Atheist Billboard Slams Romney's Faith

[-0-] · 22-10-2012 1:11pm #1

Taken from here: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/21/atheist-billboard-attacks-romneys-faith-but-mormons-say-its-misleading/?hpt=hp_t2

Washington (CNN) – When he campaigns in southern Florida on Monday, Mitt Romney will have an unwelcome traveling partner: a mobile billboard attacking his religion.

The billboard on wheels, sponsored by American Atheists, attacks the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for its treatment of African-Americans and gays, though the church says the attacks are inaccurate.

The billboard, which American Atheists says will follow the Romney campaign for seven days, features two messages on Mormonism: “No Blacks Allowed (until 1978)” and “No Gays Allowed (Current).”

The first line is a reference to the church’s practice of denying lay priesthood to black male members until 1978.

Though the church did not allow black male members to be ordained before that year – when the church head says he received a revelation to reverse the policy – it did allow blacks and members of all racial and ethnic groups to be church members. According to The Second Book of Nephi, a part of Mormon doctrine, “Black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God.”

The billboard’s second line refers to what American Atheists President David Silverman says is the religion's “intolerance” and “bigotry” when it comes to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

But the church denies such categorizations. It accepts gay members, though church doctrine condemning homosexuality has not changed and the church strongly opposes same-sex marriage. Some gay rights activists say the church is subtly growing friendlier toward the LGBT community, including voicing support for some gay rights.

"People are surely free to disagree with us on the facts," Dale Jones, a church spokesman, wrote in an e-mail to CNN. "This group seems not to know that there have been black members of the Church since our earliest history, and there are many faithful gay members of the Church today."

Jones continued: "We would be happy to introduce the (American Atheists president) to any of our millions of members of different ethnicity who would be happy to educate him on our racial diversity."

Silverman denies the billboard, which is costing the group $8,000, is an attack on Romney specifically. A spokeswoman for the Romney campaign said she would not comment on the sign.

“Nobody seems to be talking about the implications of having a very religious Mormon president,” Silverman said. “There are a lot of things about Mormons that people don’t know, including the fact that racism is an important part of their dogma.”

The LDS Church has largely tried to stay out of the politics surrounding the presidential campaign, even though it has received increased attention due to Romney’s candidacy. This billboard, writes Jones, is "obviously" about the "personal politics" of American Atheists.

"We have consistently kept out of the political campaign," Jones wrote. "People can see this (billboard) for what it is."

American Atheists has a long history in using billboards to call out religion and get its message out. During the political conventions in August and September, the group put up billboards attacking Mormonism and Christianity, taking aim at the faith of both presidential candidates.

This mobile billboard, however, is a departure from the standard American Atheist tactic of multiple billboards on multiple religions. According to Silverman, this is because Romney’s faith hasn’t been addressed enough in the 2012 election.

“We all understand the implications of having a Christian president. We do not understand the implications of having a Mormon president,” Silverman said. “We are not taking a position on the election, we are taking a stance on ignorance.”

I'd like to remind everyone of Christopher Hitchens' comments on the subject on slate.com: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/10/is_mormonism_a_cult_who_cares_it_s_their_weird_and_sinister_beli.html

Genghiz Cohen · 22-10-2012 1:37pm

Well the billboard is inaccurate....
Or at the very least misleading.

Beruthiel · 22-10-2012 1:46pm

Hitchens wrote:

Since Romney comes from a dynasty of his church, and spent much of his boyhood and manhood first as a missionary and then as a senior lay official—it is safe to assume that the influence is not small

It makes me very uncomfortable when someone in a position of great power strongly believes in fairy tales.
All appendages crossed that Romney fails miserably in the upcoming election!

Gbear · 22-10-2012 1:50pm

Beruthiel wrote: »

It makes me very uncomfortable when someone in a position of great power strongly believes in fairy tales.
All appendages crossed that Romney fails miserably in the upcoming election!

And it's depressing that the only challenger still says "God Bless 'Murica" every other sentence as well, either because he believes it (which seems the most plausible, given there's no evidence to suggest otherwise) or because he's a liar.

[-0-] · 22-10-2012 2:00pm

Beruthiel wrote: »

It makes me very uncomfortable when someone in a position of great power strongly believes in fairy tales.
All appendages crossed that Romney fails miserably in the upcoming election!

There's a large enough number of people who don't want another four years of Barry O. It's a tragedy that their only alternative is Romney.

It's a big problem for Obama as well. The Republicans refuse to work with him and set out from day one to make him a one term president. They said he was trying to do too much two years ago, so they started denying everything he tried to pass - even when they were policies the Republicans initially came up with. Now in their campaign they are saying he hasn't done enough. It's ridiculous and people have very short memories here. It is a very distinct possibility that Romney will be the next president, and that scares the crap out of me because I live in the states.

coffee_cake · 22-10-2012 2:03pm

[-0-] wrote: »

There's a large enough number of people who don't want another four years of Barry O. It's a tragedy that their only alternative is Romney.

Gary Johnson is on the ballot papers for most states, so no, their only alternative is not Romney.

[-0-] · 22-10-2012 2:06pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Gary Johnson is on the ballot papers for most states, so no, their only alternative is not Romney.

He was a Republican before 2011 and became a Libertarian simply because Romney was going to get the Republican slot.

While you are technically correct, he has no chance of being considered. None.

coffee_cake · 22-10-2012 2:09pm

[-0-] wrote: »

He was a Republican before 2011 and became a Libertarian simply because Romney was going to get the Republican slot.

While you are technically correct, he has no chance of being considered. None.

He was Lib all along, just decided to run independently this time round.

Maybe, but if every fed up person who sighed "I don't want Obama but I don't want Romney either so I suppose I'll vote Obama" (etc) did something about it and went with GJ, it might make a difference
Not that I expect him to ever win this, just wanted to point out it's not A or B

The Mad Hatter · 22-10-2012 2:10pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Gary Johnson is on the ballot papers for most states, so no, their only alternative is not Romney.

The only credible alternative, then. There'll have to be a major overhaul of electoral politics in the US before any third party candidate stands a chance. It's a shame, really.

[-0-] · 22-10-2012 2:12pm

bluewolf wrote: »

He was Lib all along, just decided to run independently this time round.

Maybe, but if every fed up person who sighed "I don't want Obama but I don't want Romney either so I suppose I'll vote Obama" (etc) did something about it and went with GJ, it might make a difference

Yeah, GJ would get the annoyed-white-voters-who-don't-want-Obama, and that might make up a couple of percent.

Are you sure he was lib all along? Wikipedia says the following:

Political party Libertarian (2011–present)
Other political
affiliations Republican Party (before 2011)

coffee_cake · 22-10-2012 2:15pm

[-0-] wrote: »

Yeah, GJ would get the annoyed-white-voters-who-don't-want-Obama, and that might make up a couple of percent.

Are you sure he was lib all along? Wikipedia says the following:

Personal libertarian afaik. Look at his governing of NM

Johnson served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, as a member of the Republican Party, and is known for his low-tax libertarian views and his strong emphasis on personal health and fitness

Johnson announced his candidacy for President on April 21, 2011, as a Republican,[12] on a libertarian platform emphasizing the United States public debt and a balanced budget

Gbear · 22-10-2012 2:17pm

bluewolf wrote: »

He was Lib all along, just decided to run independently this time round.

Maybe, but if every fed up person who sighed "I don't want Obama but I don't want Romney either so I suppose I'll vote Obama" (etc) did something about it and went with GJ, it might make a difference
Not that I expect him to ever win this, just wanted to point out it's not A or B

I suppose the fear is that if Liberals did this they'd split Obama's vote, Johnson wouldn't get within a million miles and Mittens would win.

Given what a completely demented turn the Republican party has taken over the past few years it's far more important that they don't have power than it is important that Democrats do.

Beruthiel · 22-10-2012 2:17pm

[-0-] wrote: »

There's a large enough number of people who don't want another four years of Barry O. It's a tragedy that their only alternative is Romney.

This is what confounds me.
The size of America, the amount of people living there, how is it, that they cannot produce someone with half a brain as a candidate for the opposition?
Clearly, there is something very wrong with the way America runs it's elections.

[-0-] · 22-10-2012 2:17pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Personal libertarian afaik. Look at his governing of NM

Johnson served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, as a member of the Republican Party, and is known for his low-tax libertarian views and his strong emphasis on personal health and fitness

Johnson announced his candidacy for President on April 21, 2011, as a Republican,[12] on a libertarian platform emphasizing the United States public debt and a balanced budget

Why the hell isn't he involved in the presidential debates?

[-0-] · 22-10-2012 2:19pm

Beruthiel wrote: »

This is what confounds me.
The size of America, the amount of people living there, how is it, that they cannot produce someone with half a brain as a candidate for the opposition?
Clearly, there is something very wrong with the way America runs it's elections.

The political system here is terrible Ruthie. Granted it can be crap in Ireland as well but at least we have several groups to chose from. When I tell friends and fellow proletarians how it works back home they are shocked at how bad it is here. Most people here don't really consider how things are run elsewhere unfortunately.

coffee_cake · 22-10-2012 2:20pm

[-0-] wrote: »

Why the hell isn't he involved in the presidential debates?

They ruled him out - he's got a prominent judge to speak out and say it should never have been allowed to bar him. He has been fairly actively campaigning from what I can see on his FB updates, but they're doing their best to pretend there's only 2 candidates.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/10/01/two-sponsors-pull-out-from-debates-over-exclusion-of-gary-johnson-
At least two of the original sponsors of the 2012 presidential debates have pulled their support over the exclusion of Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, arguing that the commission which runs the debates is locked into a two-party outlook.

Open Debate and Johnson supporters have been sounding the alarm for months that they believed the commission was too loyal to the Republican and Democratic parties....

The commission, which was created by the two parties in 1987...

PopePalpatine · 22-10-2012 2:26pm

The only solution to this duopoly is the introduction of Proportional Representation or Alternate Voting to the USA. Fat chance of that happening.

[-0-] · 22-10-2012 2:29pm

bluewolf wrote: »

They ruled him out - he's got a prominent judge to speak out and say it should never have been allowed to bar him. He has been fairly actively campaigning from what I can see on his FB updates, but they're doing their best to pretend there's only 2 candidates.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/10/01/two-sponsors-pull-out-from-debates-over-exclusion-of-gary-johnson-
At least two of the original sponsors of the 2012 presidential debates have pulled their support over the exclusion of Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, arguing that the commission which runs the debates is locked into a two-party outlook.

Open Debate and Johnson supporters have been sounding the alarm for months that they believed the commission was too loyal to the Republican and Democratic parties....

The commission, which was created by the two parties in 1987...

I'm so frustrated right now.

[-0-] · 22-10-2012 2:33pm

I'm told it's majority candidates only, and it has always been that way. The yanks don't have a true representative democracy, they have a two party hegemony. The mind boggles.

coffee_cake · 22-10-2012 2:38pm

Yep.
I think larry king is to host another third party one, and GJ seems to have responses to the debates on his own website

Sierra 117 · 22-10-2012 2:39pm

bluewolf wrote: »

The commission, which was created by the two parties in 1987...

No conflict of interest there then.

joseph brand · 22-10-2012 3:49pm

Gbear wrote: »

And it's depressing that the only challenger still says "God Bless 'Murica" every other sentence as well, either because he believes it (which seems the most plausible, given there's no evidence to suggest otherwise) or because he's a liar.

I think he says "God Bless 'Murica", as little as possible. He never expands on the point or gets carried away in religious rhetoric (see Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich, Perry, Palin)

As America's first black president, and considering it's a religious country, with plenty of redneck racists, it would be a bold step to announce his lack of faith.

As long as he keeps that mormon weirdo 'Robme' and his whipper snapper sidekick Ryan out of the White House, he can sing "Praise the Lawd, Hallelujah" all day long.

Far better than a mormon bishop and an Ayn Rand fanboy.

jank · 23-10-2012 12:41am

joseph brand wrote: »

I think he says "God Bless 'Murica", as little as possible. He never expands on the point or gets carried away in religious rhetoric (see Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich, Perry, Palin)

As America's first black president, and considering it's a religious country, with plenty of redneck racists, it would be a bold step to announce his lack of faith.

As long as he keeps that mormon weirdo 'Robme' and his whipper snapper sidekick Ryan out of the White House, he can sing "Praise the Lawd, Hallelujah" all day long.
Far better than a mormon bishop and an Ayn Rand fanboy.

I love this hypocrisy. Romney is the big bad wolf because he is a Morman, yet by all intents and purposes Obama is just as religious as him yet he gets a free pass because he suits your political view more. Cant make this up.

What did Joe Biden say in the VP debate, "Religion makes me the person I am"
Yet everyone loves a bit of Joe!!

If you were consistent then you would be pouring scorn over both of them rather than singling out one party for criticism.

23-10-2012 2:34am

Sierra 117 wrote: »

No conflict of interest there then.

The two parties exist symbiotically. There's been cases where they'll collude to gerrymander states so no-one currently "in" will lose out.

The Mad Hatter · 23-10-2012 10:35pm

Actually, related to this discussion, an organisation called Free & Equal have set up a debate* between the third-party candidates, moderated by Larry King.

*Warning: hideous website alert

robindch · 23-10-2012 11:14pm

jank wrote: »

Romney is the big bad wolf because he is a Morman

One 'm' too many in that last word, jank.

Galvasean · 23-10-2012 11:36pm

Beruthiel wrote: »

This is what confounds me.
The size of America, the amount of people living there, how is it, that they cannot produce someone with half a brain as a candidate for the opposition?
Clearly, there is something very wrong with the way America runs it's elections.

It's not really that confounding. There are a lot of stupid people out there who vote. They don't want some smartypants running the show and making them feel simple. They want to vote for someone who reminds them of themselves - someone stupid.

ShooterSF · 23-10-2012 11:59pm

I don't have any reason to doubt Obama's religiousness nor would it gain him any added respect if I found out privately that he was a non-believer for then he would just be another example of liars and crowd pleasers that seems to make up a lot of successful political careers. Democracy only works properly when the people you and I elect are at least honest in their convictions even if we take no joy in the convictions of the people that eventually get elected.

coffee_cake · 24-10-2012 10:19am

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Actually, related to this discussion, an organisation called Free & Equal have set up a debate* between the third-party candidates, moderated by Larry King.

*Warning: hideous website alert

That's what I saiiiiid!

The Mad Hatter · 24-10-2012 10:32am

bluewolf wrote: »

That's what I saiiiiid!

Missed that - sorry.

joseph brand · 24-10-2012 12:18pm

jank wrote: »

I love this hypocrisy. Romney is the big bad wolf because he is a Morman, yet by all intents and purposes Obama is just as religious as him yet he gets a free pass because he suits your political view more. Cant make this up.

What did Joe Biden say in the VP debate, "Religion makes me the person I am"
Yet everyone loves a bit of Joe!!

If you were consistent then you would be pouring scorn over both of them rather than singling out one party for criticism.

Firstly, mormonism is a cult. They believe in blood atonement amongst other stuff. Plus, didn't Romney christen Ann's dead Atheist father, around 14 months after he was dead? Normal behaviour, by Charles Manson's standards. What exactly has Obama done that's as crazy as this?

There's plenty of 'catholics' here in Ireland who are no more catholic than I. But a mormon is a mormon. There's no lapsed or laissez faire mormons. Don't the Romney sons look like androids? That blank mormon stare and plastic head? /shudder

Romney chose to omit mentioning his church/ cult for obvious reasons. Obama sees an advantage in using religious rhetoric, although it's the bare minimum.

Atheist Billboard Slams Romney's Faith

Comments