Apparently, many still believe the next POTUS will be the National Pastor as well.
*sigh*
I am only worried about an Islamofascist candidate right now. Most other religions I can trust the candidate to keep it out of the job.
Of course, there are many bigoted people who wouldn't vote for someone just because they are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Mormon...you name it.
The huge problem with Romney being a Mormon is that almost all Christian Conservatives who are familiar with Mormon doctrine will NEVER vote for a Mormon regardless of how well he/she can deliver a speech. Of course this is simply my opinion.
Actually, he can. He can say. “Hey, I’m no theologian. If you want to get that deep, then go to seminary or something.”
So Mitt believes there was a group of Christians living in the Americas 1600 years ago, what does that have to do with how he would act as POTUS? Nothing.
Wasting his time aswering a bunch of questions about his faith that have nothing to do with how he would govern would only lead people to think such quesitons are relevant.
Nothing new here... more of the usual double standard... some of my best friends are ____ but....
All religions expect their believers to take certain things “on faith” and yet at the same time everyone ELSE’s “faith” just seems nuts. Yawn. I’m glad if Romney is tired of talking about it because I’m getting real tired of hearing about people’s religious insecurities.
So I asked him : if an entire society existed in North America for centuries before and after the birth of Christ, planting crops, worshiping in a Judeo-Christian fashion, using an Egyptian-Hebrew hybrid language, riding chariots and smelting iron, wouldn't there be archeological evidence of it?Let's just say he didn't accept my invitation down that path.
But earlier in the piece, Mark Davis wrote this:
I envision nothing in their faith that would peel me away from backing an LDS candidate
Oh, really? That means that you some did manage to find a path over, under, around or through that first question.
Please, in the name of all that is theological, tell us that path.
How in doctrine's name to you get from a disturbing lack of archaeological evidence to "nothing in their faith that would peel me away"?
I would really like to know something about that "path". Please enlighten us.
And I don't bring that up to pick a fight with Christianity, but merely to ask you this:
Where were you in 2000 and 2004? Were you out there demanding that George W Bush "explain" Genesis?
As a 100% committed supporter of Fred Thompson (and I am that, I'm not just saying that I am), I find all this questioning of Romney's religion to be dirty, mean, underhanded, spiteful and small-minded.
And finally yes, Mark Davis, aka nimrod, you ARE acting as if Romney were running for Paster-in-Chief.
Here is a copy of an email that I sent to Mark:
“One aspect that bother’s me about Romney’s Mormon religion is not its doctrine. It is the LDS style.
What I mean is the way I see Mormons is that I don’t see them.
They are a clique that seems to have disdain for outsiders. They tend to do business with each other first and only others if there is no other way. At least that’s the way it has always been in my community. I think more than a few voters feel this way.
The issue is not so much what Mormons believe but how they behave, I would like to see him address that. Could you ask him?”
Start with history of blacks in the Mormon faith....
Romney is smart not to go into detail about his Mormon faith. Why spend 90% of your television/radio interview time discussing Mormon theology when you could be talking about the issues. It’s not like if he gives detailed answers, he won’t have to answer the same questions over and over again. Better to be brief and move the discussion to issues that matter. It may be that Americans will never elect a Mormon, but Mitt’s not going to change that by talking about theological questions on the campaign trail. The best he can do is convince people he is the best candidate based on the issues and his record.
I don’t think it’s fair. No one ever asked Kennedy to defend arcane points of Catholic dogma. He gave “the speech,” and that was pretty much the end of it. And “the speech” was simply an assurance that Kennedy wouldn’t let the Pope run the country.
But, having said that, I’m not sure it would do Romney any good to give “the speech.” In the first place, Romney has pretty much given the substance of “the speech” several times. In the second place, “the speech” ended the issue with Kennedy because he was a Democrat and the MSM wanted it to end. Just the opposite is true with Romney. Nothing will change. Instead, people like this fellow will keep bringing up points of doctrine and asking Romney to defend them. Romney shouldn’t have to do that.
Davis is completely wrong on this.
I heard part of his show this morning and he played a clip of Romney basically saying, ‘we didn’t ask JFK if he really believed the communion bread was the actual body of Christ - we didn’t ask him to respond to chemical analysis of the bread.’ This was a great point, yet it must have went right over Davis’s head.
This whole religious doctrine/mythology thing is so juvenile, so petty, and so kooky, it really makes me want to turn completely agnostic. You have people who believe in magic mocking other people who believe in magic, yet they fail to see the irony.
‘Holier than thou’ is the perfect term for these jerks.
There are two kinds of religious people:
1. open-minded religious people
2. close-minded religious people
Whenever you find yourself drifting towards Christian Sharia, ask yourself, ‘Do I more resemble a member of the Taliban or an American Pilgrim looking for religious freedom?”