Posted on 11/20/2006 8:24:45 AM PST by areafiftyone
It's sad indeed to see Keyes' history of the events so wrong.
The courts ordered the state legislature to come up with a policy implementing gay marriage within 180 days. I Romney did nothing, the whole alw would have been busted open. There was nothing Romney could do except fight with a constitutional amendment, which is very hard to do in Mass....
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/
It's rude to invite them with the purpose of taking them from their current church because you feel your church is the only one. That's kinda considered "cultish" in Christian churches.
The Catholics may feel they are the only Christians but they don't ride herd on the Protestants about it.
Note: The Methodist Church I attend has a Book of Mormon in the library. Go figure.
Well, LDS hymnals include hymns to a mother-god as well, written by its first prophet's wife based upon a poem by her originally entitled "My Father in Heaven" (stanza reads: "In the heavens are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare. Truth is reason: truth eternal tells me I've a mother there.")
So besides being the MOST patriotic groups of people, I suppose that also makes them the MOST polytheistic group of people as well, eh? Some early Mormons considered Eliza Snow to be a "prophetess",[11] and Latter-day Saint President Wilford Woodruff believed that Snow had obtained this understanding though her own revelation.[citation needed] Later, however, LDS President Joseph F. Smith (a nephew of Joseph Smith, Jr.) explained his own belief that "God revealed that principle that we have a mother as well as a father in heaven to Joseph Smith; Joseph Smith revealed it to Eliza Snow Smith, his wife; and Eliza Snow was inspired, being a poet, to put it into verse."[12]
If both parties will be pushing for national healthcare and huge tax hikes, will it make a difference which party wins? I think not.
You don't respond to the facts, but instead attack.
You have nothing to respond to the fact that women all vote Dem.
Women are easily swayed by anybody who can appeal to emotion.
True
Mormons are the single largest supporting group of the Boy Scouts of America. Last I heard their support for the BSA was greater then all other groups...combined.
Yes, also true. But just as the Mormon missionary is the preferred recruit for the agencies you mentioned, the non-Mormon Boy Scott who meets at a LDS stake-house is the preferred recruit for the Mormon church.
So Boy Scout-turned-LDS is not what someone who is truly evangelical applauds.
No, that is more-or-less the Jewish (and historical Christian) belief.
It was more of an issue when the Temple still stood, but the Kohain still do certain things things and face certain restrictions related to corpses and marriage.
As noted by BBL above, I would be dis-allowed as a Kohain because of my acceptance of Christ as the Messiah and am considered by several of my Orthodox family members to be a complete non-entity.
Don't believe it for a second.
I sometimes like to mess with people. I don't actually believe women should not have the right to vote. Though many women vote Dem, not all do....
My girlfriend does not. Denying the right to vote for all women just because some vote the way I don't like is not American.
Anyway, enough of that.
This week's RenewAmerica Forum
A look at the GOP hopefuls
November 19, 2006
As the historic and unique 2008 presidential election looms ever closer, let's take an informed look at the four Republican hopefuls many consider the frontrunners for the GOP nomination.
A good place to start would be a streaming video of Chris Matthews' Hardball program taped last week on MSNBC. On the show, Chris and three guests (Mike Barnicle, Ed Rogers, and Steve McMann) critique the presidential prospects of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich.
By no means definitive, the show is nonetheless instructive for novices looking for a primer on the GOP presidential candidates.
As the show suggested, each of the above four "frontrunners" has strengths and weaknesses that would cancel out any likelihood of a cakewalk by any of the four to the presidency--despite the fact that the GOP nomination appears wide open to whoever emerges as the strongest contender.
Brace yourself for some revealing facts that raise suspicions about whether any of these Republican challengers could attract enough of the GOP "base" to handily win the nomination.
Giuliani
As the Hardball panel noted, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani might do well in a general election, but he could never gain the Republican nomination.
Said Republican strategist Ed Rogers, "He's wrong on so many issues that our base cares about."
MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle added the obvious disqualifier: "He's pro-choice." Furthermore, Barnicle noted, "The guy lived with a couple of gay guys," not long ago.
Widely respected for his reassuring role as New York's mayor in the aftermath of 9/11, Giuliani flaunts his celebrity with such antics as dressing in drag. This hardly endears him to the GOP base--and certainly calls into question his fitness to govern.
Concerning his pro-choice views, Giuliani told a NARAL luncheon,
This event shows that people of different political parties and different political thinking can unite in support of choice. In doing so, we are upholding a distinguished tradition that began in our city starting with the work of Margaret Sanger and the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.
As a Republican who supports a woman's right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here. And I would like to explain, just for one moment, why I believe being in favor of choice is consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. . . . Because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices, rather than the government dictating those choices.
Republicans stand for lower taxation because we believe that people can make better choices with their money than the government will make for them, and that ultimately frees the economy and produces more political freedom. We believe that, yes, government is important, but that the private sector is actually more important in solving our problems.
So it is consistent with that philosophy to believe that in the most personal and difficult choices that a woman has to make with regard to a pregnancy, those choices should be made based on that person's conscience and that person's way of thinking and feeling. The government shouldn't dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal. (emphasis added)
We might note that to have any credibility, such twisted logic should be applicable, in theory, across the entire spectrum of prohibitions enforced by government. Justifying the killing of the unborn as a matter of "choice" would open the door to legalizing countless other currently-illegal acts on the same basis.
Nonsense, to say the least. The "conservative base" will have nothing of it.
McCain
The Hardball panel seemed to concur that "the person with the best odds [of gaining the nomination] is John McCain," to cite the words of Ed Rogers.
Intoned Democratic strategist Steve McMann, without challenge: "This time, the frontrunner is John McCain."
McCain, of course, elicits a long list of reasons why the GOP base will predictably shun him, and thus deny him the nomination. Not only would he be the oldest president ever elected (he's now 70), but he is greatly disliked for his role in pushing the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill that has severely curtailed grassroots campaigning, while doing nothing to "clean up" politics as supposedly intended.
Such intrusion into First Amendment rights is no small issue to conservatives.
Of his attitude toward the right of free speech, McCain has said,
I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we've been seeing lately, we didn't complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where, quote, First Amendment rights are being respected. . . . If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government. (emphasis added)
To such alarming thinking, columnist George Will writes,
[P]onder [McCain's] implicit promise to "complete the job" of cleansing Washington of corruption, as McCain understands that. Unfortunately, although McCain is loquacious about corruption, he is too busy deploring it to define it. Mister Straight Talk is rarely reticent about anything, but is remarkably so about specifics: He says corruption is pandemic among incumbent politicians, yet he has never identified any corrupt fellow senator.
Anyway, he vows to "complete the job" of extirpating corruption, regardless of the cost to freedom of speech. (emphasis added)
Will also points to McCain's "elasticity" in interpreting the Constitution as further cause for concern. Says Will,
McCain hopes that in 2008 pro-life Republicans will remember his pro-life record. But they will know that, regarding presidents and abortion, what matters are Supreme Court nominees. McCain favors judges who think the Constitution is so radically elastic that government regulation of speech about itself is compatible with the First Amendment. So Republican primary voters will wonder: Can President McCain be counted on to nominate justices who would correct such constitutional elasticities as the court's discovery of a virtually unlimited right--one unnoticed between 1787 and 1973--to abortion?
McCain told [MSNBC's Don] Imus that he would, if necessary, sacrifice "quote First Amendment rights" to achieve "clean" government. If on Jan. 20, 2009, he were to swear to defend the Constitution, would he be thinking that the oath refers only to "the, quote, Constitution"? And what would that mean? (emphasis added)
Other facts about McCain that preclude him from serious consideration by conservatives are these:
He supports President Bush's amnesty and guest worker plan for illegal immigration. Under a heading at his website that reads, "Senator McCain joins religious leaders to reiterate need for comprehensive immigration reform," McCain said, "It's imperative that we join together to provide some type of protections for these 12 million immigrants while we work to establish a guest worker program." (emphasis added)
He has publicly commended the RNC on its appointment of Sen. Mel Martinez as national GOP chair, calling Martinez a "loyal conservative" and saying, "I can't think of anyone better to be the new face of the Republican Party." (Martinez is a co-sponsor of Bush's amnesty-based immigration plan.)
He opposes the federal Marriage Protection Amendment, saying the matter of defining marriage should be left to each state.
And he appears to have no clear idea of what the "self-evident truths" are that unite conservatives. McCain recently told a GOPAC audience:
"Common sense conservatives believe in a short list of self-evident truths: love of country; respect for our unique influence on history; a strong defense and strong alliances based on mutual respect and mutual responsibility; steadfast opposition to threats to our security and values that matches resources to ends wisely; and confident, reliable, consistent leadership to advance human rights, democracy, peace and security." (emphasis added)
The conservative base of the Republican Party will not support such a "Republican In Name Only" as its nominee.
Gingrich
A veritable folk hero who fell out of favor with the GOP in the late 90's for improprieties, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was described by the Hardball panel's Ed Rogers as "the candidate with the biggest foothold--emotional foothold--in the party."
Nonetheless, Gingrich is considered by many to be too much of a throwback to the failed "Contract with America" to seriously vie for the Republican nomination.
As many observers have suggested in recent years, the Contract with America--and the coinciding control of both houses of Congress that Republicans gained in 1994--ultimately paved the way for unrestrained corruption, spending, and defiance of the GOP base by arrogant, monopoly-engendering Republicans, resulting in the GOP's loss of the House and Senate Nov. 7.
Gingrich is considered the architect of the plan that brought Republican legislators to power in 1994, and within four years, he resigned over his own personal corruption--which resulted in a $300,000 fine imposed by the House Ethics Committee for violating rules regarding tax-exempt foundations.
Facts to consider about Gingrich:
He has publicly stated that he considers FDR the greatest president of the 20th century. Not Reagan--FDR.
As House Republican leader in 1993, he is credited as the main reason NAFTA was passed by Congress. At the time this detrimental policy was adopted, he said, "This is a vote for history, larger than politics."
His record reveals that, although he has generally sided with social conservatives on moral issues, his main focus has consistently been economic, health-related, national security, and science-based issues. His recent book Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America lays out his vision for governmental reform--but fails to stress pro-life, marriage, or religious liberty issues (such as displaying the Ten Commandments). Presumably, this is a reflection of his priorities.
When questioned about such lack of clear commitment to the moral conservative agenda, Gingrich gave unsatisfactory answers. In an interview for The American View, conservative John Lofton asked Gingrich, "You think abortion should be a crime?" Gingrich responded with some uncertainty: "(Pause) I think that abortion should not be legal, [but] I think that how you would implement that I'm not sure."
When asked by Lofton why he left reference to the critical Ten Commandments controversy out of his book, Gingrich said he opted for a more "historical"--rather than "theological"--approach to the subject of religion in preparing the book.
Queried by Lofton about his views about gay rights and traditional marriage, and why his book failed to include such timely subjects, Gingrich said, "I'm not sure where I stand on civil unions." He added that he felt homosexuals should be allowed, in principle, to teach in public schools. Pressed for an explanation, he said he saw no connection between the practice of homosexuality and any concerns of personal character.
Additionally, Gingrich told Lofton that--in essence--he was not a strict constructionist in interpreting the Constitution, but believed in the federal government's role to house, cloth, feed, and educate the populace, despite the absence of express language in the Constitution empowering the government to do so. This position appears consistent with some points of emphasis in Gingrich's biography at his website.
His website adds that Gingrich is a member of the Terrorism Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Will the conservative base of the Republican Party nominate Gingrich for president? There are enough irregularities and unanswered questions about the ambitious former Speaker to suggest otherwise. When pressed, he may fail to pass muster from a now-more-conservative-than-ever GOP base.
Romney
The only candidate of the four who seems to have no obvious baggage--if the view of the Hardball panel was any indication--is retiring one-term Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. At least any baggage he has is generally overlooked by supportive media.
The panel raised no negatives about Romney, citing only his rise "from nowhere" during the past year to become a leading contender.
Does Romney have baggage that the Republican base will find unacceptable? Indeed.
In a recent article on Romney entitled "Mitt Romney: Vegetarian in Chief," author Gary Glenn--Chairman of Campaign for Michigan Families--takes Romney to task for Romney's self-serving deviations from previous positions. But before he does, Glenn adds a brief word of introduction, as follows:
There are some good pro-family activists . . . who are going to be embarrassed when Romney's record is fully explored. And the issues covered below don't include Romney's record on gun control, which will be equally embarrassing once it's raised by the NRA.
A politician who gives rhetorical aid, comfort, and legitimacy for a decade to the pro-"choice" and "sexual orientation" movements should not be rewarded with the Republican presidential nomination.
In his article, Glenn cites the following quotations from Romney (or from his 2002 website) to suggest that the Massachusetts governor is less than candid with the GOP's conservative base, whom he is clearly courting:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. . . . Since that time, my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see my wavering on that." (emphasis added)
"I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is, no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights." (emphasis added)
"As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's." (emphasis added)
"I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation." (emphasis added)
Commenting on such published statements from Romney, Glenn says,
The Washington, D.C. conservative weekly Human Events last year listed Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in its Top Ten list of RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), ranking him at number 8 in the nation. . . .
I attended last fall's GOP conference in Michigan, where Romney continued his masquerade as a "conservative," even daring to tell the assembled activists: "I am pro-life"--knowing full well that he does not mean by that term what those listening would think he meant.
Romney's ten-year political career has occurred from his late 40s to his late 50s, yet he asks pro-family conservatives to naively believe that he's just now figuring out his core beliefs.
Not surprisingly, Romney's clearly stated support for Roe and "a woman's right to choose"--i.e., abortion on demand--[has] earned him the endorsement of the pro-abortion Republican Majority for Choice PAC.
He [has also been] endorsed, twice, by the homosexual "Log Cabin Republicans," the same group that in 2004 spent $1 million attacking President Bush for his support of a Marriage Protection Amendment.
He endorses Ted Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation. He endorses taxpayer-financed same-sex benefits for the homosexual partners of state employees, and [has] even attacked some Democratic legislators for not supporting such government benefits.
Continuing, Glenn says,
According to the Associated Press, [Romney] has appointed at least two openly homosexual lawyers to state judgeships, one a board member of the Lesbian & Gay Bar Association. Imagine how that will fly in Republican presidential primaries in the South, the prospect of a president with a record of appointing homosexual activists to the bench.
In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized so-called homosexual "marriage," Romney denounced a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual "marriage," civil unions, or same-sex public employee benefits as "too extreme," even after being advised by the media that his own wife and son had just signed a petition to place it on the ballot.
Now, as he postures to run for president, Romney travels to Iowa and Michigan and South Carolina to claim he's "pro-life" and brag about fighting homosexual "marriage," saying that at age 59, his position on such issues has "evolved". . . .
Regardless, most pro-family voters don't believe in the theory of evolution--including as it applies to politicians, and especially when the alleged "evolution" seems so conveniently timed to produce political benefit.
There is one point of clarification that Alan Keyes would make about the above behavior by Romney, and that is to note that--although most people assume that Massachusetts' same-sex marriage policy was created by the state's Supreme Judicial Court--it was actually created preemptively by Romney, of his own initiative, without any requirement or authorization to do so.
For Dr. Keyes' discussion of this fact, see "Keyes cites Romney as sole author of Massachusetts gay marriage policy."
Will this kind of duplicity play in Peoria? Not likely. Once the spotlight of intense scrutiny falls upon Romney, the truth will likely out.
Your response
What do you make of the current stable of "leading" Republican contenders for the presidency? What do you think OTHERS will make of these presidential hopefuls, once the light of day is sufficiently focused on them?
Even more to the point, what do you predict the GOP's CONSERVATIVE BASE will make of these ambitious individuals? Do you predict thumbs up, or thumbs down--and why?
http://www.renewamerica.us/forum/?date=061119
Can you show me where the MA legislature passed a law before the state's chief executive, Willard Mitt Romney, implemented gay marriage?
Let's set aside your condescending tone and just address the content of this. You say there "no real reason" why someone might oppose the spread of the Mormon gospel or why someone might oppose their church being "bumped off" as being representative of Christ's latter-day church?
You assume most is from "anti-Mormon literature." Please explain the following Mormon Scripture to readers here (especially the bold-faced portion). This is from the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:18-19:
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)--and which I should join. 19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." 20 He again forbade me to join with any of them
How does all of this related to Milt Romney? If you go to http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6180, you'll see a message by one of Milt's uncles, Marion G. Romney, who was a high-ranking LDS official. Of course, Marion G. Romney cites Joseph 2:17 in this talk. I would assume Milt Romney also embraces Joseph 2:17-19.
So, anyone named Cohen is a Kohain? Do all the historical restrictions and rights apply to all descendants of Aaron, or just the firstborn?
So are you what they call a Messianic Jew? Do you affiliate with any Christian denomination?
I am attacking you blatant ignorance.
You have nothing to respond to the fact that women all vote Dem.
They don't all vote dem, you paint with a chauvinist broad brush
Women are easily swayed by anybody who can appeal to emotion.
You must need a lot of Bandaids since it's obvious that your knuckles drag on the ground. I don't know all the women on this forum, but if they would like to put you in a dunking tank for your idiotic statements against them, I would foot the bill for the rental.
"Not mean a thing"...except...
The above is a contradictory, inconsistent statement.
I would also imagine that if a "conservative" Satanist was running, somehow "religion" would suddenly be meaningful.
So the question is...if a Scientologist was running for president and wanted to swear on a book of Dyanetics instead of the Bible when he ran for president, would that be a relevant "religious" issue.
Basically it's beginning to sound more like a "pious leftist" position of those who spout that a candidate's religious positions are somehow irrelevant to politics, as if those were two hermenitically sealed compartments.
You're wrong. It's more single women who vote Dem. And even w/them, it's not even close to "all."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.