Politics, Religion, and the Local Divide

So I am from Salt Lake City, home of the Mormons, champions of the Mittster, home of large families, and the single reddest state in the whole country!  But I live in Salt Lake City, the only blue spot in the whole state.  I read with interest the articles critiquing and analyzing Mitt's speech on religion.  It has also been very interesting to look at the forums for those articles to see how the locals here in Utah reacted to his speech. 

First of all, It's too bad that Mitt let Huckabee back him into the corner where he had to give this speech, but that's what Mitt gets for decided to go after the religious right that is still very powerful in the Republican party. 

That being said, I think that the speech was not aimed at people like myself who would like to see religion stay out of politics, nor do I think it was aimed at letting the majority of Americans know that Mitt would work on their behalf regardless of what religion they are.  The speech seemed to me to be aimed at convincing current right wing religious voters that despite differences in doctrine, that Mitt could be counted on to pursue the so called "values" agenda, and that his religion really promotes the same values that the southern baptists so actively pursue. 

Next, he would have more credibility as a moral crusader that will represent the religious right if he had not been governor of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the country.  In order for him to get himself elected there he had to play to the liberal point of view regarding things like gay marriage and abortion.  Having flexible opinions, and "learning from experience," as he said Sunday is one thing, but people are not so stupid to recognize when one's political views change simply to pander to a larger base required for an election win.  So Mitt, if you wanted to have a chance, (past tense because he has no chance now) you should not have pandered to the religious right, but focused on your business acumen and how it would have helped all people. 

So how have people in Utah reacted?  Well everyone likes to say religion shouldn't be a focal point of deciding to vote for a candidate or not, but here in Utah it most definitely is.  A large majority of the non-mormons in Utah will not vote for a mormon, because they feel underrepresented.  The mormons may be more likely to vote for a non-mormon but they SELDOM elect a non-mormon.  Non-mormons are among the most vocal opponents of Mitt simply because he is a mormon, and their experience in Utah has shown them that the mormon politician can not separate the church's influence from making policy. 

The local forums as of the last few days as a result of all the attention paid to Mitt's speech have really come alive debating the mormon non-mormon divide in Utah.  It is my hope that someone at the paper will pay some attention to the discussion and the reasons for the divide and actually address them, for it is the first time that I have actually seen the real reason for the divide brought to light.  To see what I am talking about, please click this link to the Salt Lake Tribune.  http://166.70.44.77/comments/read_comments.asp?ref=7732120&sec=Opinion        The types of stories being told in this forum are typical of what has created the divide, and these things happen to me as a child, and I see it happen on my street today with the little kids across the street who are non-mormon and the mormon kids in the neighborhood. 

I guess to somehow tie this all back together, I would like to say that if we continue down a political path of debating who is more moral, and who is more righteous, and who knows what God wants, then we will end up no better off than the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, or the Sunnis and Shiites.  Oh yeah, and Mitt and Huck, you both deserve to get burned by the electorate for playing the religion card.  There are more important things affecting the American people than who hates homos the most. 

.