I just read an article about Mitt Romney, the guy who presided over the Salt Lake winter Olympics, governor of Massachusettes (?), who is now running (or trying to run) for president. It was discussing the pros and cons on his candidacy of him being a Mormon. For some reason, it really annoyed me and I want to not vote for him just on principle.
The article mentioned a few of the people that have contributed money to his campaign- the Marriotts, Jon Huntsman, and Larry Miller. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars from each person. Don't they know that people like me are in debt and struggling just to have a middle class lifestyle? Why do they give HIM so much money? Why IS politics so expensive? I don't get it. And what really bothered me about it is his credentials seem so based on religion alone. Sure, it said, people support him not just because he's a Mormon, but because of his experience and conservative platform. But then why is he getting all this money from Utah, Idaho, and Nevada- where all the Mormons live?
It then quoted a woman who contributed her $100. Such a small contribution in comparison to the others, I'm sure it was all she could do. I can't help but think of the Widow's Mite, imagining some old lady contributing her life savings to help a Mormon boy become president- not exactly what I think Jesus intended with that parable. There was another quote from a message board in which a girl/woman was quoted as saying we should talk about this to people... I think she mentioned Bob the clerk at Safeway... as if it's the same as spreading the gospel. Do we see lines being crossed here?
This article also talked of the solidarity and natural networking structure of the church. These, I believe, are positive things about any organization. But it talked about how this system is used to spread the politics. It is against church policy to promote any candidate or to tell it's members how to vote. I've always believed that and defended that stand when "friends" told me that the church tells people how to vote. But, as this article pointed out, the people of the church get around it anyway. It reminds me of when we voted about the state constitutional ammendment that basically banned gay people. Mormons believe that homosexuality is not fitting with God's will; this makes sense since God's whole purpose, according to our religion, is family. Man and woman; husband and wife; mom and dad and kids. But it is not doctrinal to hate gay people or to punish them or even to judge them. And yet, when this ammendment was being voted on, plenty of advertising etc went around implying that if you're a good Mormon you'll vote a certain way. It may not have been preached from the pulpit, but I know I had several Sunday school lessons etc that had to, at least, mention the subject. I think the prophet and Jesus -and the pope and Buddha for that matter- would be very disappointed in us. This article pointed out church owned organizations, like BYU, and how certain people within them get around not promoting a particular candidate. It also pointed out that to maintain the church's tax exempt, non profit status, the church is not allowed to be political. Sadly, I almost felt like "oh, that's why they can't tell us who to vote for" rather than the defense I've always felt of my faith, the gospel, that is all about free will and accountability and giving to the poor.
I've always felt a moral responsibility to vote and participate in politics. It seems like the right thing to do, even if my vote is just one of many. I've felt frustration when people complain about the Mormon politics in Utah. But, come this next presidential election, why even bother? All the good Mormons of Utah will vote for Mitt (we even call him by his first name in all the papers) because it's the right thing to do. The rest of the country will vote against him because he's a Mormon. And all of Utah's votes will mean nothing. I feel so disillusioned.
3 comments:
I just read your blog to Khrys and we are now depressed and disillusioned and angry. You are so right about it all. You REALLY should send this in to the newspaper editors to publish. We mormons need to pay attention to what we are thinking and think for ourselves. This reminds me of similar cognitive experiences and frustrations I have had trying to follow my own heart and "choose the right" when it went up against what was "politically" deemed as the right thing to do. I have felt that I must truly be inherently wicked to have such feelings. However, I remind myself of the danger in living for the letter of the law only. That does not get us to a righteous state. It isn't good to let others make-up our minds for us, even when it takes on the guise of religion.
I sympathize with you in many respects. Probably the majority of votes he both gets and doesn't get will be because of his religion and not because of his specific political views. It's annoying that people won't see past the religious issue -- whether it's the reason they support him or oppose him. That being said, don't vote against him for the very same reason yourself--and not because he's Mormon but because all the Mormons are only voting for him for that reason. I have no plans to vote for him or against him. I don't know anything about him, really, except that he's LDS and stupid people support him or oppose him for stupid reasons. But what does that tell me about his potential as a president???
On another note, be careful about leaping to conclusions -- pointing out that a church can't espouse political opinions while remaining tax exempt does not mean that this is the REASON for the church's neutrality. This is the exact kind of fallacy I'm supposed to tell my students not to make. And if the paper was trying to make it sound like that's the reason the Church is neutral, then they're being not only irrational but, perhaps, intentionally manipulative. Watch out!
There's a whole section in the D&C about politics/law, which I find very interesting. I also think of Mosiah 29:26-27, which strongly implies that everyone should vote according to their conscience and beliefs. In fact, I see it as a common theme in this church that the individual is supposed to be self-reliant (well, God-reliant but primarily via the self) and not rely on always hearing from someone else (including church leaders, and sometimes even God Himself) what to do. The point of this life is to grow to be spiritual adults, not to forever remain coddled spiritual babies.
Thank you Benny for saying what I was trying to say in a much more rational and well said way. You are exactly right on everything!
Post a Comment