Posted on 05/21/2007 11:48:40 AM PDT by TexanSniper
Also, in addition to EvangelicalsForMitt.org, there is another joint pro-Romney blog run by an Evangelical and a Mormon which deals with the religious litmus test issue facing Romney:
Hmm, the link doesn’t work, but that doesn’t surprise me there would be Mormons against Mitt. I know quite a few liberal Mormons—one a very prominent Democrat politician here in LV.
I know alot of liberal pandering evangelicals who will do anything for power, position and wealth.
These Mormons Against Romney are wack jobs too.
My point is....finding 6 people who profess evangelicalism and also support Romney is not as awe inspiring as one might assume.
If those six people want their voices heard on FR, they should be here posting. Why should we listen to them?
I worked hard for Reagan’s campaigns, but I didn’t work for GHWB’s, or even vote for him the second time because I learned that he was a Globalist, dedicated to the New World Order. I did vote for W twice because the alternative was unthinkable, but sadly, the apple did not fall far from the tree. I am strictly for retaining America’s sovereignty.
Mitt Romney is a ticking time bomb for the Republicans should he be nominated, and yet I haven’t heard anyone state the true reason why. Yes, it has to do with his religion, but not his religious doctrines. It has to do with the historicity of Mormonism.
A reasonable person could examine the historical evidence (not the religious doctrines) surrounding Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam, and come to the conclusion they were true. I’m not saying they are true, but a REASONABLE person COULD come to that conclusion.
A reasonable person examining the historical evidence surrounding Mormonism could only come to one conclusion: it is a fabrication.
What would happen if Romney were asked the following question in a debate?
“Gov. Romney, in the mid-1800s Joseph Smith came into possession of a papyrus with Egyptian writing. At the time, no one was able to read Egyptian. Joseph Smith said that because he was a prophet he could translate it, which he did. The resulting translation was called The Book of Abraham, is considered scripture by the Latter Day Saints, and is the sole basis for several Latter Day Saints doctrines. Since that time, with the help of the Rosetta Stone, scholars have learned to read ancient Egyptian, have examined the original papyrus and determined that it is nothing more than a common Egyptian funeral papyrus, and that the translation done by Joseph Smith bears no resemblance to what is actually written on the Papyrus. Gov. Romney, as a Latter Day Saint, how do you reconcile this?”
Or
“Gov. Romney, do you believe the people that lived in the Americas 2,000 years ago used horses and chariots?”
Again, I’m talking about the history and facts surrounding a religion, not the doctrines.
Americans want a president that has some type of religious faith (and are more tolerant of what that faith might be than most would give them credit for.) They don’t want a president that is naive an unworldly. Unfortunately, Mormonism can be portrayed as not only being historically inaccurate, but tantamount to believing in the Easter bunny.
Republicans would be foolish to think Democrats wouldn’t portray it as such. The vast majority of Mormons already vote Republican. What would they have to lose?
Mitt Romney’s political positions are close to my own, which prompted me to take a closer look at the problems with his religious beliefs kept hearing about. If we nominate him, are we prepared for commercials pointing out the founder of his religion declared the moon was inhabited by men and women that dressed like Quakers and had a lifespan of 1,000 years?
If you think I’m exaggerating, do the research yourself. I know the Democrats will, and they’ll use what they find.
Mitt just turned 60, and Fred is 64, not much of an age difference chronologically. Mitt just looks extraordinarily youthful for his age, and Fred looks older. I like them both, but am leaning more toward Fred.
I was just perusing your profile page and came across #14! I was there and was so shocked! Yet proud of you!
It is so nice to see you are still around, YOU ARE ONE OF MY HEROS!
RANDY LARSEN
Oh george, why did you have to go off and say macaca. If it wasnt for those two words we wouldnt be having this drama now.
“Mitt just turned 60, and Fred is 64, not much of an age difference chronologically. Mitt just looks extraordinarily youthful for his age, and Fred looks older. I like them both, but am leaning more toward Fred.”
I like them both, too. Fred is more conservative than Mitt (though not as much as people are led to believe), but I’m looking at the big picture—i.e. the prospect of Hillary in the White House. This election is going to be decided by women voters who will be very tempted to vote for Hillary because she’s a woman. We need a candidate on our side who will appeal to that base and I think Romney has that edge. I know that’s shallow, but it’s also a reality, whether people want to admit it or not. Both Mitt and Fred are competent, intelligent choices, but I also think Mitt has proven to possess the better executive skills, having been a hugely successful, turnaround venture capitalist and a pretty good conservative governor in a very liberal state. He knows how to hire the right people and more importantly, he gets things done.
My ultimate dream ticket? Romney/Thompson.
The ‘Mormon’ issue is only an issue among the press
Slap me silly, but I do have a bit of a problem voting for a morman. I am trying to work myself through it, but it is hard. I went to the Temple here when they built it and it is just a strange cult... IMHO
Appreciate the honesty. I would think of three guiding principals:
1. You are voting for Commander in Chief not Theologian in Chief. Did we become Catholic when JFK was nominated? Did we become Masons when 8 Mason presidents were elected? Did we become Agnostic when Thomas Jefferson was elected? Did we become Jehovah Witnesses when Ike was elected?
2. What policies will be affected differently by someone of the Mormon faith then say an Evangelical?
3. Iraq is in chaos because it hold its religious differences as the guiding doctrine of whom should be in political positions are not. America is different, because it looks beyond religous differences and seeks common ground based on values. This is what the goal of the Moral Majority was and it should be the same spirit that would be friendly to a Romney candidacy.
Good Points... and I will continue to ponder them all. I will continue to read up and give him an opportunity to win my vote, he and others in the race. I am easier to switch over than my Southern Baptist parents and siblings.
Because the right (correct) answer to these questions is nearly never popular.
A ton of people used to be pro choice - including Roe v. Wade herself - but they later realized abortion is wrong. Bernard Nathanson used to be an abortionist, for goodness’ sake, and he switched and became pro life. Nathanson actually killed thousands of unborn babies before he saw the light.
I don’t think Mitt Romney is a liar. I believe him. His good life speaks volumes.
I like Dobson. But that doesn’t mean I think it can’t make a mistake.
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.