Here ya go.......vote Democrat

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

You don't have to perform abortions or marry somebody of the same gender if you're a Democrat. You just have to acknowledge that not everybody shares the exact same moral position as you on these issues and that other people should be free to do what they feel is right regarding these often difficult and complex issues.

Live and let live. Not everybody is going to agree with LDS people on everything. Gay marriage is here to stay and so is legal abortion. What's the big deal?

It is possible and ok, IMO, to believe in the morals the church teaches, practice those in your own life, encourage others through word and example to adopt some of those ideas, yet not believe the government's role is to force others to do the same. I'm a pro-life libertarian because I believe the government should protect individual rights, and that includes those of the unborn. However, I don't think the government needs to be enforcing every moral standard I live by.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

It is possible and ok, IMO, to believe in the morals the church teaches, practice those in your own life, encourage others through word and example to adopt some of those ideas, yet not believe the government's role is to force others to do the same. I'm a pro-life libertarian because I believe the government should protect individual rights, and that includes those of the unborn. However, I don't think the government needs to be enforcing every moral standard I live by.

I agree with you. It's obvious, really. Why aren't Mormons out picketing every Starbucks and bar across the country? Because we realize that everything we believe should not necessarily be codified into law.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Which is complete bullshit at the local level in Utah, where the local democrat party platform is almost indistinguishable from the republican platform. Yet people keep blindly voting R.

You don't think the national party's public face influences these local elections? With a 51-49 Senate, you don't think people in Utah realize that electing a Democrat--even a very conservative one--could swing power to those who are not?

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

You don't have to perform abortions or marry somebody of the same gender if you're a Democrat. You just have to acknowledge that not everybody shares the exact same moral position as you on these issues and that other people should be free to do what they feel is right regarding these often difficult and complex issues.

Live and let live. Not everybody is going to agree with LDS people on everything. Gay marriage is here to stay and so is legal abortion. What's the big deal?

Gov't is involved in enforcing all kinds of moral standards. Through elections and legislation, society decides which to enforce and which to not. If we're going to say "live and let live!" on abortion and gay marriage, who's to say we couldn't also on legalization of drugs, or prostitution, or profanity/sex on TV/radio, or co-location of strip clubs and residential areas, or a host of other issues? This is where libertarians and I generally part ways.

I see value in enforcing some standard of societal decency via gov't, as do most Americans. The debate always revolves around which standards, and how much enforcement.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

You don't think the national party's public face influences these local elections? With a 51-49 Senate, you don't think people in Utah realize that electing a Democrat--even a very conservative one--could swing power to those who are not?

I am talking about state offices. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Hatch or Bennett could lose an election in this state, partly due to the type of fearmongering you describe.

There is no logical reason whatsoever to play partisan politics at the state level. Most dem party candidates for state office are former republicans.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am talking about state offices. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Hatch or Bennett could lose an election in this state, partly due to the type of fearmongering you describe.

There is no logical reason whatsoever to play partisan politics at the state level. Most dem party candidates for state office are former republicans.

I guess I don't know much about Utah state offices, so I can't speak to that.

But on a national level I don't know why you refer to it as fear mongering. If someone doesn't want more power to go to Pelosi or Reid (or indirectly, to a Democrat president), that's a legitimate reason to vote for a Republican for a national congressional office.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I guess I don't know much about Utah state offices, so I can't speak to that.

But on a national level I don't know why you refer to it as fear mongering. If someone doesn't want more power to go to Pelosi or Reid (or indirectly, to a Democrat president), that's a legitimate reason to vote for a Republican for a national congressional office.

Depends on the candidate. It is possible for a candidate to be principled and willing to buck the party when appropriate.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Tex

There used to be lots of LDS Democrats. One the more famous LDS Democrat families (many of whom still are) are the Udalls who have connections spread across the southwest.

IMO, part of what has led to LDS gravitating toward Republicans in the Democrat party's slow decent into radical liberalism, especially on social issues. Many members--even politically fair-minded ones--have a hard time squaring that with their religion.

Funny... its the religious right and extreme social conservatives that push me away from the republican party.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

So, you would disagree that you can be a Democrat and a good LDS member at the same time?

Also, do you also believe in demonizing those you disagree with?

philosophies of the Dem's is abortion and gay marriage, I find it interesting how LDS Dems live with themselves.

Destruction of human life is pretty high on my food chain of issues.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I think it has more to do with the fact that the members have fallen prey to the propaganda that all good, moral people vote for the Republicans, because Republicans stand for family values.

Most Democrats are not really very left on social issues; and Republicans have made no progress on their social agenda. So I really see very little difference.

so I don't see how moral people can accept abortion and the ability to take your money and give it to the poor. Let us do that if we wish.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

But that perception had to come from somewhere. We didn't have thousands of LDS Democrats (the article notes that Utah went LBJ with everyone else in '64) who suddenly up and felt like bad members. I don't buy that some random comment by Benson to the AP all of the sudden created it.

And you say most Dems aren't very left ... well, how do you know? It's most vocal leaders certainly are. Nancy Pelosi, are you kidding me? On the most divisive social issue of our time (abortion) the country is split straight down the middle, and generally on party lines. Moreover, show me the plethora of successful, powerful pro-life Democrats. The list is extremely short.

Dems are perceived as the party of the irreligious, and though some find it unfair, I think they've sponsored a platform which fosters that view. They were the first to embrace homosexual behavior as normal, an idea entirely at odds with current LDS teaching.

What appeals to LDS Dems about the party on a religious level are things like health care and welfare. They see gov't as a legitimate way to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, etc. Though I disagree, I can see why they feel that way. What I don't understand is how an LDS Democrat reconciles abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues that truly stand at odds with what the church advocates. Exhibit A: Prop 8.

between welfare obtained through the Church and welfare obtained through the government. In the Church, we freely donate and the welfare is short term. In the government, it's taken by force from earners and given long-term without any action on the recipients part.