Posted on 08/07/2007 2:43:12 AM PDT by suspects
OK, I’ll admit it. From a theological standpoint, Mormonism is just plain weird.
When I read the story of Joseph Smith, notorious New York con man, finding golden tablets he read using magic rocks while peering into a hat, I snicker too. The special “garment,” the polygamy problem, the Osmonds - it’s all more than a bit odd.
That’s Mormonism’s problem. But could someone please tell me how it’s Mitt’s problem, too?
Left-wingers at the New Republic suggest that Romney has secretly converted to Mormon fundamentalism and plots against the Constitution. Right-wing radio hosts insist that, as president, a real Mormon would crush the constitutional powers of the U.S. Supreme Court. Again and again, Mitt’s faith is portrayed as a risk to American democracy.
I’m not planning on voting for the guy (I’m currently leaning Giuliani), but of the dozens of reasons to vote against a President Romney, his faith isn’t one of them.
I’m not arguing that religious questions have no place in politics, not at all. Tell me you could never vote for a Muslim president because of Islam’s ongoing problems with anti-Semitism and terror, and I get your point. It’s a legitimate concern about a uniquely problematic religion in today’s world.
Tell me you couldn’t vote for a Jewish president because of the political problems it would create for America in the Middle East, and I get that, too. Once again, I don’t have to agree with the argument to understand it.
But nobody has given me even a hint of a rational defense for keeping the White House Mormon-free. We have three Mormons in the Senate right now - Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Harry Reid (D-Nev. and MoveOn.org) - and democracy survives.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...
He is as liberal as many of the rats, he is just lying to sound conservative hoping to win.
Hold on, grabbing the popcorn, you are in for a ride with this post. Been there, done it. Good luck you bigot /s/
Talk about your weird organizations, how about a political party and it’s media & university members who more often than not share the views of the terrorist enemies of our nation.
It’s Romney’s constitutional right to religious freedom the Boston Herals is trying to infringe here. Seems to me we heard less about the religion of the first Moslem Congressman, although I do remember that was heralded. The fact he didn’t want to use the Bible during his swearing in was considered quite cool by the media as I recall.
There are some glaring double standards in this nation today.
A newspaper can't "infringe", the government is the entity that would infringe upon his wierdo religion.
Actually Graham pretty much agrees with my opinion in his offering, so I should offer a retraction of my condemnation.
I’m glad he went that route. Sorry I took him to task based on a misimpression from the headline.
I don’t care about his religion, he is from Massachusetts, and that’s bad enough.
So individual citizens and organizations can’t infringe on the constitutional rights of others? Would you like to reconsider?
BTW, I don’t think the Herald was wrong here. I misinterpreted intent from the headline, my mistake.
I comes down to faith, either you have it or you don’t.
Faith does not have to go through peer review because its a faith not a science.
Are zealots in his religion blowing up cities, flying planes into buildings, spreading terror around the world?
Until it gets to that point I could care less about his religion.
I am sorry to all those who would call me a bigot, but Romney’s faith does matter - to me. I believe in Jesus Christ and will vote with that belief guiding my decision.
I know that leaves me a devil’s bargain most of the time. But Romney’s faith is antithetical to the most basic of my beliefs and I cannot nor will not support it.
One wonders if those independents take responsibility for
Cadillac Deval and his multibillion$$ plans to provide
education, housing, medical care for illegal aliens
and eloquent rapists.
You nailed the issue.
Of course not, but it made them “feel good” to vote for him.
I don’t see what’s weird about this. Are you calling Christianity weird? Isn’t this a Christian forum?
The truth of Christianity is revealed in the Bible. It doesn’t mention anything about John Smith.
Of course, people are free to vote as they choose. Islam preaches Jihad, the violent kind. We are infidels in their eyes and deserve to die or to live as second class citizens with no rights. They have made war upon us. I think voting for a Muslim is voting for someone who will betray our country when the time is right.
Ann Coulter makes the case that liberalism is a religion. The possible sticking point is the idea of a Godless religion. I gather that there are some (Hinduism? Budhism?). Certainly atheism is a world view, at least. The people that I've known who had the greatest drive to convert are atheists. I think environmentalism rises to the level of a religion for some people. Anyway, liberals do often prefer our enemies to our friends. Voting for liberals strikes me as suicide, be it slow or fast.
Those are the only two religions that cause me problems. Islam because it is murderous and has no allegiance to my country. Liberalism because it is anti-market, and often prefers our enemies to our allies and defenders.
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.