home
RSS
Bias against Mormon presidential candidate unchanged since 1967, poll finds
Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is trying to become the first Mormon president.
June 21st, 2012
01:19 PM ET

Bias against Mormon presidential candidate unchanged since 1967, poll finds

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

(CNN) - Bias against a Mormon presidential candidate hasn’t budged in 45 years, with 18% of Americans saying they would not vote for a well-qualified candidate who happened to be Mormon, according to a Gallup Poll released Thursday.

The survey points up potential challenges for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who is vying to be the first Mormon in the White House.

Gallup first asked Americans about support for a Mormon presidential candidate in 1967 when Romney’s father, George Romney, was running for president. That year, 17% of Americans said they would not vote for a well-qualified Mormon for president.

George Romney dropped out of the race after making a gaffe about the Vietnam War, and Richard Nixon won the GOP nomination in 1968.

The shaping of a candidate: A look at Mitt Romney's faith journey

“The stability of resistance to a Mormon presidential candidate over the past 45 years is an anomaly,” Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport wrote in a survey report, noting that “resistance to a candidate who is black, a woman, or Jewish has declined substantially over the same period of time.”

The survey also found that four in 10 Americans do not know that Romney is Mormon. Gallup found that those who know Romney is a Mormon are also the most likely to back the idea of a Mormon for president.

But the national learning curve on Romney's religion "suggests the possibility that as Romney's faith becomes better known this summer and fall, it could become more of a negative factor," Newport wrote in his report.

CNN Explains: What’s Mormonism?

"Those who resist the idea of a Mormon president will in theory become more likely to realize that Romney is a Mormon as the campaign unfolds," Newport wrote.

Bias against a Mormon candidate is significantly higher among Democrats and independents than among Republicans, Gallup found.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

Twenty-four percent of Democrats and 18% of independents said they would not vote for a well-qualified Mormon who was nominated by their party, while 10% of Republicans expressed such opposition.

Resistance to a Mormon candidate was much higher among Americans with lower levels of education, with 23% of those without a high school diploma saying they would not support a well-qualified Mormon. Six percent of those with postgraduate education shared that view.

In his report, Newport said that it’s “unclear how the current level of resistance to the idea of voting for a Mormon presidential candidate will affect the election.”

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

“History shows that these types of attitudes in and of themselves are not an impediment to victory,” Newport wrote, citing a 1960 poll that found 21% of Americans would not vote for a well-qualified Catholic candidate for the presidency.

Later that same year, John F. Kennedy won the White House.

The Romney campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In an interview earlier this year, Southern Baptist leader Richard Land predicted that Romney’s Mormonism would become a bigger political challenge for the candidate - not because of anti-Mormon bias among evangelicals but because of that bias among independents.

Most evangelicals already “know what Mormonism believes and most of them are prepared to vote for Mitt Romney in a general election against Barack Obama in spite of his Mormonism,” said Land, public policy chief for the country’s largest evangelical denomination.

“The 40% of electorate that’s independent, most of them have no idea what Mormons believe,” Land said. “But they will all know what Mormons believe by the general election.”

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: 2012 Election • Mormonism • Politics

soundoff (2,017 Responses)
  1. derp

    Bwahahahaha!

    The christards arguing over which christard cult is cultier.

    Priceless!

    June 22, 2012 at 10:20 am |
    • Petercha

      "Christard"... Hate much, derp? Believe it or not, it IS possible to respect others beliefs, even if you disagree with them.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • derp

      "it IS possible to respect others beliefs, even if you disagree with them"

      You believe in the adult equivalent of the tooth fairy. And you want to force your delusional myth into my government.

      I don't respect that.

      I think you are a delusional idiot.

      And you can go fvck yourself.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Petercha, if it's possible, why aren't you doing it?

      June 22, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • Petercha

      And just where did I start any form of disrespect in these comments?

      June 22, 2012 at 10:33 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's inherent in your beliefs.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:35 am |
    • Petercha

      And which belief, exactly, are you referring to, Tom?

      June 22, 2012 at 10:55 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The belief that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. The belief that your god is real but everyone who doesn't believe in him is doomed to hell. The belief that the bible is inerrant and your interpretation of it is the only valid one.

      Get the idea?

      You and those on here like you insist that your beliefs const itute truth and anyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do is simply misinformed or inferior or lacks faith.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:59 am |
    • Petercha

      If that's the case, Tom, then why would I gladly vote for someone of ANY religion, race, ethnicity, or gender, as long as they are socially conservative? (You can look through my prior comments if you like; you'll see one that is similar).

      June 22, 2012 at 11:06 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Would you vote for an atheist?

      June 22, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • Petercha

      I might, as long as they were a strong socially conservative.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Interesting. I doubt you would. But I guess you can say "might" and it would be va gue enough for you to appear truthful.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • Petercha

      Ooops, meant to say "a strong social conservative".

      June 22, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • Petercha

      Actually, you are wrong, Tom. If, for example, an atheist who was a strong social conservative ran against, say, a Unitarian (that is, someone who calls themselves a Christian but actually thinks that most anything goes), then I would at the very least lean heavily toward the atheist.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:19 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm "wrong"? For what, doubting your word?

      June 22, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • Petercha

      Tom, you can doubt all you want to, but you do not know me at all. I, on the other hand, know what I think and feel. But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding – we'll see how I vote if a socially conservative candidate ever runs against a liberal, won't we?

      June 22, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And you don't know me. FYI, the phrase is: "the proof of the pudding is in the tasting."

      June 22, 2012 at 11:30 am |
  2. Sharkfisher

    There are sure a lot of people on here Biased against Christians. But they claim only the ones that agree with them are not biased. I'm biased against child molesters.does that make me bad? Only the people who are stupid enough to believe their view is the only one others should have is stupid enough to scream BIAS.

    June 22, 2012 at 10:19 am |
  3. alphabatt1

    Everyone who thinks our forefathers established a Christian Nation......."Lighthouses are more useful than Churches", Ben Franklin...."All religions are the same, Myth and Fable", Thomas Jefferson.
    Read the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, which establishes no State religion but allows the practice of all religions. Article 6 states that there will be no religious test for any candidate for public office.
    Look it up folks.

    June 22, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • Petercha

      http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm

      June 22, 2012 at 10:20 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Petercha, posting quotes from founders who were Christian is lovely, dear. But it does not prove that this a "Christian nation." It isn't. It never was. It is a secular nation. Its laws are not based on belief in God or the Bible, but on the protection of individual rights.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:27 am |
  4. If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

    As long as an elected official keeps their beliefs off of my government I don't care if they belive ketchup is better than mustard or like coke over pepsi. If religion influences their job (don't care what they do during personal time) they need to be removed from office.

    June 22, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • Petercha

      "my" government? The government is not yours alone, If horses. It belongs to the people.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "belongs to the people." Do you think If horses had gods was actually a horse, you idiot?

      June 22, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • derp

      ""my" government? The government is not yours alone, If horses. It belongs to the people"

      Shows exactly how little you know about America.

      The country was founded on one single principle.

      Personal Individual Liberty.

      The right of the individual. So in essence, the government IS my government. It was formed to protect me, from "the people".

      Inalienable individual rights protected from the whim of the majority.

      It is my government.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • Petercha

      No, it was simply an abbreviation of his screen name. Who's the idiot now?

      June 22, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • Petercha

      The government does NOT belong to one person alone. The only type of government that belongs to one person alone is called a dictatorship. I'm amazed that anyone is even defending that insane idea.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Petercha ... that's the counterpoint you're going with?! It seems you massively missed the entire point.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Obviously, Petey, you are the idiot. The government belongs to ALL people. If horses had Gods is just as much part of "the people" as you are, moron.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • derp

      " It seems you massively missed the entire point."

      That is not a surprise. Dipshyt christards can't think critically.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • Petercha

      Not at all. Since the government belongs to the people, NOT one individual, it is the people as a whole that get to make decisions. And guess what? The majority of Americans self-identify as Christians. In other words, a small number of people should never, ever have the right to tell the vast majority of people how to run things (unless, of course, the majority is trying to establish concentration camps or something crazy like that – but only loony tunes think that's what Christians are trying to do, anyway).

      June 22, 2012 at 10:37 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Sweetie, do you think the majority should have the right to withhold rights from the minority? You've read the bible 8 times; maybe you should read the Consti tution and the Bill or Rights, too. Look up tyranny of the majority, dear.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • Petercha

      Tom, try re-reading my comment. I implicitly addressed those issues.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, Petey, you did not. You said that unless the majority were putting the minority in concentration camps, the majority should have the final say.

      That would amount to a 'tyranny of the majority' whether it's attempting to put people in concentration camps or deny them rights the majority enjoy.

      If horses is right. It is the individual who has rights that are to be protected, not the majority. That is why the government has three branches. That is why issues of rights are not decided by popular vote.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • Petercha

      I absolutely did, Tom. I said "unless, of course, the majority is trying to establish concentration camps OR SOMETHING CRAZY LIKE THAT". I notice how you unethically edited my statement to make it seem that I was saying something different than I actually was.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "something crazy like that." Hmm, would that include prohibiting gays from marrying? Or is that not "crazy" enough for you?

      June 22, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • Petercha

      By that statement, you seem to imply that we shouldn't legislate morality (correct me if I'm wrong). But I'd say that you are a bit too late – we've be legislating morality for over 200 years now. The laws against murder, theft, and so on are all based on morals.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, we haven't. What we have done is preserve the rights of the individual, which include the right to live. Murder is illegal because it infringes on someone's rights. Theft is illegal because it, too, infringes on someone's right. Law isn't based on what is moral or immoral.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:08 am |
    • Petercha

      Tom, take a close look at the center of the front of the roof of the Supreme Court. Tell me what you see there.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Honey, take a look at the dollar bill. It's equally meaningful.

      The fact is that the law doesn't center on what is morally right or wrong. If all you can do is point to an inscription, then thanks for playing.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      edit: an inscription or picture.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • JellyBean@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill when Petercha responded to "If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses" when he used the term "my government." I'm still laughing.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yeah, well, Petey's really big on absolutes.

      Like many Christians, it's black and white, right and wrong, good and bad.

      Never a shade in between.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • Petercha

      No, Tom, that is not all I have. Try reading the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. You'll get an idea of how the founding fathers thought.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • Petercha

      Oh, and by the way, how do you know that I think that there is never a shade in-between? Seems that Tommy is big into assuming things about people.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It doesn't take the detective abilities of Hercule Poirot to see what sort of person you are, Petey.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:31 am |
    • Petercha

      And just what "sort" of person am I?

      June 22, 2012 at 11:35 am |
  5. 1221

    So are you an atheist? Or are you saying you are agnostic? You denounce religion as pointless, so my assumption is atheist. Any true agnostic would at least recognize the value of the philosophical aspects of the many religions of the world. And why so angry with my retort unless I hit on some unconscious truth?

    June 22, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      In my book, denouncing all religions is the same as saying "Hey look at how virtually every tribe of the human family has developed its own version of 'god' or 'gods' to explain 'creation'. That must mean that either (1) they are all only partially right (with none having it exactly right), or (2) none of them are right.".......cuz it sure as h&ll ain't that just ONE of these idiot groups has it right when all others, no matter how similar, just fall short. DUH! How retarded can YOU be? BTW, please note that many branches of the human family developed their spiritual beliefs 100% independently of any influence from Israel or anyone else that was influenced BY the sh|+ that came out of Israel and the Middle East over the past several thousand years.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • alphabatt1

      They hit on something that is "Unknowable".

      Faith is but the suspension of Critical Thinking

      June 22, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Also please note that Israel was influenced by numerous pre-existing religions that were "in their neighborhood" during the years that the Jews were making up and writing down their "original" Judaism. (e.g., Persia, Greece, Egypt)

      June 22, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • 1221

      It seems to me that you have a particular axe to grind against the judao-christian branch, yet you point out correctly "(1) they are all only partially right". Funny how as diverse as all religions are, they are more similar than dissimilar. You still seem very angry too.

      As for "Faith is but the suspension of Critical Thinking". Anyone with any true critical thinking would recognize that denouncing the spiritual side of humanity is not "critical thinking" but a ridged closed mindedness. Perception is relative and just because you can not feel or see something, does not discredit it's reality to the individual.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      1221: "Perception is relative and just because you can not feel or see something, does not discredit it's reality to the individual."

      Right. I can't feel or see the square root of negative one......but then that number doesn't exist.....and yet it MUST "exist" because it is so fundamental to our understanding of mathematics.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • Petercha

      Good points, 1221.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • 1221

      Funny you should bring up mathematics... as too me, it is the forensic evidence of the Devine. Sacred Geometry dating back to pre-history being a fundamental foundation of modern quantum physics. If you want to see the finger print of God, just look at the structure of the platonic shapes in relation to both the macro and micro universe.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      If I am correct that all religions are only partially correct, then the only point at which all religions might converge for even just a quasi-agreement would be that "there must be some sort of 'god thing'."

      THAT'S IT! No rules about how to live, who to make war with, how to handle spoils of war, what to eat, how to dress, how to settle cases in court, who is or isn't a prophet, who is or isn't a false prophet, who is or isn't going to heaven or hell, whether or not there even is a heaven or hell, etc.

      See how stupid religion is?

      June 22, 2012 at 10:46 am |
  6. patrick

    Some one won't vote outside their religion? Aw, too bad. I'm an atheist. What kind of percentages would an athiest for president face? Sorry, you can't be president unless you believe in something you can't prove exists, and for which there is no observable evidence in the first place, but you have been told by others exists. Aw boo hoo.

    June 22, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • Steven

      Aww atheist hate coming out again..

      June 22, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • Bo for Chirst

      Atheists are funny. They claim no evidence of God so there is not God. Well, there is no evidence there is no God, so if we apply the same logic, there must be a God.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      There's the fear (above responses) of reality and that they are likely wrong coming from the followers again.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      There is no proof that leprechauns don't exist. Therefore, they must exist.

      There is no evidence that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Therefore, the tooth fairy must exist

      One reason people ridicule some believers is that some believers are dumb as dirt.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:20 am |
    • Lilith

      Bo, you can't apply logic, the same or otherwise, to religion. Your "logic" is false, it's not about proof of non existence it's about probability. It's infinitely improbable a God or Gods exist, I could give infinite examples of things that don't exist but cannot be proven to not exist.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:20 am |
    • Bo for Chirst

      Tom, flawed thinking is flawed thinking. Atheists believe in gods, just that they their own power (god is power) is the greatest power in the universe over all other powers. Atheists believe their own power is the only power in the universe over all others, let alone those those believe in an external power.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • poquimoqui

      @Lillith – it's definite improbable that the Universe created itself. It's definite improbable that all life species came from the same single-cell organism. It's definite improbable that the human body should function so perfectly well with so many intricate details. It's definite improbable that we are alive on this rock hurling through space.

      I think the odds are that there is something/someone out there who has all of these things under control, call it/him/her what you may.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • derp

      "it's definite improbable"

      I would suggest a dictionary as a good place to start.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • Lilith

      poquimoqui, you just keep anthropomorphizing your ignorance. Not having an answer does not = G O D

      June 22, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Bo, dear, you're showing your complete and utter lack of integrity and intelligence yet again. Read what I wrote. Move your lips if it helps. Then come back and respond to IT, not some other issue, honey.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:33 am |
    • BRC

      @Bo for Christ,
      Here is a good summation of how to interpret the no evidence for gods thing.

      I don't need to actively disprove them to make informed conclusion that they're not their. I checked under my bed and in the closet often when I was a kid, and there were never any monsters, or monster tracks, or left behind monster pieces, so no matter how creepy and dark the room may have been, the fact that there WAS NO EVIDENCE meant THERE WERE NO MONSTERS. That's an informed deduciton. I've looked, EVERY religion has spent huge amounts of time looking and so far ther is NO EVIDENCE that there are any gods, no matter how dark and scary you think the universe is. That means that I can make the informed deduction, that there are no gods. It DOES NOT work the other way around.

      And atheists don't think themselves the most powerful thing in the universe, that's just childish and silly.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:37 am |
    • Bo for Chirst

      Tom, show me the evidence there is no god. Then apply the same logic for atheism (there is no evidence therefore there is no god) to the lack of evidence, for lack of evidence for no god. Can you come to the same conclusion that atheists do, no evidence equals negative, for lack of evidence. At least in faith based beliefs there is recognition that it is faith for the belief. Atheists are in conflict and I wonder how they can lay their head down at night without thinking about that conflict they have made for their life. The claim of "I am atheist" because of the negative, if applied congruently, means there is no atheism. Only a false idea applied.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:41 am |
    • Petercha

      Patrick, I would gladly vote outside my religion, as long as the candidate was a strong social conservative.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:41 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Bo, go back and read my post again. If you still cannot grasp that one cannot prove a negative, ask mommy for help.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:43 am |
    • Bo for Chirst

      BRC, I looked under my bed and I didn't see any atheists either.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:44 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So atheists don't exist, Bo? Then why are you arguing about atheism? If it isn't real, that would make you delusional.

      Oh, wait.....

      June 22, 2012 at 10:46 am |
    • Bo for Chirst

      Tom, you can't prove you are atheist, you could be lying. Therefore, according to the so-called atheist tantrum, there must be no atheists.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Never said I was one, honey. Do you always have this much difficulty with logical thinking and reading comprehension?

      June 22, 2012 at 10:50 am |
    • OldSchool

      @Bo for Chirst – Atheists do not make any claims that require substantiation, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Atheism is the default position of all humans until they are exposed to whatever belief system is dominant in the geographical region in which they are born.

      Atheism is not a positive postulation, in fact it is the lack of one by definition (A – lack of, theism – belief in god/gods). To prove a negative is a logical impossibility. One cannot "prove" that reindeer can't fly – you can push hundreds of them off of a building, and odds are, based on our understanding and observations that none of them are going to fly off before they fall to their death. Who knows, maybe they all just didn't feel like flying that day. This does not "prove" that they cannot fly, but for all practical purposes, it gives us reasonable cause to conclude that they PROBABLY can't fly...

      June 22, 2012 at 10:55 am |
    • Bo for Chirst

      Old School, then atheists probably don't exist, since if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, who knows if it made a sound. Oh, there is no proof that what is called atheism is a default position either, so let's apply the logic to that as well.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • BRC

      @Bo for Christ,
      IF a tree falls it causes compression waves to travel through the air that the human ear would percieve as sound. It doesn't matter if there was a person there or not, so your comparison is invalid.

      And while any of us could be lying that we're atheists, at the very least we can show our existence by the fact that we respond. There isn't even that much evidence for "Gods", so sorry but that comparison doesn't work either.

      Not to be too harsh, but you should probably learn what logic is befer you try to weild it.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:24 am |
  7. setnommarih

    For a party of inclusion, all of a sudden, democrats have a problem with christians? Same god as jews, muslims, women? what's the problem, Utah is not Jonestown. Unbelievable.

    June 22, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • Petercha

      Liberals claim to be inclusive – but they are lying; they are really anti-social conservative.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • poquimoqui

      Inclusion for Democrats means "as long as we think alike" or "as long as we have similar political goals". Otherwise, you are rejected and ostracized by them. Democratic party = Hypocrites.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • BRC

      I'm not saying it's right, but have you considered the fact that maybe a percentage of democrats wouldn't elect a Mormon because they question their ability to remain impartial and detach the demands of their faith from governance? Mormons in general are trully nice and caring people, great neighbors and friends, but religion can be a major factor of their lives. That draws hesitance from ANYONE who doesn't follow that religion. That doesn't mean that democrats support laws to control mormons lives, they are just weary of giving a mormon the ability to do so to others. Frankly, I would be a bit dicy on electing a candidate who devoutly followed ANY religion.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:27 am |
  8. Mary

    No bias against Mormons as long as they don't force their views and beliefs on non-Mormons. This article is kind of bogus because every one has has some bias against some thing or other due to their up-bringing, ignorance or his/her own personal experiences. That does not go away. People may have bias against blacks, Latinos which is very obvious in CNN threads and some have bias against Hindus or Muslims and that is OK as long as our views don't infringe on their freedom.

    June 22, 2012 at 10:08 am |
  9. Petercha

    I would vote for a socially conservative candidate regardless of their religion, race, ethnicity, or gender.

    June 22, 2012 at 10:05 am |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      What about a socially conservative trans-gendered it?

      June 22, 2012 at 10:10 am |
  10. nottolate

    @Kristina,

    "I'm an authentic Christian. I go to church every week and have my entire life. I accept Christ as my savior. And I'll be voting for Romney sweetheart."

    I doubt that very seriously. You write as though your true allegiance is with this world in this life and not Heaven. Authentic Christians don't vote for people who subscribe to the exact same thing that got Satan kicked out of Heaven. Mormon blasphemy is on a scale hard to imagine. Furthermore, If Romney a husband and father can't protect his family from a cult, do you really expect him to protect the USA? If he's so lazy that he hasn't researched his own religion how else will he be lazy as president?

    June 22, 2012 at 10:05 am |
    • Steven

      There's an excellent quote in the Bible–Acts: 5:38,39

      To paraphrase, if the work is of men, it will come to nothing. If it is of God, you can't fight against it anyway!

      So don't fight and antagonize the Mormon church. If it's not true, it will eventually collapse.

      But 14 million members doesn't sound like nothing to me...

      June 22, 2012 at 10:19 am |
    • poquimoqui

      Your assumption that Romney has not researched his own religion is very conceited.

      You assume that if somebody else read the same things you had about Mormonism they would reach the same conclusion?

      Isn't it kind of interesting that Mormons have the second-highest level of education among Christian religions (Unitarians are first)? This tells me that Mormons are more educated than most Evangelicals and have done their research and have found satisfactory answers to the sloppy accusations found all over the internet.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:20 am |
  11. CMH

    All religions are crazy. Our president can be of any religion as long as they're not stupid enough to think what their religious texts are saying. The first question in a debate should be 'how old is planet Earth?'. If they say any number in the thousands we should thank them for playing and give them a parting gift.

    June 22, 2012 at 10:05 am |
    • Petercha

      CMH, can you give me the chapter and verse in the Bible where it says how old the Earth is? I've read the entire Bible 8 times, and I seem to have missed that one.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:07 am |
    • Primewonk

      Petercha – almost half of the adults in the US think your version of a god created the universe and earth less than 10,000 years ago.

      This shows that they purposefully choose to be ignorant.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • Petercha

      Prime, I notice that you do not provide the chapter and verse that I asked for.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • OldSchool

      @Petercha – if you are aware of the origin of this assertion then you are being disingenuous in asking such a question. What the Bible gives is a genealogical account of "history" (I use that term loosely, history being from the perspective of the authors of the Bible). When the lengths of time in this "history" are tabulated they add up to roughly 4,000 years since creation, this is a history up to the era of Christ. Add the 2,000 years that have passed since the time of the supposed historical figure called Christ, and you end up at roughly 6,000 years...

      June 22, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • Petercha

      Old School, in the genealogy you mention, the Hebrew terms for "son of" and/or "father of" are used repeatedly. Said terms can also mean "descendent of" and/or "ancestor of", and are often used in this manner in Scripture. So, speaking strictly from a Biblical perspective, using the genealogy in this manner cannot be said to be an accurate method of determining the age of the Earth. So we return to the idea of my original statement.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • Primewonk

      @Petercha – I'm not the one who made the claim. Perhaps your issue is with all the YECs?

      Regarding geneology – Except of couse, that the purpose of them listing the geneologies was to shpow an unbroken lineage.

      I guess, in your mind,, the bible means what it says it means except for when it means something else that you decide it means when you can't justify what it actually means?

      June 22, 2012 at 11:53 am |
  12. chefdugan

    With any Morman their religion comes first and everything else second. I don't think I want one of those nuts in the White House, even for a visit! Of course they can't be trusted.

    June 22, 2012 at 10:04 am |
  13. Herman

    Nottolate:

    "We are talking about the most important event in the history of mankind where God actually visited man."

    Your quoted statement in no way refutes (or even addresses) Primewonks assertion. Perhaps a little more reasoned argument and less non-sequitur.

    June 22, 2012 at 10:03 am |
  14. Petercha

    Why are my comments in favor of a socially conservative candidate being censored out?

    June 22, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • Thinker

      Because some 'horrible' word is buried within another in your posts. It is truely irritating trying to find the problem word sometimes.

      The auto filter looks for 'bad' words within other words. For example the city of Esse.x must be broken up to get past the filter. It regards some strange words as 'bad' too.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • Petercha

      Thanks for the tip, Thinker. Much appreciated.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:10 am |
  15. SlayFalseGod

    The reason I will not be voting for Mittens has nothing to do with his Mormon beliefs.

    June 22, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • setnommarih

      Maybe it is your inability to spell his name. I assume you are voting for Oblameo, or is it Barack HUSSEIN Obama, kinda wierd name for an American president, sounds foreign, sound emigrant...

      June 22, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • Thinker

      Can we please stop resorting to making fun of the candidates names? It is juvenille and gets in the way of reasoned discussion. Oh wait, that is probably the point.

      June 22, 2012 at 11:05 am |
  16. Andrew

    If you have any questions about the Mormon faith, read "Under the banner of heaven: a story of violent faith".

    It opened my eyes. Do not read it if you have any Mormon friends. It may make it hard to respect their decisions.

    June 22, 2012 at 10:02 am |
    • morpunkt

      If you want to know about Mormons, get it from the source, look up M O R M O N . O R G. and quit looking at anti-Mormon bias, such as that sensationalized book.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • otherdavid

      and while you are at it....when you want to learn about the latest Ford, swing by a Chevy dealership for all the details. I'm certain they would tell you nothing but the truth. No bias whatsoever.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:11 am |
  17. Petercha

    Test

    June 22, 2012 at 10:01 am |
  18. Jim

    Another example of a manipulative article of CNN Anti-Christian network.

    June 22, 2012 at 9:56 am |
    • Godfrey

      Mormons are delusional. They believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys and dead people waking up and leaving their graves. They believe in medicine men turning water into wine, magically healing the sick and walking on the surface of water.

      Who would believe this?

      June 22, 2012 at 10:05 am |
    • Lilith

      Yay CNN .. if what Jim says is true then keep up the good work of bringing reality to the world.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:06 am |
    • Petercha

      Sad but true, Jim. CNN is showing its anti-Christian bias. They used to be an honest, unbiased network source that I felt I could trust – but that was many years ago.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • Bo for Chirst

      Godfrey, it is incredible that anyone would believe there is no God. Why would people think that their own power is greater than God's?

      June 22, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • Godfrey

      Bo: think that through a bit please. Rather silly question.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:20 am |
  19. Dom

    Mormonism is described as primitive Christianity. The major issue with having a Mormon president is their devotion to the way things were, in the distant past. The US, as a country, lives today and for the future. The US population as a whole does not have a desire to move backwards to days of religious rule. Today, most religions have taken a "you are welcome to warship with us" stance. They welcome new or lost followers to the church or back to the church with open arms exclaiming that they are here if you need them but do not impose themselves on those who do not. Mormons, like Islam continues to try to impose their primitive beliefs on everyone. If you do not follow, you are part of the problem. They harbor hatred toward other religions or non-religious people and demolish the self esteem of followers that may question any aspect of the religion.

    I have no issue with most religions, outside of my own. People have the right to believe what they choose. I do however have an issue with religions that insist upon outsiders such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Islam. I can not trust that a president can hold such an obtuse religion (Mormonism) and keep that religion side lined while in power because the religion demands that followers use power obtained by society to "spread the word".

    The US functions under a separation of government and religion(s). It is against the Mormon faith to make such a separation in their life, so it would be logical to assume that a Mormon president would refuse to recognize this separation.

    June 22, 2012 at 9:56 am |
    • Scott

      I have to disagree. I lived in utah as a non mormon and every last one of them were kind, carring and honest, heck, they dont drink or smoke but they sure sell beer and cigaretts. and i also spent time in Iraq and your comparisonn of the 2 religons could not be more inacurate. i am not a mormon however i do know what they believe and you don't really seem to get it

      June 22, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • Phil S

      Sir, you have no idea. The Mormon religion does not advocate hatred! An Article of Faith in Mormon doctrine offers all men the right to worship who, how, and where they may. Missionary efforts are intended to give an opportunity to everybody to come to God, which they may accept or deny freely. The Mormon church does not consider nonbelievers "part of the problem"!

      Also, Mormon beliefs produce some of the most charitable, intelligent, and patriotic citizens this country has seen. Mormons' firm Christian core beliefs are very similar to what other Christian sects advocate: love, kindness, service, faith, etc.

      As for Mitt Romney, if he tried to "use his power to spread the word," obviously he would have no support behind him and he could possibly be impeached in a heartbeat. I believe, and he has said, that his religion and his presidency will have no inkling of connection.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • setnommarih

      Quite a few non-Mormons live in Utah and don't seem to have a problem, why do you?

      June 22, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • Dom

      The number of Mormons in the US is estimated at 1.7% of the US population. They travel door to door trying to convert but how would the Mormon community in Utah react if a Jewish or Hindu person, trying to spread the word of the Hebrew god or spirituality of Hinduism by knocking on their front door? The Mormon religion may not directly advocate hatred or intolerance nor does the Muslim religion but they certainly display those qualities in today's world more than any other religion.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:54 am |
  20. G. Zeus Kreiszchte

    Bias against a religion should be inversely proportional to the amount of time it has been since the religion was made up. Better yet, bias against all religions should be equal since they were all made up by men, but then stupid monkeys will apparently always be stupid monkeys. Apparently the stupid human race will never be able to let go of its ludicrous, supersti-tious religious legacies.

    June 22, 2012 at 9:54 am |
    • 1221

      G. Zeus Kreiszchte: You must be the center of the universe to know with absolute authority, the human intellect is the epitome of evolution in this accidental, cosmic, non-designed soup we call the Universe and reality. Religion is only as perfect or flawed as the people that practice it and if you had zero spirituality in the world, it still wouldn't change human behavior. If anything, it would make it worse. Atheist create their own religion because they can't see or know the great mysteries of the universe and your philosophy is pointless, nihilist and dead. You can not measure or see dark matter but that doesn't make it any less real.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:04 am |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      1221: How do you know what my spirituality IS? Just because I denounce all stupid man-made religions? I could just be saying that "No one has gotten it even close yet........ so S T F U you religious dolts!"

      June 22, 2012 at 10:07 am |
    • Godfrey

      You don't have to be the "center of the universe" to see that religion is the primitive product of primitive intellect. Just read the Bible.

      June 22, 2012 at 10:08 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.