Posted on 12/02/2007 2:57:55 PM PST by Zakeet
Mitt Romney will deliver a speech entitled “Faith in America,” addressing his Mormon religion, on Thursday at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Tex.
His campaign is describing the address as an opportunity for Mr. Romney to “share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor’s own faith would inform his presidency if he were elected.”
Mr. Romney personally made the decision to give the speech last week, feeling it was the right moment to do so, his advisers said. After he decided he would make it, the campaign consulted with former President Bush’s library, which invited him to deliver it there.
Suspicions about his Mormon beliefs, which many conservative Christians consider to be heretical, have dogged Mr. Romney’s candidacy since it began, with many polls showing large numbers of Americans would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate.
Mr. Romney had resisted delivering a speech dedicated to his faith up to this point, choosing instead to address questions about his beliefs when they came up from audience members and reporters.
But many, including evangelical supporters, have long urged him to address the questions head on and deliver an address modeled after the one John F. Kennedy delivered about his Catholicism to a gathering of Southern Baptist ministers in Houston in 1960 that many credit with defusing questions about his faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
“Staying at home on election day is unpatriotic.”
That’s why the Soviets had 99% participation.
“Does this mean that you have no Republican or third party candidate that you support?”
negatory on that, Enchiladita
“I haven’t seen you state who your candidate is, nor what your particular religious conviction is,”
It’s been stated before a number of times. Go back a thousand posts and you will find all you ask grasshopper.
“except that you enjoy persecuting Mormons.”
I don’t enjoy it. My opposition was originally a self defense mechanism against some rather nasty Mormons (who you will conveniently deny exist). Later I came to feel quite sorry for those they shunned, duped and destroyed.
“An appeal to decency and a defense of those who are persecuted does not constitute an attempt to abrogate the freedom of another.”
Except your claims to decency are misplaced. Have you ever known suicidal or shunned ex-Mormons?
“For example, if I see someone beating a child in public, I will intervene to protect the child...”
Have you ever been caught beating a child with a stick with a nail in it?
“AND, at my own risk. Does the child abuser then turn to me, and/or their lawyer, claiming that I have taken their freedom away from them?”
Except, who have I beaten? I have certainly argued against Mormonism, but you can find no one who is financially or physically harmed by that. If you are claiming mental abuse is your cause, then I claim you have mentally abused me with your slurs and therefore I demand redress!
“For you and greyfoxx and others to claim your “Free Speech” is being denied is specious.”
I guess all you are doing is telling us to shut up - or else what?
“It is classic for victimizers to claim that they are the victims.”
Go cry me a river of victimhood on Oprah.
“Also, claims of protected “free speech” are familiar cries from the likes of the leftists when they engage in their smears of our military, etc.”
So, you aren’t really for free speech, just your speech. I’m sure that’s what our soldiers are fighting for.
“Sanctuary Mansion? Well, a dollar saved is a dollar earned, besides it all goes toward my campaign to become leader of the anti illegal worker war.”
Hey, wait! Was Mitt born in Mexico...? He was, wasn’t he?
So he is bi-cultural?
There may be a reason he prefers illegal southern immigrants about his place...
Check my new tagline.
What I meant to convey was that if Hillary was really a Christian, and behaved like a Christian - then of course I would support her. That would be contingent on her actually incorporating those Christian views into her behavior and political actions.
Since none of the above is happening, then sadly Hillary remains a homosexual, lying, deviant, morally corrupt, power hungry, and ruthless Democrat who is going to Hell.
I suppose rational thinking is in the eye of the beholder, but I won’t vote for anyone who belongs to a cult that comes complete with secret rituals.
And I would say that believing that Jesus and Satan are brothers and other weird unbiblical doctrines based on the fantasies of one man are more than a speck in a brother’s eye.
excellllllennnnnt!
“Hey, wait! Was Mitt born in Mexico...? He was, wasn’t he?”
Nope. Michigan.
Juan McCain is birth-wise Panamanian, maybe that explains something.
If you are looking at the real character of the individual candidate, good. That’s important.
But if you put Christian sectarian affiliation at the top of your list of must-haves, you would leave yourself open to voting for a Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter over an Orrin Hatch or a fine Jewish conservative Republican, and that’s just mistaken. Or in the primary for a preacher (Huck) who’s much less conservative over a candidate who’s more conservative but less ‘churchy’ (like Thompson).
In both Carter’s and Huck’s case, there is an aspect to their Christian faith that make them suckers for con artists, in ways that can hurt us. For Huck it was the Dumond case and his desire to close GITMO, and for Carter, it’s his ardor for practically every terrorist leader and dictator whoever said something mean about the US. Carter laps it up.
“I would imagine many are asking the same question, ‘what is the next? What is the next feckless whine the Romney camp will try to squelch discussion of his cult beliefs.’ You need a new screne name. You cannot live up to your current one.”
Cult? That’s your opinion. The same could be said about Catholics (of which I am one), or jews..the list goes on and on. Most people that believe in Jesus Christ want to get to the same place. The afterlife. Not everyone is taking the same road or reading the same map to get there. Mitt’s lived an exemplary life stressing family values and service to others.
“I suppose rational thinking is in the eye of the beholder, but I won’t vote for anyone who belongs to a cult that comes complete with secret rituals.”
So I guess when the Skull and Bones candidate was running, you voted third party?
Should we exclude all people from consideration for office because they are ‘wrong’ on theological doctrine questions - even if they have nothing to do with how they will perform in office?
Here’s a better way: Find the candidate with the best character, experience/competence and vision/convictions, and choose based on the *individual*, not their affiliation label.
“Cult? That’s your opinion. The same could be said about Catholics “
That isn’t his opinion, it is the position of your Catholic church.
Straw man. Name one FREEPER who has called for this?
Big difference between a cultic local dog catcher & the leader of the Free world who displays a critical lapse--a big vulnerability to deception in an area that is supposedly the most important to him--his faith.
But it's easier to knock down the strong man, eh?
Not even all cultic "religious affiliations" are on the same equal ground.
Imagine if Hillary thought she was a feminist "god-in-embryo" who would instantly become a god after death; reign on her own planet; have endless spirit babies to inhabit such a world.
She'd be labeled a lunatic, a nut and every FREEPER putdown possible. But simply put "LDS" next to the exact same concepts for another candidate, and he gets a free pass on this.
Mormonism is unique: Pride cometh before the fall; absolute power corrupts absolutely. So when a potential POTUS believes he is pridefully working his way up to the lofty status of a god, what kind of trustworthiness does that inspire?--to know that the White House would belong to a man who thinks he's a divine superman?
You keep trying to make this claim that all religious views are equal and of no consideration, as if you would vote for a koolaid-brewing Jim Jones candidate (which we know you wouldn't)--and Jones was fairly conservative & treated the poor quite well...up until the mass suicide.
So, WOSG, if a Heaven's Gate member was conservative enough for you; if Rev. Moon moved to the right & ran for POTUS; if another Waco David came along with mega-$ and was "electable"...we'd hear your cascade of wonderful defenses of their "religious affiliations?"
What about a conservative Shaman? Or how about a conservative voodoo priestess? How about if Kucinich's friend, New Age-oriented Shirley MacLaine underwent a similar social values conversion like Romney?
No, the reality is that the lofty "high & Mighty" tolerance folks who preach from the tower of "religious liberty" would quickly descend that tower & walk away from literally hundreds of other social-issues converted cultists.
Go ahead. Tell us with a straight face that you would defend a conservative Anton Lavey (Satanic Bible author). (You won't) Why? Because your tolerance isn't really an absolute; it's just a method--a strategy to play the pity victim card. Elsewise, we'd hear from you & others who would raise the civil rights banner for all minority cultists.
Go ahead. Start your own new ACLU--the American Cultists Liberty Union. At least if you did, you'd begin to have a bit more of my respect. Because then you would show an ounce of consistency. If you're not willing to stand up for EVERY cultic & occultic group under the sun, then sit down & stop the noise. If you are, then go on record & tell us all the different cults & occult reps you would vote for if they were conservative enough.
You’re a moron. Get a life.
No it’s not.
“No it’s not.”
What is your Church’s position on Mormonism then?
“Go ahead. Tell us with a straight face that you would defend a conservative Anton Lavey (Satanic Bible author). (You won’t) Why? Because your tolerance isn’t really a absolute; it’s just a method—a strategy to play the pity victim card. Elsewise, we’d hear from you & others who would raise the civil rights banner for all minority cultists.”
I don’t need to defend their freedom personally, the First Amendment has already given them that protection and most (but alas not all) Americans are grateful for that protection and liberty. But I’ll defend their rights if they are under attack. What Voltaire said. I may disagree with what they say, but I’ll defend their right to say it.
Thank God the Founding Fathers had the foresight to found this country on religious liberty, learning the lessons of European sectarian violence. The junk in this thread alone is a small reminder of how foul and vile religious intolerance can become. Yes, power does corrupt and the power of the state behind religion corrupts religion and destroys freedom in ugly ways. Religion needs to be a part of society, but freedom of conscience is paramount. People were once burned at the stake for religious deviations. It’s great that here in America today they merely get flamed in threads.
Now if you want to be a patriotic voter, understand that we live in a land of religious liberty. If someone from another sect is running for office, why not use the same standard I’ve spoken of - personal character, competence/experience, and convictions/vision. A believing Christian Socialist eco-extremist with bad ethics might be a worse candidate than a rational, upstanding, conservative atheist/Jew/NewAger/Muslim. Maybe, maybe not; all I know is if you prejudicially judge on labels/affiliations and not the person, you’ve decided foolishly.
OTOH, maybe that is too complicated for you .. So, if you do wish to live in a land where blasphemy is forbidden, it’s still against the law in ... pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Here is an authoritative position - St Paul:
Speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15)
What is the Catholic position on Mormonism?
Nope. The Catholic church doesn’t go around using the word ‘cult’ on groups. Only people from denominations too insecure about their own status use that ugly word.
The correct word for a sort-of Christian sect that defies correct faith in Christ is heresy:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp
Mormons aren’t a ‘great heresy’ though, like Protestantism is.
Catholic responses to fundies:
http://www.catholic.com/library/How_to_Talk_with_Fundamentalist.asp
Catholic response to Mormons - word ‘cult’ never used:
http://www.catholic.com/library/noncatholic_groups.asp
“...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps ‘the’ religion; and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect; but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult.” Leo Pfeffer.
“A cult is a religious group different from your own.” Anon.
“I think most Christians who describe Mormonism as a ‘cult’ are making a mistake in moving a technical theological term to the public square where it will surely be heard in the wrong way and abused.” John Mark Reynolds.
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.