A reporter talked to Harry Reid’s bishop and found out he is a home teacher and that he keeps a BoM in his office. He’s also not your typical liberal, according to this article.
The Millennial Star
A reporter talked to Harry Reid’s bishop and found out he is a home teacher and that he keeps a BoM in his office. He’s also not your typical liberal, according to this article.
I think this particular section speaks volumes about the difference between a Democratic Mormon and a Republican Mormon.
No Senator cares that Reid is Mormon because Reid doesn’t try to legislate his moral beliefs. He is however well respected because of his beliefs. The strength of the gospel of Jesus Christ comes not in legislating morality, but in living it yourself. You cannot legislate others into living the gospel principles. And it shows. Others are not bothered that Reid is a Mormon.
Hmm. I’m not sure I agree Dan. I think there’s just a double standard at play between how Republicans are treated and Democrats are treated.
Of course the whole “doesn’t try to legislate his moral beliefs” is wrong. It’s just that the moral beliefs he tries to legislate happen to be ones that Democrats value. (i.e. health care and the poor) That’s a common feature in the debates between Mormon Democrats and Republicans (of the social conservative variety) among the blogs as well. Both have their religion inform their politics, but push morality, but both differ in what ought be left up to the individual.
What, pray tell, is a “typical liberal”?
My guess is that in your mind a “typical liberal” (whatever that is) cannot be an active Mormon, so you’ve now been able to breathe a sigh of relief that Harry isn’t a typical liberal.
The fact is, there is no more truth in the label “typical liberal” than in the label “typical Christian conservative.”
Every politician tries to “legislate moral beliefs.” If you are a liberal Democrat, you may have different moral beliefs than many conservative Republicans, but you still try to legislate and push for things that you believe are important. And what you decide is important is based on your morality (hopefully). Deciding certain things are not important enough for legislation (partial birth abortion, the promotion of traditional marriage) is a moral decision, because you are saying that some things are more important than others, and that has to do with individual beliefs about morality. It is silly to claim that Reid is more respected than others because he does not “legislate morality.” He legislates a morality that agrees with Dan and the MSM and most other Democrats.
Mark B, in this particular post I am making none of the value judgments that you claim in #3. I am simply reporting what the article says, ie:
“And while he doesn’t push issues simply because of his faith, friends say Reid’s religion and his positions on issues as a senator are inseparable. The father of five boys, Reid is anti-abortion, pro-death penalty. He opposes same-sex marriage and gun control.”
I am simply pointing out that having these positions are not the positions of a “typical liberal.” I have made absolutely no claim similar to your #3 that “My guess is that in your mind a “typical liberal” (whatever that is) cannot be an active Mormon, so you’ve now been able to breathe a sigh of relief that Harry isn’t a typical liberal.”
Please don’t try to misrepresent what I have written. Thank you.
Geoff,
In Mark B’s defense, I originally read your post in the same way he did–I went to the article, and understood what you were saying, but it still sounds condescending.
I would also disagree with you–he is a “typical liberal” insofar as there is such a thing. In fact, as the (soon-to-be) Senate majority leader, he personifies a “typical liberal,” even where he doesn’t agree with each and every position that might be deemed liberal.
Doesn’t matter, in the end. He’s a Democrat, and all Democrats are evil, and there have never been truly devout members of the Church who are Democrats, and the fact that he aligns with the Democratic Party means he secretly wants to tear down the growth of the Church.
Or so we’re told.
Wouldn’t it be great if Reid ran against Romney in 2008? [I know, it won’t happen…] The collective Mormon head would explode trying to decide who they should vote for. “I’m really a Republican, but that Reid guy isn’t as smarmy as that Romney guy, and they both hold temple recommends…”
Queuno, sheesh!! For the record, I don’t think all Democrats are evil, just the hyper-sensitive ones who take a throw-away comment molehill and make a mountain out of it. And then, they’re not really evil, just hyper-sensitive.
Queuno (#7)
Don’t forget about that evil Pres. Faust. He went so far as to be the chair of the Utah Democratic Party. I’m glad he repented so he could be in the 1st Presidency.
I think queuno was being sarcastic….
I find the whole idea that legislating morality is taboo to be unconvincing. Law, to a certain extent, is an expression of what society considers to be moral. We have social security because we consider it a moral duty to take care of seniors, we have laws against murder because we think it is immoral to kill (at least without permission). We have due process because we think it is immoral to deprive people of their liberty without some good proof. Probably the best example is the federal civil rights act. We have that law because we believe that discrimination is immoral.
When Senator Reid’s staffer says that her boss doesn’t legislate his morality, what she really means is that he uses rational policy arguments rather than bare moral judgments to justify his legislative decisions. More likely, it’s just an obligatory recitation of a party line to distinguish from the religious right. Having said this, however, I find Senator Reid appealing because he allows his religion to affect his judgment and doesn’t deny it, but doesn’t wear it on his sleeve. This is one advantage that the democrats have over republicans–the fact that their party is outwardly more secular means that they can more easily live their religion as a private matter that affects, but does not dictate, their policy decisions. Republicans, on the other hand, have the unsavory tendency to attribute political decisions and policies to religious fervor. When that appears not to be the case, it turns people off to religion.
Republicans tend to attribute their policies to religious fervor because they believe that gets them votes. What could be more transparent? I think the recent election shows that people of faith (even socially conservative ones) are starting to see through this, at long last.
It wouldn’t matter, at least not in Utah. Unless he had a R next to his name, Utah would vote for a retarded cow-molesting Republican chimp instead of Reid.
One fact that is less commonly known about Reid is that he is a convert (joined while attending Utah State). Many folks assume that a Mormon from a Western state must be from pioneer stock, but that isn’t the case. He and his wife are both converts; she was Jewish and her family was less-than-thrilled.
That’s quite interesting. I didn’t know he was a convert.
BTW JJohnsen, you know that Utah county did elect for quite a few years a Democratic here in the 6th congressional district. Chris Cannon (who I like and respect a great deal) probably was only able to win due to Clinton’s actions in Utah that year. Bill Orton got caught up in the Clinton backlash over the the land grab down near Boulder.
So I think the idea that Utah wouldn’t elect a Democrat is simply mistaken. Likewise we still have one Democratic congressman. I think that if there was a Republican Utahns found distasteful they’d vote Democratic (assuming the Democrat wasn’t more distasteful and bothered trying)
“The father of five boys, Reid is anti-abortion, pro-death penalty.”
I only have three boys, but there has been many a day when they’ve made me favor the death penalty. (grin)
Utah county did elect for quite a few years a Democratic here in the 6th congressional district.
I realize that Democrats still need some convincing that giving Utah a fourth congressional district in exchange for voting rights for the DC delegate is a good idea. But reminding them that a sixth Utah district might elect a Democrat will not do the trick.
“Reid is anti-abortion, pro-death penalty.”
Yet he is the leader of a party that has made the “right” to unfettered abortion one of its core foundations.
He’s deeply religious, yet he is the Senate leader of the party that is arguably hostile to religion.
He has a testimony of the Proclamation to the Family, yet he leads a party that promotes gay marriage and has a very loose interpretation of the concept of family.
And he, like other LDS Dems, plays these things off, validating their party affiliation by arguing that Democrats are helping the poor like Jesus.
Perhaps I wouldn’t be so turned off by Democrats if LDS Dems could give me honest, apolitical answers to these very valid questions. I’m not affiliated with a party. I’m conservative but I think I’m open-minded. I’ll be honest- if the Dems gave me somebody that understood the threat of radical Islam, I’d vote for them in a heartboeat, morals be damned. But idealogically I cannot vote for Democrats on a national level because nobody, NOBODY can answer these questions for me.
Reid = typical liberal, which is to say, he holds morally repugnant views and then lies to make himself palatable to mainstream voters. If Reid is pro-life than I’m Micky Mouse and Jimmy Carter is pro-freedom. Oh, and Reid’s corrupt, too.
National Right to Life scores Reid at a mere 55% as a pro-life legislator. Even Arlen Spector — who is avowedly pro-choice — scores better than this. Other Democrats who rank higher than Reid are John Brough (La) 100%, Mary Landrieu (La) 75%, Mark Pryor (Ark) 64%, Ben Nelson (Neb) 91%, and Byron Dorgan (ND) 64%.
Reid voted to for a measure to kill (by burying it beneath senatorial procedure) the bill to Ban partial birth abortions. Reid voted to fund abortions with US dollars (a funding policy instituted by Clinton and reversed by Bush). Reid opposed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which recognized a “child in utero†as a second victim when injured or killed during a violent federal or military crime. Reid voted for the Feinstein’s hostile substitute proposal stipulated that there the mother is the only victim in such crimes.
LOL. I really need to learn not to comment when half asleep. I meant Chris Cannon is in the third congressional district.
It’s incorrect to assert that the Dems are “arguably hostile toward religion” just because they take the Establishment Clause more seriously than the Republicans. The Republican tendency to want to weaken the wall between church and state would be much more harmful to religion in the long run. Fortunately, the Republicans seem to be more about lip service on these topics than action.
Some of these comments about Reid border on libel, imo. See especially #19. You’re calling a TR-worthy member of the Church “morally repugnant,” “corrupt,” and a liar just because you don’t see things politically the way he does.
MikeInWeHo- I’m not sure you take the Establishment Clause more seriously. You do seem to interpret it differently. Whereas conservatives see it to mean (in a nutshell) that the State cannot endorse a specific faith, liberals take that to mean faith in general.
That’s why they are offended at the phrase “under God” in the Pledge. To me, “under God” is all-encompassing and because of that it does not violate the Establishment Clause. But to liberals it does. Even non-vociferous liberals get slightly offended when they hear that. Since liberals interpret the EC to mean faith in general, they are arguably hostile to religion.
Tossman–
What reason do you have to beleive that all Democrats are offended by “under God” in the pladge? That’s like saying that all Republicans are opposed to contraceptives; it defines the whole by its most extreme part.
Your statement “To me, ‘under God’ is all encompassing” gets at the heart of the issue. It is all encompassing, *to you* but not to all Americans. This is the difference between the two major parties on the EC–Republicans want to define it based on what it means to them instead of based on what it means to America as a whole. Actually, that’s not quite accurate, Republicans want to define it (al least when it comes to compaign rhetoric) based on populist majoritarianism (most of us are nominally judeo-christian, so we should allow government to endorse the judeo-christian tradition in general but not specific sects) while Democrats generally go for consensus, or, lowest common denominator, depending on your bias (since some of us take exception with calling him God, we should respect their beliefs, even if they are bizzare and subjectively wrong). But to say that all Democrats think “under God” violates the EC and want to remove it is ludicrous.
Personally, I think the “under God” controversy is stupid. The phrase in the pledge doesn’t offend me, but neither does the pledge without it. It’s a non-issue. The extremes on both parties hijack the issue to mobilize the base and get elected and then ignore it when they get into office.
DKL–
Reid’s NRL score tells only half the story. NARAL gives him a mere 29% as a pro-choice legislator. Just because he isn’t as pro-life as some conservatives would like him to be, that does not make him as pro-choice as they make him out to be. In reality, he’s pretty moderate.
JKC- I never said all Democrats are offended by “under God.” I said all liberals are. I am basing this observation on my experiences in the the Political Science department at a fairly liberal university and my research since. I consider it a safe assumption.
I refuse to believe the founding fathers intended on erasing all traces of religion from government. Judeo-Christian themes run deep in the founding of this country. I see no reason to eradicate them. There are civilizations that have tried to do this. I lived in one on my mission. What desolate, characterless cultures they created.
But really, I’d like a bit more feedback on the other points I brought up.
I never said all Democrats are offended by “under God.” I said all liberals are. I am basing this observation on my experiences in the the Political Science department at a fairly liberal university and my research since. I consider it a safe assumption.
It’s not.
Find me 10 liberals, Lemming, and lets see how many of them are offended by “under God.”
Tossman, LL and many other Mormon liberals could easily find for you 10 liberals who are not offended by “under God.” Heck, I could find you 10 liberals who comment on this site.
But that is irrelevant. The bigger issue is that America is a religious country, and attempts to take “under God” out of the pledge are offensive to the idea of America and to the majority of Americans. Yet, it is liberals who defend the 9th circuit’s ridiculous decision. So, Tossman’s bigger point is clearly valid. And, yes, the primary position of liberals is to change the meaning of the Establishment clause into something it is not.
Tossman,
I’m a liberal, and I’m not offended by “under God.”
One down, nine to go.
Geoff,
Are you familiar with the history of the pledge of allegiance?
I’m not offended by the phrase “under God” and I’m probably more of a liberal than anything else (though I tend to be a tad politically schizophrenic). I wish the whole debate would essentially go away so we could talk about health care, America’s failing pension system or something else that actually matters.
Ok, not all liberals get offended by “under God.” Though I’d bet more non-LDS libs are offended by it than LDS libs. Which reminds me, nobody has addressed the greater point of my post #18. I’m serious about these being non-partisan questions.
Seth- I agree that arguments about morals shouldn’t steal the political scene like they have. Certainly many very important issues fall by the wayside. The bigger issues for me are Islamofacism and national security. But, it seems to me that when we as a society embrace moral relativism, turn a blind eye to the disintegrating family, and laugh in the face of religion, can we not expect to be “left to our own strength?”
Thomas Jefferson in writing to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist minister was declaring a one-way wall of separation. I.e., the government would never dictate to a religion what its doctrine should be. He was never an agnostic. He simply railed against providing official status in Virginia to the Church of England. He wanted the Baptists to have equal wupport from the Commonwealth.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson was head of the American Bible Society. Any attempt to use Jefferson to justify the left’s heathen philosophies is an attempt to re-write history.
Tossman,
My point is that health care IS a “moral issue.” And it’s a moral issue that I consider to be more important than abortion.
Elder Marlin K. Jensen stated that you will never find a political party that matches all your moral criteria. He said that the task is then to find a party that most closely matches your ideals and then work within that party to enact reforms making it more what you would like to see.
I find the drawbacks of both parties to be objectionable. But my view of the role of government and economic management is more liberal than conservative. Since those are the central issues, I affiliate Democrat currently. Abortion is, as a practical matter, an irrelevant issue. Politicians in both parties generally don’t even want to touch abortion legislation anyway (except when it’s Republicans who feel they can safely curry favor with the base without actually changing anything). Abortion is mere window dressing and has no business determining party affiliation.
And for the record, if I were king, Nope – I would not legislate against Roe v. Wade. I say this even though, as a moral matter, I oppose the idea of abortion except in the instances outlined by my church leadership.
Here’s why:
I feel that the societal pressures in favor of abortion for many women are intensely strong right now. I feel it is counter-productive to force a behavioral change by law while those pressures remain unaddressed. My aim is to address the underlying causes that lead so many women to abortion in the first place. Once these reforms have been enacted, punitive or coercive legislation may prove more productive and accurately-directed.
We both oppose abortion. It’s just that my approach is different than yours. I see the conservative approach as screaming for Tylenol, when we have an internal bleeding problem. I find the noise harmfully distracting and wish they’d shut up so we can actually address the issue effectively.
So that’s my take.
And one other thing.
The disengagement of religious-minded folk from the Democratic party will prove every bit as destructive to our society as the evils that such folk say they left the Democratic party over.
Like it or not, the liberal paradigm of governance has been on the ascendency ever since the start of the Great Depression. It used to be that the Democratic party was just as informed by religious-minded leaders and constituents as the Republican party. Increasingly, that is no longer true. The religious are essentially abdicating their responsibility and ceding the Democratic party to the “unbelievers.” This has proven highly damaging for the Democratic party itself. But it will prove even more harmful as society increasingly believes that the only way to be “religious” is to be a reactionary political throwback who longs for some non-existent golden age that we supposedly had in the 1950s or something.
We’ve come to firmly believe that being “progessive” cannot be religious. This will cripple our society.
Mormons and other highly religious people need to re-enter the Democratic party and start reshaping it. Because it doesn’t currently look like the Republican party is willing to be the party of solutions that we need.
Jefferson didn’t believe in voting rights for women either. Or that males without property should be allowed to vote.
I find the “founding fathers” useful for their persuasive value and that’s about it. There’s nothing sacred about the “original intent” behind the Constitution. We are free to accept or reject Jefferson depending on how persuasive we find him to be.
“Abortion is mere window dressing and has no business determining party affiliation.”
Why not, Seth? It may be window dressing, but it’s obviously very important window dressing. When Democrats state their beliefs, whether it be John Kerry’s nomination address in 2004 or a rant LDS Dem Ted Wilson gave me back in college, or a good share of the message of last summer’s Salt Lake City anti-Bush protest- the fact is Democrats are the ones making abortion front and center.
I realize the law will not be changed, and that after elections most politicians drop the subject. It’s the attitude that bugs me. Both in passionate advocacy and post-election apathy, Democrats are telling me that killing the unborn- even for social or cosmetic reasons- is okay. I wish I had a nickel every time I heard a politician argue the “woman’s right to choose.” The fact that Democrats think any person, male or female, has authority to decide when a fetus becomes a baby is enough to avoid that party.
I understand the Church’s teachings on this and I think they’re correct. Thus, the right-wing push for banning abortion doesn’t sit well with me. But the decision to have an abortion should be heart-wrenching. It should be done under the context of fervant prayer and religious counsel. Sadly, these days it looks more and more like abortion has become just another elective procedure. The fact that Democrats seem to have blown off this aspect of the issue must be seen as passive advocacy of flippant abortion.
Seth,
Then you will admit that the Supreme Court’s decisions re: school prayer, et al are flagrantly disingenuous? If there’s nothing “sacred” about the Constitution (Church leaders would dispute that), then school prayer et al should have been subject to democratic (small “d”) processes, not the philosophies of five robed justices.
I happen to agree with Church leaders that the Constitution was divinely inspired, and that a Judeo-Christian foundation is necessary for a mature republic to function. Read what our Founding Fathers had to say on this topic:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=21
Tossman, the Republicans have blown-off abortion every bit as much as the Democrats have.
The fact that they’ve tried to make political hay out of abortion, but little else, is not enough to convince me that their values are in line with mine on the subject.
I am not indifferent about abortion.
I am actually very angry about abortion. I’m angry about how so many people spout off pious monologues about how awful abortion is, pat themselves on the back for being “politically and morally and correct,” and then return to business as usual. Somehow, its OK to be blind to the multitude of evils we put on each other as long as we scream loud enough about abortion. Right?
Satan is using abortion alright. He’s using it as a distraction. Correct views on abortion are, all too often, simply another method for fat complacent churchgoers to convince themselves that they are indeed “righteous folk” despite the fact that they “never knew Christ” in any sense that matters.
Democrats don’t like to make political hay out of abortion? Come on. Popular culture (influenced greatly by the media and education, both liberal powerhouses) indoctrinates our youth with the notion of “woman’s right to choose”, saying that Republicans would roll back womens’ rights. Then here come the Democrats to save the day. From Nancy Pelosi’s website:
“I am not only a leader in Congress. I am a mother of five, and a grandmother of five. And we are here to say that a woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions is not only pro-choice…it’s pro-children. It’s pro-family. It’s pro-Constitution. It’s pro-freedom.”
Again, you’re missing the point. I never said that the Democrats are closer to my ideas of abortion. Neither did I try to imply that they are somehow “above the fray.”
You can easily make the point that both Democrats and Republicans are equally opportunistic on abortion. And it doesn’t really counter my point in the slightest. All I claimed was that BOTH parties have strayed from LDS principles on abortion, so to advocate party affiliation on grounds of the abortion issue seems misguided to me.
I said I was Democrat on grounds OTHER than abortion in the first place. In fact, I see abortion as one of those areas that I would like to see change in the Democratic platform. But I don’t consider it priority number one by any stretch. Other pressing social needs are of far more importance.
As an intermediate goal, I would like to see the Democratic party drop the issue of abortion entirely and focus on more productive policy goals.
As a long-term goal, I would like to see the party present a holistic solution to the abortion question that goes beyond the current GOP solution of dumb law enforcement.
re: 35
“….a Judeo-Christian foundation is necessary for a mature republic to function.”
The Japanese experience disproves that. I’m sure there are other examples as well.
or the Hindu Indian example…..democracy is alive and well in India. Not many Christians there, or the Judeo-Christian belief system….