I wonder why THIS happened?

Question

A couple of days ago, someone asked if people thought Mitt Romney would be assisted by his (then-upcoming) "faith" speech. This was my response (in quotes). Please read it, and then respond to the question that follows it:

"It'll just make him even more of a laughingstock. And... the LAST thing America needs in the White House is yet another president trying to send the USA down the road toward theocratic tyranny.

"I'm glad I live in Iowa, and will be voting in the Iowa Caucuses. NO person having any kind of religious agenda will be getting my vote.

-- "Roadrat" -- Normal, sensible, and UNobtrusive Christian."

Before framing the question, let me make it clear that "thumb's-downs" don't bother me in the least. However, I'm very puzzled that the above response got me TEN of those, and only one "thumb's up." I thought mine was a very sensible and fair-minded answer, so if anything, I wouldn't have been surprised if those votes had been 10-1 in the OTHER direction. [More]

Can any of you tell me what it was that I said that could have elicited such a negative response? Or do you think it was more likely a case of 2 or 3 thumb’s-downs triggering a mindless piling-on of them?

To "Nora" -- Thanks!

To "Jay D" -- If a candidate were an atheist, then he would have NO religious agenda, and would both (1) make rational decisions unskewed by religion, and (2) would most assuredly NOT want America to become a theocracy. I would have no criticism of him at all, therefore, from that standpoint.

To "Missouri" -- We've all seen it happen in here over and over again. An answer that seems pretty innocuous that gets 2 or three thumbs in one direction, and than lots more people simply get on the bandwagon and join in on that trend without giving the actual response any thought. THAT'S what I meant by "mindless."

To "Benjy" -- In my response, I was making it clear (or at least, so I thought) that AS a Christian, I would not IMPOSE any religiously-oriented agendas upon other people, and thus could not support any person who might feel favorably-inclined toward making America a theocracy.

To "BeKindToAnimals22" -- BRAVO!! You understand perfectly what I had said in my original response. Christians can make FINE Presidents, and most Presidents have been Christians. But as Republican Presidents go, I'll take IKE over Bush any day! And on the Democratic Side, JFK -- our first Catholic President -- had NO religious agenda for America, and sought NO curtailment of any of our personal liberties. And, until tragically murdered, had been doing a great job (except for the Bay of Pigs fiasco). We need a President who will NOT veto bills that would enable women to have the *safest* possible abortions (as ID&E ones are in mid-2nd-trimester), or would guarantee *equal* treatment in the workplace for gays, for example. And who would NOT veto a bill enabling expansion of hugely-valuable embryonic stem-cell research. Presidents who kowtow to extremists having hateful "agendas" do things like that. Romney would do things like that.

To "Amazing" -- My regarding Romney to be a laughingstock is WELL-founded opinion. A few months ago, here In Iowa, I talked with him one-to-one for three minutes... and his virulent intolerance for -- for example-- same-sex marriage (which is 100% harmless), and his opposition to Roe vs. Wade makes him a bigot. No, of course the USA isn't a theocratic tyranny -- YET! And I will be doing my best to help prevent it from ever becoming one. See my article here. (Right-click on the link, and open it in a new window.) ---

http://apifar.blogspot.com/2007/12/surreal-alternate-reality-if-demcrats.html

To "Amazing" -- My regarding Romney to be a laughingstock is WELL-founded opinion. A few months ago, here In Iowa, I talked with him one-to-one for three minutes... and his virulent intolerance for -- for example-- same-sex marriage (which is 100% harmless), and his opposition to Roe vs. Wade makes him a bigot. No, of course the USA isn't a theocratic tyranny -- YET! And I will be doing my best to help prevent it from ever becoming one. See my article here. (Right-click on the link, and open it in a new window.) ---

http://apifar.blogspot.com/2007/12/surreal-alternate-reality-if-democrats.html

(Open the SECOND link, above. The first one contains a typo and won't work.)

To "Laura D." -- Please read this ---

http://apifar.blogspot.com/2007/11/its-not-votes-that-count-its-who-counts_25.html

Answer 1

I would guess people feel you reject religion as a requirement for becoming president. Bush has carried it to an extreme and most people do not want a repeat of the last 7 years. On the other hand, they do want someone who believes and uses their faith as a strength instead of as a commandment in appointing his administration and his obvious bending of the constitution with his appropriations for religious based programs, etc. They still want someone who will say "God bless America".

Answer 2

Virgins Jackie Stollone The Elephant Man's tusks Those Heroes

Answer 3

Well, the laughing stock part was kind of rude. I don't think Romney is laughable at all. At least not as much as some of the democratic candidates. I don't think he is trying to push his religious agenda upon us either. I think that Republican candidates who 'happen' to be Christian get condemned by the non-believers and/or the liberals for having a religion they believe in. If a democratic candidate happened to be a black muslim, the media wouldn't dare say anything related to their religion because that would be 'wrong'.
And the yet another president trying to send us down ...blah blah...I don't like people who have such bad things to say about their own president. more people voted for him than ANY other president, ever. And he got re-elected, so.....

Answer 4

I believe few Yahoo! Answers people take the time to think about the responses under P&G. They scan it quickly to get a feel for your political leanings and thumb you up or down that way.

You're answer did make you sound a little intolerant of any religious beliefs, though. That would probably warrant all the thumbs down.

Answer 5

That is strange to say the least. I answered that question almost with the same answer -actually I said he wouldnt get my vote because of inconsistencies and his faith had nothing to do with it -also I stated if it has no bearing on his race for the presidency then why is his 2nd group of largest fundraisers next to investment banks a network of mormons
I went back to the question the first answer had 10 thumbs down also - I got 3 for mine but I am always getting 3 thumbs down no matter where I go I on weekdays because I support ron paul and there are 3 people who dont read my answers anymore -maybe you have 10?

Answer 6

Obviously, most voters didn't agree with you! You labeled a viable Presidential a "laughingstock". That's your opinion, but others, like me, consider it an insult. And, "theocratic tyranny" is not truthful. In no theoretical or practical way is our government a theocratic tyranny. That's just ridiculous.

In response to your response:
It's STILL just your opinion, not a fact. You can give all the links you wish., but it's still an opinion. I don't say you're not entitled to it. But, remember, those who don't agree are just as entitled to their opinions. And, they're just as legitimate.
BTW your link went nowhere.

Answer 7

Being "sensible and fair-minded" is, to some, the wrong approach to take to politics. Zealots only approve of other zealots.

Plus your answer implied criticism of the current president, so his supporters are sure to give you a thumb down.

Answer 8

Your answer got such a low rating because I, as well as over 70% of the U.S. pop. (according to phone polls ect...) claim to be Christian! The part about "no religious agenda" is nonsense!
A religion is a belief system and if you believe there is no god than you are an atheist! That is a religion if it makes you go to church on Sunday or not!!

IN RESPONSE... Well there is your problem you were not clear... tyranny? well theocratic or not we're still on the high road to it!! Who said Romney had a religious agenda? Anyhow I'm voting for Ron Paul because I think he'll preserve our freedoms!

Answer 9

Your answer provoked an emotional response instead of an intellectual response.

Answer 10

Go to my page and read the Article under 'Press Pass'.
http://hensleyministries.org

Ah, I will copy it here:



What Iowans
Should Know
About Mormons
By NAOMI SCHAEFER RILEY
December 7, 2007; Page W13

Yesterday, at the end of Mitt Romney's speech, he told a story from the early days of the First Continental Congress, whose members were meeting in Philadelphia in 1774: "With Boston occupied by British troops . . . and fears of an impending war . . . someone suggested they pray." But because of the variety of religious denominations represented, there were objections. "Then Sam Adams rose and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot."

A recent Pew poll shows that only 53% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Mormons. That's roughly the same percentage who feel that way toward Muslims. By contrast, more than three-quarters of Americans have a favorable opinion of Jews and Catholics. Whatever the validity of such judgments, one has to wonder: Why does a faith professed by the 9/11 hijackers rank alongside that of a peaceful, productive, highly educated religious group founded within our own borders?

Many evangelicals in the GOP view Mormonism as "a cult," or at least not a Christian faith. One Southern Baptist leader recently called it the "fourth Abrahamic religion." I remember, a couple of years ago, sitting in on an apologetics class at a Christian high school in Colorado Springs, Colo., and hearing the teacher describe a critical moment in the history of the Muslim faith, when the rock that now sits under the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem tried to fly to heaven and had to be restrained by Mohammad. Acknowledging that it sounded a little wacky, the teacher added: "Well, it's no stranger than that guy who found golden tablets in upstate New York." The students laughed uproariously at the reference to the Mormons' founding father, Joseph Smith.

* * *
Six years ago, I probably could have counted on one finger the number of Mormons I had met. Having lived most my life in the Northeast, my situation was hardly unique. Then, while researching a book on religious colleges, I decided to spend some time at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. In preparation, I picked up "Mormon America: The Power and the Promise" by religion reporters Richard and Joan Ostling. The Ostlings offer a comprehensive account of the church's history and theology, as well as helpful descriptions of the Mormons' cultural and political outlook. "The onetime believers in plural marriage, considered a dire threat to Victorian probity and the entire nation," the authors write, "have become the exemplars of conservative monogamous family values."

It is hard to disagree. Mormons marry young and have large families. They don't drink, smoke or gamble. The church does not condone homosexuality. Members give at least 10% of their income to the church and often volunteer more than 20 hours a week in some religious capacity. With no professional clergy, the survival of congregations (or "stakes") is entirely dependent on lay participation. All young Mormon men and many women spend two years as missionaries, their travels funded by their own families. The church stocks soup kitchens across the country and internationally (both its own and those of other faiths) with food from its farms and warehouses.

Rather than behaving like an insular cult, members are integrated into the society around them, sending their kids to public schools and assuming leadership positions locally and nationally. Once Mormons complete their missionary service, they are not obliged to proselytize, so having Mormons as neighbors doesn't mean a constant bombardment with invitations to join up.

But many Americans, unless they've actually had a Mormon neighbor, might find all these rosy facts meaningless, feeling deeply uneasy with some of Mormonism's tenets. A lot of what we call religious tolerance depends on social contact, not theological understanding, and there are only about six million LDS members in the U.S., mostly concentrated in the Western states (though increasingly less so). If you press Baptists, they will acknowledge finding Catholics' belief in transubstantiation implausible at best; Jews like me have a little trouble getting over the virgin birth. But we all get along, for the most part, because we know each other and live similar lives as Americans, whatever faith we profess.

But most Iowans will not meet a Mormon in the next six weeks unless Mr. Romney comes to call -- Mormons make up less than one half of 1% of the state's population. So let me offer a brief snapshot, not in the hope that Iowans will vote for Mr. Romney but in the hope that, if they don't vote for him, their decision won't have anything to do with his religion.

The young men and women at Brigham Young University are among the smartest, hardest-working and most pleasant college kids you will find anywhere. (For better or worse, I have visited dozens of college campuses.) The student body lives by the Mormon principle: "The glory of God is intelligence." Most reside off campus without adult supervision, yet they adhere strictly to curfews, rules about contact with the opposite sex and every other church directive. They are purposeful but seem to enjoy themselves, spending their free time hiking in the sprawling desert. And BYU has America's largest ROTC program outside of our military schools.

This last fact is one I had occasion to think about on my trip. I left for BYU on Sept. 7, 2001, and returned home a week later. On 9/11, the students gathered for a campuswide devotional. The university president tried to comfort the students with "the eternal perspective." My eternal perspective is not the same as theirs, of course. But hearing more than 20,000 young people around me reciting the Pledge of Allegiance made me realize that our temporal perspective is the same. I'm sure Sam Adams would have agreed.