Falling support for Bush's handling of Iraq among Mormons

This comment intrigues me.Are they not owning ther own morality, just because they are following leaders?Is every soldier who kills in a war, missing their own morals, because they have listened to their leaders?P.S. I am not sticking up for the mormons.Can it just be that in light of all the evidence, the leaders have just changed their minds about Bush, and the rest of the followers understand the leaders position?I think you would have to prove that mormons are being brain washed, and have no free will at all.

Why do you always make that leap and assume so much? The Jewish do the same thing around here. That is why government won't touch them. Are the Jews all going to drink kool-aid and die now? Or are they just sticking together for a common cause?
Have they lost their morality because of this? I think there is a different explanation, and morals has nothing to do with it. It's all political.
It's probably morally correct to stick together, and the reason for doing that, outwiegh the reasons for aproval or disaproval of Bush.

I should have been more specific, the hasidic jews.
It is a well known fact around here that they all vote the same way.
That is why they do not get touched politiaclly, theres no need for a poll on the obvious.Your using one point to prove that the mormon's have no morality, and then blame me for a post with non-substance?I think it take's more than that.

You said they don't own their morality, if they don't own it, then they don't have any.

So, what are they leasing it?

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

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.

???
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:

---

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.