Falling support for Bush's handling of Iraq among Mormons

Yeah, in a manner of speaking.

So basically, since they don't really own it, then they have none.Amazing, from one survey, or statistic, you came to that conclusion.

quote:

---

So basically, since they don't really own it, then they have none.

---

No.If I lease a car, I don't really own that car, but I do "have a car".If those Mormons in question actually objected to the Iraq war and didn't truly support Bush's handling of it, then they shouldn't have pretended that they did just because their leader told them to.If they had owned their own morality, it wouldn't have been a problem for them to have objected all along instead of going against their true feelings out of obedience to their religious leader.

It's your money that pays for the lease.
Whatever, it is stupid nit-picking. I don't think that survey proves that the mormons pretending anything "just because their leaders told them too"There may be other reasons involved, not able to be seen by a simple survey. And it certainly doen't mean they do not own their own morality. If anything, it shows that their morality leads them to stick together.Maybe you have a hard time with that, because your idea of morality only includes individualism.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yea you have one, but you don't own it.
Whatever, it is stupid nit-picking.

---

LOL! No, that is the point I was trying to make and now you agree.

quote:

---

There may be other reasons involved, not able to be seen by a simple survey.

---

Sure. This is all speculation.However, the survey results, I will remind you, are pretty much unheard of. That kind of large shift in opinion just doesn't happen.That's the biggest reason I think that there were a large numer of Utah Mormons who were just waiting, so to speak, for the smallest signal from their religious leader that they were permitted to disapprove of Bush.

quote:

---

And it certainly doen't mean they do not own their own morality.

---

Yes, that is what it means.If they owned their own morality, they wouldn't have waited for permission to disapprove of Bush.

quote:

---

If anything, it shows that their morality leads them to stick together.

---

IF true, that means that those individuals who seemed to be "waiting" for permission to disapprove of Bush think that their own moral sense is second in importance to that of their religious leader's.That means that those individuals don't own their own morality, but subsume it to another's.Maybe you have a hard time with that, because your idea of morality only includes individualism.

???
But it is not yours, thats the point I was trying to make.Plus I think I was refering more to, that if they are using someone else's morality, then they must not have their own. I see it happen all the time within the Jewish community. They stick together. See, now this raises what I hope to be a legitimate question. Was the signal from their religious leader to not support Bush, or was it for them to form their own opinion?
If the leader just stopped supporting Bush, and gave legitimate reasons why to the mormons, so that they too would have a reason to stop supporting Bush, other than just beacause the leader stopped, and then some of the mormons still support Bush, then they do have their own morality, and are free to support whoever they please. Maybe, or their morality is to stick together, not that they don't have one. I am pretty sure they aren't locked in to one view.I voted for Bush, yet now I can't stand him. I don't know if Kerry would have been a better choice or not. Things can change over time.
Maybe the mormons were waiting for just one more screw up from Bush, to stop supporting him.ABE: Either way I would say there are just too many unknown factors that would help us in deciding if the mormons own their own morality or not, to just use this one survey to come to that decision.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I see it happen all the time within the Jewish community. They stick together.

---

No, what you would need to show is a similar large shift AWAY from "sticking together" as soon as a prominent Rabbi merely hinted that it was OK to do so.You haven't shown any sort of poll results, anyway, so your comments about Jews being similar are useless to your argument.

quote:

---

Was the signal from their religious leader to not support Bush, or was it for them to form their own opinion?

---

Read the article I linked to in the OP.The leader never mentioned Bush in the speech that sparked the discussion among Mormons on message boards and led to the dramtic shift in the poll results. He only lamented the terrible costs of war. I think that this is pretty good evidence that many Mormons had long disapproved of Bush and were only saying they supported him out of obedience to their religious leaders.That, to me, is a lie. It is a lie about one's own personal morality. That means that these people believe it is expected of them that they lie in a poll out of obedience rather than state their honest opinion.If that isn't an example of not owning one's own morality, I don't know what is.

quote:

---

Maybe you have a hard time with that, because your idea of morality only includes individualism.

---

quote:

---

Maybe, or their morality is to stick together, not that they don't have one. I am pretty sure they aren't locked in to one view.

---

I think it's really funny that you contradicted the statement about morality and individualism above, because I didn't write them; you did. To me. I forgot to put quote boxes around them in my last reply to you and didn't notice it dangling there at the end of the post.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sunday, August 13, 2006
Newsweek: Rabbi Gellman mystified that Jews didn't back Joe

​

Newsweek online has a bizarre and infuriating perspective on the Lieberman loss. Rabbi Marc Gellman, blames the Jews”and one in particular:

​

He lost because Barbra Streisand's highly publicized contribution to Lamont and because of the number of Jews who hated Bush and the war more than they loved Joe. That's why he lost, and I don't get it...

​

This, of course, is the behavior of a self-hating Jew. If there's something you're unhappy about, blame the Jews. Now, when Mel Gibson does it, I can understand. Given his upbringing, Mel Gibson, when he's drunk, doesn't shock me with a little Jew-blaming. But the rabbi, I presume, was sober when he wrote this, and I presume he had a more pro-Jewish upbringing than Mel. So, why is he blaming the Jews?

​

And why blame Streisand? If there is a Jew to blame here, it's Lieberman. He brought this on himself

​

Rabbi Gellman goes on to profess that he's a little ferblonschet on the subject

​

I cannot understand why Joe's percentage of the Jewish vote was not in the high 90s instead of the 54-57 percent range (according to Lieberman’s campaign).

​

He's also "bewildered about why Jews do not support President Bush."

​

That's where you have to start on this--why Jews don't support Bush. Then we can work our way back to Joe.

​

The reasons not to support Bush are so numerous I can't remember them all anymore. I have to keep them written down on a little list and the list is too long to type in here: But let me mention a few: He gets a memo that Bin Laden wants to attack and ignores it. He's on vacation. He gets a warning that a big Hurricane is coming to New Orleans, he's not that interested. He's on vacation. He has Bin Laden trapped in the Tora Bora mountains, he let's him get away to start a war in Iraq. He's got a bunch of lawyers who say torture is OK up to a point. He goes around the law to initiate survellance. (And Rabbi, the issue is not the survellance, it's the going around the law.) He uses the Homeland Security Department for pork rather than protection. (I'm not sure how you feel about pork , rabbi, but in my house it's not kosher.) He appoints far right judges to the Supreme Court. He takes it on himself to issue signing statements that nullify the intent of Congress. etc. etc. In a minute I'm going to break into a chorus of Dayenu. If he had done any one of these things, it would be enough to oppose him.

​

Oh yes, and one more thing: The president and his henchmen are quick to say that anyone who disagrees with him hates America and supports the terrorists.

​

And that's what brings it back to Joe. Because Joe has become one of those henchmen. Saying if you disagree with me you're pro-terrorist is not an argument. That's dirty pool.

​

Joe has allowed himself to become a stick with which right wing Republicans can bash Democrats. That's why Hannity, Coulter, and Rove embrace him. And that's why many Jews oppose him.

​

But maybe Rabbi Gellman is right. Politics is not as important as having Jews stick together and support each other. I hope his conviction on that is strong. Because I want to test it by asking him to join me in supporting Russ Feingold for president.

​

(Tags: Lieberman, Lamont, CT-Sen, Jews)

​

Posted by Michael Markman at 6:37 AM 0 comments Links to this post

---

From here:Mickeleh's Soapbox: August 2006I understand that this doesn't fully support what I am saying about the Jews sticking together, but it does lend itself to showing how the jews decision process is influenced by people who are famous and Jewish. They also point out how it is so important for them to stick together.I mean it is a pretty well known fact that the Jewish vote is usually overwlemingly democratic.
Bad Math Here the washington post talks about how the "Jewish vote" had diminshed, but that is only for presidential elections. We still see the "Jewish vote" locally here in NY.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...rticles/A705-2004Oct26.htmlI don't think I need to show a shift away from a voting decision, when it is pretty obvious that they do stick together. Anyway this information would take some time to uncover, time I don't have.But I can remember shifts occuring in the news from time to time over the years, according to the "Jewish vote." Just for clarity, I am not saying you are wrong. I don't see how I contradicted myself.