds Laban drunk and passed out on the street. God tells him to murder Laban, but Nephi is reluctant and asks why God wants him to commit murder. God replies with an ends justifying the means argument: "It is better that one man should die, than for a whole nation to dwindle in unbelief." That's good enough for Nephi. He chops off Labens head, dresses in his clothes, and goes to his house where he commands the servant to bring him the plates. The servant, who apparently is accustomed to seeing his master coming home in bloody robes and looking like a teenager, complies and gives Nephi the plates.

The lesson Mormons, including Mitt, take from this is that the greater good may require the violation of important laws, in this case, theft and murder. It's a lesson that is stressed in Sunday classes for adults and children as well as the weekday seminary classes Mormon teens are required to attend. It's an important scripture and doctrine.

This is why it is critical to discuss a candidates religious beliefs. It gives us the best insight we can get into how someone like Mitt would govern. He's the type of leader who would believe that his actions are condoned by God and are not subject to Earthly laws like the Constitution.

Sound familiar?

Read The Full Article:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2007/12/are-candidates-religious-beliefs-fair.html

Digg this

We were somewhere on the edge of Armageddeon

post from Crooks and Liars on 06 December 2007 07:33:23 PM. © Crooks and Liars

… when the reality began to take hold.darkblack joins SteveAudio’s blog with a brilliant take on the current crop of Republican candidates. And on a related note, Roadblock Republicans is looking for a few good writers to help document …well, roadblocking Republicans.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/06/we-were-somewhere-on-the-edge-of-armaged
deon/

Digg this

December 7, 1941

post from Connecting.the.Dots on 06 December 2007 07:26:00 PM. © Connecting.the.Dots

We lived in a different America then. News that the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor came from bulletins that broke into Sunday afternoon radio programs and was spread by word of mouth over the telephone, on the streets of cities and house to house in small towns.

World War II came to us in slow motion and seemed unreal until we read details in the next day's newspaper and heard a broadcast of President Roosevelt telling Congress that that day would live in infamy as he declared a state of war with Japan.

Why, then, did that unseen war affect our lives so much more deeply than the 24/7 images and endless words about Iraq, which nevertheless is sliding out of the national consciousness now day by day?

World War II was everybody's war. It would be fought by our fathers, sons, husbands, brothers and those of the people next door and down the block. I was 17 then, but in little more than a year, I knew I would be among them.

We were all in it together, and every night at 8:55, we turned on our radios for the only news most of us were able to get.

If we had been told then we would be called "The Greatest Generation," we would have wondered what was unusual about doing what we had to do. It would have saddened us beyond tears if we knew that our children and grandchildren would ever have to fight and die when the nation's survival was not so clearly at stake.

It would have broken our hearts then, and it still does.

Read The Full Article:
http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/12/december-7-1941.html

Digg this

Best Takedown of Mitt “Big Dig”
Romney’s Piety Speech

post from The American Street on 06 December 2007 07:16:00 PM. © The American Street

Presumably you’ve heard or read Romney’s speech about religion today.The speech drew[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2007/12/06/best-takedown-of-mitt-big-dig-
romneys-piety-speech/

Digg this

Look Who’s Hosting the Next Debate

post from The American Street on 06 December 2007 07:03:00 PM. © The American Street

If the commentary doesn’t grab you, the personal bios will.(h/t to Shep for the link)[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2007/12/06/look-whos-hosting-the-next-deb
ate/

Digg this

Senator Memory Pills Has Democratic Challenger In
Kansas

post from Crooks and Liars on 06 December 2007 07:01:00 PM. © Crooks and Liars

Some of you may recall Kansas Senator Pat Roberts’ appearance on Meet The Press in February 2006, where he pulled out a bottle of “memory pills” as he debated Democratic Senator Tom Daschle. Roberts, then the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, ran cover for the Bush administration by stalling multiple reports on the [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/06/senator-memory-pills-has-democratic-chal
lenger-in-kansas/

Digg this

More than $1 billion in military equipment
missing in Iraq.

post from Think Progress on 06 December 2007 07:01:00 PM. © Think Progress

A new Government Accountability Office report details “massive failure in government procurement,” revealing that there is “more than $1 billion in unaccounted for military equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces.” According to the analysis, the military, for example, “could not account for 12,712 out of 13,508 weapons, including pistols, assault rifles, rocket propelled grenade launchers and machine guns.”

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/06/more-than-1-billion-in-military-equipment-mis
sing-in-iraq/

Digg this

Romney vs. Kennedy

With the media hauling out the silver trumpets and pounding the drums all week to compare Willard Romney's speech with that of John F. Kennedy, it seems only right to do just that. NPR has transcripts of both Kennedy's 1960 speech made in Houston before a gathering of protestant ministers, and Romney's speech, made before supporters at the George Bush Presidential Library.

That the two speeches should be compared isn't just a matter of two candidates from a minority religion facing questions of faith. Romney sold this speech from the beginning as his opportunity to try on Kennedy's shoes, and he doesn't hesitate to claim Kennedy as his own. However, from the beginning, it's clear that the shoes don't fit.

RomneyAlmost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president.

KennedyFor contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic.

That difference is not a minor one. Kennedy's speech was full of bold, direct confrontation of the issues facing him not as a Catholic, but as Democratic candidate for president. Romney's speech is, beginning to end, a distortion of history. Not only does he attempt to strip the Democrat from JFK, he is ready to accept every lie about the relationship between religion and the history of the United States. His speech plays to the full set of fears Republicans have used to bludgeon the public over the last twenty years, and builds to a frighteningly explicit demand for theocracy.