Full disclosure: I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – a Mormon – and not particularly a fan of Mitt Romney.

The intent of this diary is not to begin yet another fractious debate on Mormon theology, and I ask commenters to please refrain from doing so.

This morning as I read reports of the Nevada caucus results, I was struck by how many articles on both liberal and conservative sites reported on the “Mormon vote” and the “non-Mormon vote” and various demographic results within those broad-brush categories. This rekindled in my mind the idea for this diary that has been poking around my subconscious for a while now.

My premise is this: it is shallow and silly to base one’s vote solely on the religion of a particular candidate. I will use Mitt Romney’s Mormonism as the vehicle for my thoughts, both on those who support him solely because he’s Mormon and those who don’t for that very same reason.

Support due to Mormonism
As a Mormon, I have heard too many members of my church say that they feel they have to support Romney for the simple reason that he’s a Mormon. I have several problems with this line of thought.

First, we as conservatives often argue against labeling people by demographic categories and using those labels to judge them. The argument is that we should reward people based on hard work and achievement rather than ethnicity, gender, or some other category. How then can we argue for rewarding someone with our vote solely based on their religious affiliation – yet another label?

Second, we have a really hard time accepting that African-Americans voted for Barack Obama because he’s black, without even attempting to figure out if his policies were in their best interest. Yet, isn’t that what is being done by voting for Romney because he’s Mormon?

Finally, how many conservatives would vote for Harry Reid just because he’s Mormon (and he is)? None that I know of. Thus it is a double standard to vote for Romney for that reason alone.

(As a side question, why is it that the media choose to focus like a spotlight on Romney’s Mormonism, but rarely mention Reid’s? Could it be liberal bias…)

Opposition due to Mormonism
I have heard and read conservatives saying that they could never vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon with the same frequency as those who say they support him for that reason. I think this is just as wrong.

The most common reason I hear for opposing Romney due to his religion are that he believes in a “different Jesus” from mainstream Christianity. While this point is debatable – and has been debated ad nauseum during this election cycle in many blogs and RedState diary comment threads – I see very little difference between this and saying one could not vote for a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist because they don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus. Surprisingly, I have never heard religion advanced as a reason not to vote for a non-Mormon candidate. It’s only in the case of a Mormon that the argument ever comes up. The real question is this…is a religious difference of whatever degree between a voter and a candidate really a justifiable reason to categorically reject that candidate, regardless of their positions on the issues and a potential preponderance of agreement on those issues with the same voter?

Another reason put forth for voting against Romney is the assumption that he will “take his direction from Salt Lake City.” This is problematic for two reasons. First, a similar argument was used against JFK in 1960. After he was elected, how many times did he consult with the pope on matters of policy? That’s right…not once. Secondly, there are examples where Romney’s documented positions on some issues (including abortion) have been different from those of established Church doctrine. If it has been true in the past, who’s to say it won’t also be true in the future? Also, the LDS church has a policy of strict political neutrality as an entity. While encouraging members to be politically active and voting for good candidates, they never support specific candidates. The focus is on issues of importance. It is even against Church policy to use buildings or member lists for political purposes.

Conclusion
In my mind, those on both sides of the Romney divide who use his religion as their sole criterion for their vote are being intellectually dishonest and lazy. Only by delving deeper into a candidate’s policy positions and ideals can we really know whether or not he is a good candidate – one for whom we can vote in good conscience. Arguments both ways have been made convincingly at RedState and other sites.

I encourage those who have the right and responsibility to vote to research all candidates and come to an informed decision rather than relying on religious prejudice and/or commonality to decide the direction of your vote.

I don’t think it would be possible for me to come up with something more profound to say about Memorial Day than what has so eloquently been said by others. All I can say is how grateful I am for those who have served and those who are serving. Most especially, though, I try to focus my attention on those who have given the ultimate sacrifice to protect my freedom. I can never adequately express my gratitude for them or for what they have done. My feelings are summed up nicely by this Trace Adkins song, told from the perspective of one who has made the sacrifice:

To all those who have served, who are serving, or who have given their lives for my freedom – whether they be Soldier, Airman, Sailor, Marine, or Coast Guardsman – THANK YOU! Your service and sacrifice are appreciated more than I can express!

So I’m checking my Facebook today and see a link to a Sarah Palin post titled “Let’s Shake it up in California.” I’m thinking that she’s finally on board with Chuck DeVore. Imagine my disappointment when I began reading this:

I’d like to tell you about a Commonsense Conservative running for office in California this year. She grew up in a modest home with a school teacher dad, worked her way through several colleges, and then entered an arena where few women had tread. Through a combination of hard work, perseverance, and common sense, she proved the naysayers wrong to reach the top of her field, where she led with distinction – facing hard truths, making tough decisions, and showing real leadership through a rocky transition period. Where others had failed, her company had weathered the storm and settled on a stronger new foundation.

Her name is Carly Fiorina, and I’m proud to endorse her for U.S. Senate.

Carly Fiorina? A “Commonsense Conservative”? Since when?

She continues:

We can trust Carly to do the right thing for America’s economy and to make the principled decisions she has throughout her professional career.

Should we ask those who worked under Fiorina at HP how “principled” she was during her tenure there? I don’t think the Fiorina campaign will want to go there.

Finally, there’s this:

Please consider that Carly is the conservative who has the potential to beat California’s liberal senator, Barbara Boxer, in November. I’m a huge proponent of contested primaries, so I’m glad to see the contest in California’s GOP, but I support Carly as she fights through a tough primary against a liberal member of the GOP who seems to bear almost no difference to Boxer, one of the most leftwing members of the Senate.

Obviously, she’s referring to Tom Campbell as Firoina’s opponent here, but nowhere in the post is there a direct – or even indirect – mention of Chuck DeVore.

What was Palin thinking? How could she endorse the Demon Sheep?

I wondered about Palin’s endorsement of John McCain, but came to grips with it as payback for his introducing her on the national stage. With the Fiorina endorsement today, I’m not so sure about my conclusion any longer. My respect for Palin has certainly taken a hit with this one. In find myself in the – for me – awkward position of disagreeing with Palin and agreeing with Mike Huckabee (who I REALLY don’t like), who has endorsed Chuck DeVore. Talk about the world turned upside-down…

Earlier this week, I heard of an incident that happened in Montebello, CA. Several Hispanic students, in a protest of SB1070 – which doesn’t affect them since they don’t live in Arizona! – violated the US Flag Code, as shown in the pictures below:

These images clearly show the students not only flying the American flag upside-down, but also flying another country’s flag above it. the first offense is, to my understanding, not illegal per se, but is usually reserved as a sign of an emergency situation. The second – flying another country’s flag above the Stars and Stripes – is against the US Flag Code, which you can read in full here. The relevant language comes from Section 7c:

§7. Position and manner of display

–snip–

c. No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America…

While there are no statutory penalties for violation of the Flag Code, the lack of comment on this issue by the MSM is astounding. I would have expected to hear something from them, although it probably would have ended up being a defense of the students.

Having grown up in Southern California, I have seen displays of “Mexican pride” before, but nothing to this level.

Contrast the above to this:

Zombie has an interesting article today on Pajamas Media about some high school students in California – the Bay Area to be more precise – who wore t-shirts to school yesterday that had images of the American flag on them. These students were told to turn their shirts inside out to hide the flag because it was Cinco de Mayo and the might start a fight with their insensitive shirts. The school administration thought – is a soft racism kind of way – that Hispanic students would be so offended by the sight of the American flag on their holiday that wouldn’t be able to stop themselves from resorting to violence.

One question – doesn’t the school fly the American flag in plain sight? If so, why wasn’t it taking down for the all-important minor Cinco de Mayo holiday (at least it’s a minor holiday in Mexico)?

How is it that these people can get away with such blatant disrespect of us and the country we hold dear, while patriotic American are denigrated and even punished for showing their patriotism? Something must be done about the PC attitude that is so pervasive right now. We need to stand up for our rights, even when doing so is unpopular. My hat is off to those five Live Oak High School students who stood their ground for what is right!

NOTE: Nothing in this diary should be construed to mean that I in any way support or condone the so-called FCC Fairness Doctrine.

The other day, a liberal acquaintance of mine said that he “couldn’t wait for the return of the Fairness Doctrine.” While this didn’t really surprise or shock me, it did get me thinking.

According to the Museum of Broadcast Communications website:

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the “Fairness Doctrine” is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair.

Note the phrase “coverage of controversial issues.” We all know that the many forms of broadcasting cover a wide variety of controversial issues, but I got to thinking – what about education? Aren’t a lot of controversial issues covered in our nation’s classrooms, too? Knowing the answer to that loaded question, I started a list of controversial issues covered in schools that should be covered by an Educational Fairness Doctrine. After all, if forcing broadcasters to “be balanced and fair” in their coverage is okay for liberals, shouldn’t they be equally as excited about doing the same for our schools? (Nah, I guess that only applies in arenas where they don’t have almost total dominance.)

Here’s the admittedly incomplete list I came up with. I’m asking for your help in adding items.

I’ve listed the typical liberal topic covered in schools first and it’s related “Fairness” topic second in each pair below.

-Evolution
+Intelligent Design/Creationism

-Global Warming
+Cyclical Climate Patterns

-Multiculturalism
+American Exceptionalism

-Separation of Church and State
+The Founders’ belief in an reliance on “Divine Providence” (i.e. God)

-Federal supremacy
+States’ Rights/10th Amendment

-Gun control
+2nd Amendment Rights

-Animal Rights/ Environmentalism
+The belief that the earth and everything in it were created for man’s use/stewardship

-Gay/Lesbian/ Transgender rights
+Heterosexual monogamy/TRUE definition of marriage

-Sex education
+Abstinence prior to marriage

-“Evil” European world exploration/exploitation of indigenous people
+Beneficial effects of European exploration for indigenous people

-Socialism
+Capitalism

Got a link to this video in e-mail today.

I don’t know how many of you will remember the Kenny Rogers song it’s based on – Lucille – but this version is pretty good.

NOTE: Johnathan McWhite, the guy who wrote and sang the parody, had this to say about a couple of the lines: “For the comment behind the line “bowl like a retard” see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBEejvKGhl0 ; For the comment about Obama’s brother in the Kenyan mudshack, see here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html]

Imagine my surprise when I saw this headline in the Chicago Tribune this morning:

Victory for vouchers …

Apparently, this past Thursday, the Illinois State Senate passed a school vouchers bill by a vote of 33-20. Unfortunately, the bill was watered down to exclude high school students, but it’s a start.

The words of the bill’s author, Sen. James Weeks (D-Chicago) – wait, is that the same as Obama’s Chicago – should sound vaguely familiar to anyone who’s paid attention to conservative voucher proposals in the past:

“It was for the bottom 10 percent of failing schools. Who could begrudge students in a failing school a chance to get out if they want to get out?”

He also said,

“Once we see how it works here, I have a lot of other people who are wanting to do it in other places. It’s really, really historic because nobody thought that we’d ever be able to pass a voucher bill out of a Democratically-controlled Senate. It actually happened.”

The Trib added this commentary (emphasis mine):

How did a measure to provide private school vouchers to public school students make it through a Democratic Senate? Credit Sen. James Meeks, D-Chicago, who drafted the proposal and muscled it home. Meeks has long pushed for more state education funding, and for funding equity between rich and poor schools. He hasn’t given up on those goals. But he’s unwilling to stand by and wait for more money to materialize while children continue to suffer in lousy schools.

…snip…

We expect Meeks’ elementary school voucher program to be a first step toward greater school choice. If families like this pilot and if students make the most of better choices, then many more kids deserve to benefit. The specter of voucher-funded competition ought to provoke the public schools into offering better educations to their students, too.

…snip…

Here’s the best part: “It’s 22,000 kids with a chance … or a choice.” We like the sound of that.

Granted, the bill still has to pass the Illinois House and be signed by Gov. Quinn, but still…progress is being made in the belly of the beast. You can’t really ask for more than that these days.

P.S. So, am I crazy that my first reaction was, “How the heck did THAT happen in Illinois, and from a Chicago Dem?” instead of “It’s about time the Dems realized that school choice is a GOOD thing!”

H/T to Frank J. at IMAO

Here I thought I learned how this works in HS Civics class. My teacher even used the original Schoolhouse Rock video to teach us. Looks like it’s been updated to reality now:

How have we let things get to this point? We’ve got to do whatever it takes to get our country back!

H/T Michelle Malkin

This amazing pronouncement came from Tom Perriello (D-VA). Yes, you read that correctly…there’s a D after his name.

Sometime, the truth just slips out kind of on its own…

As part of doing opposition research, I signed up to receive e-mails from the DNC.  (Talk about taking one for the team…)

Anyway, last night, I got the following from Gov. Tim Kaine, DNC chair:

I just met with the President, where I was proud to fill him in on all the great work that you’re doing to pass health reform.

We spoke about the calls you’ve made, the letters you’ve written, and the terrific events you’ve organized on the ground.

And he asked me to pass along a message to you: All of your hard work is paying off. The conversations he’s been having with members of Congress in these days are far more productive because you’ve spoken up back home.

The President is optimistic — and thinks we’re going to have a vote and pass reform very, very soon. But he also made it clear that he’s not letting up for a moment, and urged that all of us do the same.

We’ll all need to step up to help the President pass reform. Can you take a moment right now to write to your member of Congress?

http://my.democrats.org/ReformLetters

I’m grateful for all you’ve done. And today, the President reminded me that he is as well.

Thank you,

Governor Tim Kaine

Out of curiosity, I clicked the link, where I was able to enter a zip code to find out who my Congresscritter is. I “accidentally” entered the zip code of an old address which I knew was represented by a Dem. When I clicked submit, up popped a fully-editable form letter which thanked Rep. Sanchez (D-CA) for her previous support. Suffice it to say that I HEAVILY edited the letter to show my opposition to the bill, and then sent it on.

Just for fun, I went to the original page again and put in my real zip code. My Congresscritter has an “R” after his name. Wouldn’t ya know it, the form letter was different this time. It tried to convince Rep. Deal (R-GA) to change his vote and support the bill. I again HEAVILY edited it to show my displeasure with the bill.

The point of this post is that the Dems have given us a wonderful, FREE tool for contacting Congresspeople. They even allow us to change their form letter to send the RIGHT message.

The URL again is http://my.democrats.org/ReformLetters…USE IT!