I am surprised at how out of hand the Romney-church thing has become

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I no longer give a crap what Samuelson does as he doesn't appear to be benefitting the university.

I no longer expect politicians to be moral, just consistent in their voting.

I don't care if somebody sends out an email to friends. Obviously if somebody in authority sent out an email that looked authoritative, I'd inquire further, especially if it didn't agree with my views. But, I wouldn't get excised about it. Leaders and administrators do stupid things.

So what is it that upsets you when I make a further inquiry?

[Archaea]

Your inquiry only appears to be a jab at conservatives supporting Romney, not somebody I see winning.

It really doesn't seem to be a legitimate gripe. Identify a real gripe so we can talk.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Your inquiry only appears to be a jab at conservatives supporting Romney, not somebody I see winning.

It really doesn't seem to be a legitimate gripe. Identify a real gripe so we can talk.

A: I think it is a real gripe. Perhaps I am more sensitive about this issue than conservatives precisely because so many messages that come out of the church/BYU appear to tacitly support the Republican party (despite the many other messages of neutrality).

B: I think Romney has a great shot at the nomination. Who has a better shot at this point? Certainly not Giuliani, Santorum, Allen, Rice, McCain (I don't believe the southern wing of the party would ever support him given past statements on abortion, etc.). Romney is in GREAT position right now to take the nomination.

[RockyBalboa]

What I don't get is why anyone regardless of party or religious affiliation would give a tinker's damn if Romney asked for counsel from Church Leadership or not.

Negative perception about that says more about the person than anything.

Not to mention paranoia.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

What I don't get is why anyone regardless of party or religious affiliation would give a tinker's damn if Romney asked for counsel from Church Leadership or not.

Negative perception about that says more about the person than anything.

Not to mention paranoia.

Well, suppose that a member of the Church of Scientology was running for president. I think Mike showed some survey results a while back showing that our (LDS) negativity rating among the US population is about on par with the CoS. It's a pity, but it's reality. Such a candidate would have to go to great lengths to assure everyone that he or she would not be taking orders from someone else but would be acting independently and in the best interests of the country as a whole.

Just or not, that is reality. Romney has to show some independence or he won't get elected.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Well, suppose that a member of the Church of Scientology was running for president. I think Mike showed some survey results a while back showing that our (LDS) negativity rating among the US population is about on par with the CoS. It's a pity, but it's reality. Such a candidate would have to go to great lengths to assure everyone that he or she would not be taking orders from someone else but would be acting independently and in the best interests of the country as a whole.

Just or not, that is reality. Romney has to show some independence or he won't get elected.

If a Mormon Republican can get elected in one of the most hardcore democrat states in the country,,,,,,,I'd say enough of those democrat voters felt he was independent enough....that would seem obvious enough.

No?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

A: I think it is a real gripe. Perhaps I am more sensitive about this issue than conservatives precisely because so many messages that come out of the church/BYU appear to tacitly support the Republican party (despite the many other messages of neutrality).

B: I think Romney has a great shot at the nomination. Who has a better shot at this point? Certainly not Giuliani, Santorum, Allen, Rice, McCain (I don't believe the southern wing of the party would ever support him given past statements on abortion, etc.). Romney is in GREAT position right now to take the nomination.

Well, culturally, many members of leadership do agree with the politics of the Republican Party even if the organization maintains a stance of neutrality. The leaders, as individuals, of the general organization of the Church will never generally support the Democratic Party until its economic policies change as well as other matters that affect the Church. Or our membership becomes extremely poor. If I were a liberal, I wouldn't get too upset what the politics of my leaders were, as I look to them for spiritual guidance, not political leadership. In fact, knowing Faust is more liberal does allow me to give pause to some of the liberal propositions from time to time.

And I have no idea who has the funding and where the allegiances break down. Usually the nomination is dependant upon funding.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

If a Mormon Republican can get elected in one of the most hardcore democrat states in the country,,,,,,,I'd say enough of those democrat voters felt he was independent enough....that would seem obvious enough.

No?

That's why we are having this discussion. Apparently Romney is a pretty good candidate once folks get to know him. But can he carry the bible belt? Who knows.

[Detroitdad]

Romney is a political novelty, just as JFK was during his run for the presidency. Because this is the case, he will naturally face a lot of questions about whether he speaks for himself or Salt Lake (there is a perception that we are an authoritarian church to some, and for others we are just an unknown).
This little tempest in a teapot hurts Romney a bit with a few key portions of potoential primary voters, namely evangelicals. If anyone should be upset it should be Romney, with the incompetence of the people that allowed for even the vaguest appearance of being beholden to the church.
So, the ineptitude of the BYU administrators, who should obviously know better is an issue, as is the conduct of the political consultant. Anybody worth his salt knows that you do not go through official channels. The same thing could have been accomplished easily without the rigamarole, and the actions of were doubly stupid when one realizes that the Romney campaign had (and still has) the support for the taking, but to know that the link has to be attenuated or it will appear to close to a skeptical public.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

That, while inappropriate as well, is still not on the same level as having two deans from the business school write students from their school account urging them to vote for a Republican.

BTW, ridicule and scorn happen at BYU all the time too. Have you ever given a "liberal" opinion during class at BYU?

Nope, but I'm sure I can understand. I'd say that the difference between our experiences would be that you were still of the same religious affiliation as the vast majority of the studentbody and faculty at BYU. At Marist, there were 11 members of the church when I was there. Most folks there were either Catholic in tradition only (meaning if they went to church it was at Easter and Christmas) or agnostic. There really was no common ground for me with anybody there.

A question for you: were you ever accused of being an anti-semite for your politcial beliefs? (Or in you case were you ever accused of not being worth to hold the priesthood?) I was. Several times, including by faculty.

Marist is one of the most hardcore liberal schools around. I think I can safely say that the only graduates from Marist that are not liberals are myself and Bill O'Reilly.

I did get a good ecucation there, but if I hadn't been offered a scholarship to play baseball, I never would have set foot on that campus.