By way of full disclosure, let me tell you that I am LDS or Mormon. I admit I'm not active, but I'm not anti-LDS either.
In a group blog called the Blue Oregonian there is an entry written by a Jeannie Berg titled:
Gordon Smith on Iraq – Did the Elders Make Him Do It?
She starts out by saying:
It's no surprise that Smith is opposing the troop surge - now that he's got the go ahead from the Mormon leadership. A troop surge would be hard to support given Mormon Prophet Gordon Hinckley's comments about war, "what a fruitless thing it so often is, and what a terrible price it exacts."
So did Gordon Smith’s recent announcement of his new-found opposition to the
Iraq war happen because his feelings changed, because he came terms with the political realities in Oregon or because he was following the lead of the man he really answers to, Mormon Prophet Gordon Hinckley? There’s been much discussion about the motives behind Senator Smith’s about-face on the Iraq war, but all of it has missed one important factor in the Senator’s decision making – his serious commitment to the Mormon Church. Smith’s Mormon commitment is real and deep. This commitment may be a part of what makes Smith the super straight-laced guy many admire, but it also means he has great loyalty to the Mormon leadership.
What Ms. Berg fails to understand, is that Senator Smith's loyalty to "Mormon leadership" ends at the Church door or at least it should. Now I don't know if President Gordon B. Hinkley is against this war or war in general. The Church leadership, at least in the 20th century, has bordered upon pacifism - even during WWII. The church has never been against military service and even provides chaplains, but their general message over the years is more pro-peace actually, rather than outright anti-war.
I've been a member since 1979. I've held leadership positions. Every major election, the First Presidency (The Church President and his two councilors) sends out a letter to all the Churches to be read aloud to the congregation. In that letter, is an admonishment not to support any candidate or cause (with some rare exceptions) officially or unofficially from the pulpit. You are advised to vote your conscience. (The rare exception is when the issue is considered a moral position. You might recall the LDS involvement in the California Defense of Marriage vote several years back).
I can tell you here in Tacoma, some of our hierarchy are quite liberal politically. You might also be aware that Harry Reid is active LDS. I'm sure there are some members who think he should have to leave the church, but they would be a very few. I certainly don't take that position.
Mitt Romney is also LDS and running for President. At this point, I don't know if I support him or anyone else for that matter. I certainly won't vote for him simply because he is LDS and if that is the only reason someone supports him or is against him, then that person is a fool.
The contents from the same basket of horse apples was spread during the 1960 election with John F. Kennedy's Catholicism. Some folks foolishly feared that the Vatican would be running the country by proxy. The LDS Church Presidency won't be the proxy President of the USA either. I think I'm pretty safe in saying that they probably don't want the job.
One last thing. I've searched my copy of the Constitution and I can't find anywhere in there where it says that there is any kind of religious qualification for either holding public office, or being excluded there from. If you know where that is in the Constitution, please tell me.
Ms. Berg is a bigot.
VW
Hat Tip: Orbusmax












Speaking of religious tests and controversies...the Keith Ellison thing has been settled, in what I think is a rather politically astutde, if not final, method.
He will take the Oath of Office on Thomas Jefferson's own copy of the Koran.
Maybe there's some hope for this guy
Posted by: MOGS | Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 14:09
What???? Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran???? I don't get it. Did Jefferson have an interest in Islam or read up on it? Please explain, I'm curious.
Posted by: canuckistani | Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 18:28