Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How and Why Romney Bombed
TCS ^ | 12/7/6/7 | Lee Harris

Posted on 12/07/2007 8:10:37 AM PST by ZGuy

The Reuters headline said: "Mitt Romney Vows Mormon Church Will Not Run White House." Unfortunately, this time Reuters got its story right. In his long-awaited speech designed to win over conservative evangelicals, Romney actually did say something to this effect, making many people wonder why he needed to make such a vow in the first place. It's a bit like hearing Giuliani vow that the mafia will not be running his White House—it is always dangerous to say what should go without saying, because it makes people wonder why you felt the need to say it. Is the Mormon church itching to run the White House, and does Romney need to stand firm against them?

It is true that John Kennedy made a similar vow in his famous 1960 speech on religion, and Romney was clearly modeling his speech on Kennedy's. But the two situations are not the same. When John Kennedy vowed that the Vatican would not control his administration, he was trying to assuage the historical fear of the Roman Catholic Church that had been instilled into generations of Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Kennedy shrewdly didn't say that the Vatican wouldn't try to interfere—something that his Protestant target audience would never have believed in a millions years anyway; instead, Kennedy said in effect, "I won't let the Vatican interfere." And many Protestants believed him—in large part, because no one really thought Kennedy took his religion seriously enough to affect his behavior one way or the other.

The Mormon church is not Romney's problem; it is Romney's own personal religiosity. On the one hand, Romney is too religious for those who don't like religion in public life—a fact that alienates him from those who could care less about a candidate's religion, so long as the candidate doesn't much care about it himself. On the other hand, Romney offends precisely those Christian evangelicals who agree with him most on the importance of religion in our civic life, many of whom would be his natural supporters if only he was a "real" Christian like them, and not a Mormon instead.

To say that someone is not a real Christian sounds rather insulting, like saying that he is not a good person. But when conservative Christians make this point about Romney, they are talking theology, not morality. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Mormon creed will understand at once why Romney felt little desire to debate its theological niceties with his target audience of Christian evangelicals, many of whom are inclined to see Mormonism not as a bona fide religion, but as a cult. In my state of Georgia, for example, there are Southern Baptist congregations that raise thousands of dollars to send missionaries to convert the Mormons to Christianity.

Yet if Romney was playing it safe by avoiding theology, he was treading on dangerous ground when he appealed to the American tradition of religious tolerance to make his case. Instead of trying to persuade the evangelicals that he was basically on their side, he did the worst thing he could do: he put them on the defensive. In his speech Romney came perilously close to suggesting: If you don't support me, you are violating the cherished principle of religious tolerance. But such a claim is simply untenable and, worse, highly offensive.

The Christian evangelicals who are troubled by Romney's candidacy do not pose a threat to the American principle of religious tolerance. On the contrary, they are prepared to tolerate Mormons in their society, just as they are prepared to tolerate atheists and Jews, Muslims and Hindus. No evangelical has said, "Romney should not be permitted to run for the Presidency because he is a Mormon." None has moved to have a constitutional amendment forbidding the election of a Mormon to the Presidency. That obviously would constitute religious intolerance, and Romney would have every right to wax indignant about it. But he has absolutely no grounds for raising the cry of religious intolerance simply because some evangelicals don't want to see a Mormon as President and are unwilling to support him. I have no trouble myself tolerating Satan-worshippers in America, but I would not be inclined to vote for one as President: Does that make me bigot? The question of who we prefer to lead us has nothing to do with the question of who we are willing to tolerate, and it did Romney no credit to conflate these two quite distinct questions. There is nothing wrong with evangelicals wishing to see one of their own in the White House, or with atheists wishing to see one of theirs in the same position.

Romney's best approach might have been to say nothing at all. Certainly that would have been preferable to trying to turn his candidacy into an issue of religious tolerance. Better still, he might have said frankly: "My religion is different and, yes, even a trifle odd. But it has not kept Mormons from dying for their country, or paying their taxes, or educating their kids, or making decent communities in which to live."


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: leeharris; loyalties; mormon; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 901-914 next last
Lots of pro-Romney speech threads here, so here's one not so favorable. Hugh Hewitt's blog review was also very favorable to Mitt, but Hugh's writings were described as "bizarre" over at Red State.

I found it humorous that Hugh, who is the biggest cheerleader for Romney out there, had as his guest host yesterday, Mark Stein who interviewed John Podhoritz (?) and they both agreed that Romney giving that speech was a terrible move that made him look like an amateur and was the worst thing he could have done politically.

1 posted on 12/07/2007 8:10:38 AM PST by ZGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
Mitt Romney, the Mormon (What’s That?!)

By Father Jonathan Morris

2 posted on 12/07/2007 8:13:21 AM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

To Father Jonathan Morris - I don’t recall John F. Kennedy explaining such things as the virgin birth and other finer details about his Roman Catholic faith. I probably wouldn’t have found them relevant either.


3 posted on 12/07/2007 8:16:12 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

It was a good speech, but will not help him.


4 posted on 12/07/2007 8:16:55 AM PST by pissant (Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

I agree it was not a wise move. Today’s columnists have decided to explain all the things Romney left out.


5 posted on 12/07/2007 8:16:57 AM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

As a Mormon (who opposes Romney on his liberal record), I again see this assumption about main-stream christianity.

The jews reguarded all the prophets and even Christ himself as apostates and rejected and killed them. Christians were considered part of a cult early on.

I guess I will take your frivolous words and your minister’s interpretation of the bible as the gospel. Prayer and personal testimony on my part should be abandoned.


6 posted on 12/07/2007 8:17:02 AM PST by Count of Monte Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

Rush said that the speach was a home run. I agree - and Rush is right 98.8% of the time.


7 posted on 12/07/2007 8:17:44 AM PST by rface (kooky inside and out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

I thought he did a great job .. stated his position
clearly and gave historical information on which
America needed reminding about religion and politics.


8 posted on 12/07/2007 8:18:23 AM PST by STARWISE (They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

Regardless of how Romney’s speech went, this is reflecting VERY poorly on evangelicals.


9 posted on 12/07/2007 8:19:13 AM PST by Hoodlum91 (I support global warming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
Here's John Podhoretz' take:

Mitt Romney’s Boilerplate Mistake

John Podhoretz - 12.06.2007 - 13:08

So Mitt Romney, facing the rise of Mike Huckabee’s Christian-centric campaign in Iowa and judging that the Huckabee surge is related to discomfort with Romney’s Mormonism, gave his much-anticipated speech on faith this morning. It’s perfectly fine Republican boilerplate — faith must inform our views but it does not guide them, the public square should not be naked, our Founders believed in religion and yet even they had to deal with intolerance toward minority faiths, Martin Luther King was really very good, etc. etc. Many commentators on the Right are praising the speech, but I fear they’re grading on a curve; strictly as a matter of rhetoric, it tended toward the bland. The only genuinely novel aspect of it was the addition of the Mormon trail to a brief account of the history of religious intolerance in America (”Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths…”).

The key passage is this:

I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith. Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin….

If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers — I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

That’s entirely fine. But there’s something oddly pointless about this protestation. Who is the audience for this speech, aside from people like me who make their living in part watching them and reading their texts and writing about them? No one thought Romney would say that Mormon elders would play a leading role in his White House counseling him on policy. Anyone inclined to believe such a thing won’t be convinced by Romney’s protestations in any case.

Romney has always had an uphill battle in this election, although you’re not supposed to say it, as it will occasion someone else delivering you a long speech about religious tolerance. As far as minority religions go, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is one of the minority-est. There are, by at least one count, three times as many Jews in the United States. The number of Americans who openly profess to be Christian is around 74 percent; the number of those raised Christian is 84 percent. Americans are without a doubt the most tolerant people on earth, but religion is very important to them, and someone whose fellow believers number 1/55th of the population of the United States is someone who is going to have trouble closing the deal with voters.

For those who don’t know Romney is a Mormon, well, they sure will now. For the next two or three days, it’s all anybody will know about him. Chances are it is the word that people will most associate with him from here on out. I don’t think that’s a good direction for a campaign that finds itself in the fight of its life in Iowa against the most explicitly Christian candidate in the field. (The only response so far comparable to mine is David Frum’s, though his typically trenchant criticism has more to do with the underlying meaning of the speech.)

»Back to Contentions

 

Link

10 posted on 12/07/2007 8:19:30 AM PST by greyfoxx39 (Romney, fooled TWICE by a Columbian gardener...what kind of discernment for POTUS is this?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

It was a good speech, but if it was intended to influence Evangelicals, I doubt it was successful.


11 posted on 12/07/2007 8:20:06 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
We did not think Romney bombed. He gave and excellent speech.

We still prefer Duncan Hunter as a first choice!

12 posted on 12/07/2007 8:20:28 AM PST by Dustbunny (The BIBLE - Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
Here is David Frum:


Thursday, December 06, 2007

That Dog Won't Hunt

Sorry to dissent from my colleagues on the Corner, but once the murmurs over the oratory subside, people are going to realize: that speech did not work. Here's why:

"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance."

To be blunt, Romney is saying:

It is legitimate to ask a candidate, "Is Jesus the son of God?"

But it is illegitimate to ask a candidate, "Is Jesus the brother of Lucifer?"

It is hard for me to see a principled difference between these two questions, and I think on reflection that the audiences to whom Romney is trying to appeal will also fail to see such a difference. Once Romney answered any question about the content of his religious faith, he opened the door to every question about the content of his religious faith. This speech for all its eloquence will not stanch the flow of such questions.

Bad move - and one with very unfair results to a candidate who all must acknowledge is a man who has proven that his mind actually operates in a highly empirical, data-driven, and uncredulous way.

Had he focused instead on simply arguing that presidents need only prove themselves loyal to American values, he would have been on safe ground. Instead, he over-reached, super-adding to his civic appeal an additional appeal to voters who demand faith in Jesus as a requirement in a president. That is an argument that will not work - and a game Mitt Romney cannot win.

 

13 posted on 12/07/2007 8:20:31 AM PST by greyfoxx39 (Romney, fooled TWICE by a Columbian gardener...what kind of discernment for POTUS is this?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Count of Monte Logan

Did Joseph Smith “idolize” Muhammed?


14 posted on 12/07/2007 8:23:19 AM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
I don’t recall John F. Kennedy explaining such things as the virgin birth and other finer details about his Roman Catholic faith

The virgin birth is not exclusively Catholic...it's Christian, gospel truth in the Bible

.

15 posted on 12/07/2007 8:23:19 AM PST by repentant_pundit (Strong leaders are overrated. We need strong followers...of the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hoodlum91
Regardless of how Romney’s speech went, this is reflecting VERY poorly on evangelicals.

They have been about as useful as the "human shields" (and just as wise). ;-)

16 posted on 12/07/2007 8:24:20 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

Its always interesting to compare initial reactions to a given political speech, after time has passed.

The media and political commentators of the day mocked Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address unmercifully. As we all know today, its known as one of the greatest speeches ever given to millions, more than a century later.

The same was said of Reagans ‘Tear Down This Wall’ speech, more or less. Today we all know it was one of those moments that changed the world we grew up in (if you were alive for Duck and Cover training in grade school, you know what I mean here).

I suspect Romney’s speech will survive the test of time, not on par with my two examples, but the response to it is on par with both from what I’m reading today, in some quarters.

I don’t think the detractors comments will survive that same test, any more than those denigrating Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or Reagans ‘Wall’ speech have.

Just my opinion, it was a good speech, well delivered from the heart. We’ll see if it was a turning point less than a year from now.


17 posted on 12/07/2007 8:24:31 AM PST by Badeye (Free Willie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: repentant_pundit
The virgin birth is not exclusively Catholic...it's Christian, gospel truth in the Bible

Then a Mormon would believe it too?

18 posted on 12/07/2007 8:25:12 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rface


RUSH: I want to start with Mitt Romney today, Mitt Romney's speech. Frankly, I thought what we saw today, folks, was a Republican candidate for president giving an inspiring speech. It was an inspiring speech about American values, including religion. Mitt Romney did this because he has been relentlessly attacked as something less than a true American. I watched this. I had seen some excerpts from the speech published before he made it. I thought he was inspiring, folks. I think he set exactly the right tone and I am stunned by some of the criticism I am seeing of this speech, particularly on some conservative websites. "He didn't include atheists; he didn't include agnostics; he didn't say and reach out to Hindus." I don't understand it. Of all things to take from this speech that Romney gave today, that he didn't reach out to atheists and didn't reach out to agnostics, is beyond me. I thought he showed today his ability to confront, to articulate, to persuade, and to lead. (cont.)

Mitt Romney's Inspiring Speech

Mitt Romney Raised the Bar

VIDEO: Watch Entire Speech Here
19 posted on 12/07/2007 8:25:17 AM PST by Miss Didi ("Good heavens, woman, this is a war not a garden party!" Dr. Meade, Gone with the Wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry; FastCoyote; MHGinTN; Pan_Yans Wife; svcw; Elsie; aMorePerfectUnion; Colofornian; ...

Ping


20 posted on 12/07/2007 8:26:16 AM PST by greyfoxx39 (Romney, fooled TWICE by a Columbian gardener...what kind of discernment for POTUS is this?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

The article said — “To say that someone is not a real Christian sounds rather insulting, like saying that he is not a good person. But when conservative Christians make this point about Romney, they are talking theology, not morality. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Mormon creed will understand at once why Romney felt little desire to debate its theological niceties with his target audience of Christian evangelicals, many of whom are inclined to see Mormonism not as a bona fide religion, but as a cult. In my state of Georgia, for example, there are Southern Baptist congregations that raise thousands of dollars to send missionaries to convert the Mormons to Christianity.”

Well, it’s very clear that one can say, without a doubt, that the Mormon teachings and doctrines are clearly not traditional, historic and/or basic, fundamental (meaning “of the fundamentals”) Christianity.

In other words, Mormon teaching and doctrine *is not* Christian teaching and doctrine.

All one has to find out, about a “particular person” in regards to this particular issue is whether they adhere to Mormon teaching or doctrine — or rather — Christian teaching and doctrine (which is in opposition to Mormon teaching and doctrine).

Thus, while it does sound uncomplimentary, in a way, to say someone is “not Christian” — it’s definitely not uncomplimentary to say that Mormon doctrine and teaching is *not* Christian teaching and doctrine. And that’s how these things should be framed — because it is so abundantly clear from much Christian research and looking at much of the Mormon teaching and materials, that this is so.

What is so puzzling is why the Mormons try so hard at pretending to adhere to Christian doctrine and teaching and then go to trash it in their own teachings and undo it all by what they consider their authoritative works. Why don’t the Mormons simply distinguish themselves clearly — to the public — as *radically different* in their theology from Christian theology. That would be the much more honest position.

And when one doesn’t take the “honest position” (in regards to one’s own theology) one must ask why one is being so dishonest in this matter.

Regards,
Star Traveler

P.S. — I don’t have a problem with someone choosing Mormon theology for themselves, if that’s what they want, because the true Creator God of the universe allows every person the choice of whether they believe in the Messiah of Israel and His salvation and provided according to the Scriptures (and as outlined in Christian theology). Just be honest and say that you don’t accept the God of Christian theology and accept a different god of a different theology. It’s a free country here. Everyone can choose their own religion (even if it doesn’t get you “votes”... :-) ... ). Oh..., wait a minute..., that may be the source of the problem... ah yes... “getting votes...”


21 posted on 12/07/2007 8:27:51 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
Then a Mormon would believe it too?

Yes

22 posted on 12/07/2007 8:31:31 AM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Hoodlum91

“Regardless of how Romney’s speech went, this is reflecting VERY poorly on evangelicals.” - Hoodlum91


You made a good point. Personally I think Romney did an excellent job yesterday....but evangelicals (the ones who view any faith bu their own a “cult”) will look bad if they continue to shy away from Romney because he is a Mormon.

Also, of course, evangelicals backing the very-liberal Huckabee wont help either


23 posted on 12/07/2007 8:32:09 AM PST by UCFRoadWarrior (Kevin Smith for Heisman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy; greyfoxx39
Mitt gives a great speech about America and gets hammered.

Meanwhile, where are the queries to B. Hussein Obama about his Islamic background and beliefs? Where are the polls asking Evangelicals of their views regarding Islam?

Oh, that’s right, daily colonoscopies are for the GOP only.

24 posted on 12/07/2007 8:32:50 AM PST by Jacquerie (Islam is incompatible with these United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

An odd position.

Dirty Harry Reid is Mormon, as were/are Flake (AZ), John Doolittle (CA), Wally Herger (CA), Howard McKeon (CA), Ernest Istook (OK), Mike Simpson (ID), Thomas Udall (NM), Rob Bishop (UT), and Chris Cannon (UT). Then in the Senate - Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, both from Utah, Mike Crapo of Idaho and Gordon Smith from Oregon.

I don’t understand why so many people dish crap on Mitt - the Congress usually has a greater effect on people than a president......


25 posted on 12/07/2007 8:32:51 AM PST by ASOC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
"..Mark Stein who interviewed John Podhoritz (?) and they both agreed that Romney givin..."

If you are into speaking and writing as exposition, it was a bad speech on many levels. If you are into emotional, political speech as theater, it was a good product/production.

26 posted on 12/07/2007 8:33:14 AM PST by Leisler (RNC, RINO National Committee. Always was, always will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

The article says — “The Christian evangelicals who are troubled by Romney’s candidacy do not pose a threat to the American principle of religious tolerance. On the contrary, they are prepared to tolerate Mormons in their society, just as they are prepared to tolerate atheists and Jews, Muslims and Hindus. No evangelical has said, “Romney should not be permitted to run for the Presidency because he is a Mormon.” None has moved to have a constitutional amendment forbidding the election of a Mormon to the Presidency. That obviously would constitute religious intolerance, and Romney would have every right to wax indignant about it. But he has absolutely no grounds for raising the cry of religious intolerance simply because some evangelicals don’t want to see a Mormon as President and are unwilling to support him. I have no trouble myself tolerating Satan-worshippers in America, but I would not be inclined to vote for one as President: Does that make me bigot?”

And that’s why Romney is *not electable* (can’t win). He won’t get the support of committed Christians and/or Evangelicals (as a “group”). I know I won’t be voting for Romney is he ever gets the “nod”. I’m just hoping he doesn’t get the nomination, so I won’t have that kind of situation to deal with.

Regards,
Star Traveler


27 posted on 12/07/2007 8:33:22 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASOC; greyfoxx39
I don’t understand why so many people dish crap on Mitt - the Congress usually has a greater effect on people than a president......

I can think of at least 5 reasons why this is so:

Point 1: If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist! The ramifications of having someone who may have something pulled over on them in the White House as the “leader of the free world” is no comparison to any other elected position.

Point 2: (This especially applies to POTUS and may or may not apply to all races): Bill Clinton was a presidential role-model disaster for our young generation re: the scandal. Any president the voting block elevates to the highest role model position in our land accords the highest vote of respectability to the public aspects of what that person stands for. If that person, for example, is a neatly tucked-away communist who's adopted a mask of "family values," & we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere. It would fuel their door-to-door boldness and other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!"

Point 3: (Not sure if this applies beyond POTUS). The Bible shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the true Lord & who do not worship false gods/idols. The OT is replete w/ such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture. It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" just like the soup kitchen down the street. History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader holds, the more trouble that leader's "exhaust" settles on the people-at-large. Kings & presidents need all the grace, mercy, & guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving & directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god & has no true relationship w/the living God is stifling access to God's resources; & a nation may suffer for that.

Point 4: Media intensity for POTUS cannot be compared to any other election. Taking potential voter alienation into consideration (based upon common polls), & taking the MSM onslaught into consideration in '08, a smart voter MUST consider candidate viability. Come '08, we'll see MSM questions like, "Do you believe you will be a god? Do you believe conservative voters from other churches are 'apostates?' Do believe that although polygamy is no longer practiced on earth, it's being practiced at now & for eternity in another dimension known as the celestial kingdom?"

Point 5: If I... .

(a) was a POTUS candidate from a commonly regarded "cultic group"; and .

(b) mislabel 75% of my voting base's primary faith tenets & claims as mere "apostate" status (Note: 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party) Then...

Conclusion: I not only show open disdain for my voting base, but betray my ability to inspire confidence in my ability to accurately define a major world religion. If I cannot accurately define a major world religion, what confidence do I inspire re: my ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?

28 posted on 12/07/2007 8:35:23 AM PST by Colofornian (Tell me why again people want to vote for someone whose next career stop is God's throne?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

Thanks. Personally it’s just not that important to me one way or the other. The point I was trying to make is that there are lots of Roman Catholic beliefs that are specific to their religion that some believe while others do not. Yet no one ever expects a RC candidate to somehow justify each one of these beliefs as “Christian”. (obviously virgin birth is not one of these)


29 posted on 12/07/2007 8:35:37 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

I think it was a good speech.

But it was a sign of desperation on Romney’s part. He is chalking up his losing to Huckabee to bigotry. Thats bull.

Huck hasn’t taken much of Romney’s support away.


30 posted on 12/07/2007 8:36:32 AM PST by JRochelle (Thanks to RomneyCare, abortions in MA are at the reduced price of only $50.00!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

Ah yes..., that was good...


“The problem is that the much-hyped speech did nothing to achieve his goal of convincing doubting Evangelicals and Catholics that his Mormon beliefs will not hinder him from being a good president. Instead, for the most part, he pretended he wasn’t Mormon, or that being Mormon was so strange it is in his interest to keep it secret. In this speech about Mormonism, he uttered the word “Mormon” just once, while saying “Jews” and “Muslims” two times each and “Catholic” three times. Still more abrasive to Christian sensibilities was the attempt to pass off Mormon doctrine about Jesus Christ as equal to that of Christianity. He said, “What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the savior of mankind.”

OK, Mitt. But do you really want to get into what that means for you?”


Thanks for that article.

Regards,
Star Traveler


31 posted on 12/07/2007 8:36:46 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

This BS about Romney not addressing the finer details of his faith is just that, BS and smokescreen.

Is there any religion on the planet that does not have some pretty strange (if viewed dispassionately) core beliefs? Virgin birth? Rising from the dead? C’mon.

I confess that it is BS such as this that has driven me from organized religion, but since it is difficult to lose my upbringing, I find myself simply agnostic with a big helping of secular humanism. I await my coming flaming for admitting such.


32 posted on 12/07/2007 8:38:40 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
The virgin birth is not exclusively Catholic...it's Christian, gospel truth in the Bible

Then a Mormon would believe it too?

Sorry rhombus, I don't know the answer to that. I only know Biblical Christianity, and some of my former Catholic lessons.

Maybe someone else on this thread can help.

.

33 posted on 12/07/2007 8:39:48 AM PST by repentant_pundit (Strong leaders are overrated. We need strong followers...of the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Hoodlum91
Regardless of how Romney’s speech went, this is reflecting VERY poorly on evangelicals.

How's that?

34 posted on 12/07/2007 8:40:51 AM PST by Choozer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hoodlum91

How is that? Where is all the anti-mormon bigotry in Iowa?

If we don’t vote for Romney we are bigots?

That is what the line will be when he loses.

How pathetic.


35 posted on 12/07/2007 8:41:20 AM PST by JRochelle (Thanks to RomneyCare, abortions in MA are at the reduced price of only $50.00!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

We do.


36 posted on 12/07/2007 8:43:29 AM PST by Michael Knight (Young loner in a dangerous world of liberals who operate above the law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
And many Protestants believed him—in large part, because no one really thought Kennedy took his religion seriously enough to affect his behavior one way or the other.

This is pure B.S. I don't know how old this writer is, but I am old enough to remember JFK's candidacy. In 1960, when JFK was running, the general public did not know of his behavior with women, etc. One of his closest friends and advisors was the late Cardinal Cushing of Boston, one of he most powerful clerics in America at that time.

37 posted on 12/07/2007 8:43:44 AM PST by Inspectorette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: repentant_pundit

Thanks, but it’s not really that important to me. It’s just a red herring. My point was nobody expects every RC candidate to explain the intricacies of the RC faith that aren’t believed by other “Christian” faiths. This discussion of who is in and who is out is probably not something that any person is qualified to make so statements like Mormons aren’t Christian just seem preposterous to me.


38 posted on 12/07/2007 8:44:26 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Michael Knight

Thanks. See my other posts. The details are really unimportant to me.


39 posted on 12/07/2007 8:45:34 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
1. Confess your virulent, and personal hate against Mitt, and all Mormons. You might also need be institutionalized, water boarded and electo shocked to plumb the bottomless depths of your black hearted Christian ism, of which, even you live unawares. (Leave it to the experts)

2. Later, publicly express your unqualified love for all things Mitt and Mormon(ish).

3. With in limits, you’ll now be qualified to make pre approved statements vis a vis Mitt, et al.

Got it? Carry on.

40 posted on 12/07/2007 8:45:47 AM PST by Leisler (RNC, RINO National Committee. Always was, always will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Choozer; JRochelle

This is being spun, rightly or wrongly, as the only reason Mitt had to make this speech is because evangelicals are too blinded by religion to make rational choices. I’ve already seen and heard it. Not in the media, but with normal folks. Most people don’t view religion as a major factor in their politicians and this is being used to show how bigoted the evangelicals, and by extension, the GOP is.

Mitt is coming out looking better and the evangelicals are lookings like religious kooks.


41 posted on 12/07/2007 8:49:25 AM PST by Hoodlum91 (I support global warming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dmz
This BS about Romney not addressing the finer details of his faith is just that, BS and smokescreen. Is there any religion on the planet that does not have some pretty strange (if viewed dispassionately) core beliefs? Virgin birth? Rising from the dead? C’mon.

I agree and tried to make a similar point on this thread. These things however didn't drive me away from religion. Instead, it just made it much more personal for me and made me less dependent on others and their organizations and exact interpretation of books that have been translated and retranslated by fallible humans.

42 posted on 12/07/2007 8:51:28 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

This article is absurd. It basically follows the format “True Romney said he likes apple pie and loves his mother, and all politicians have said that, but ....” And then we can hear reason being tortured as the bizarre criticism unfolds. Ridiculous.


43 posted on 12/07/2007 8:51:41 AM PST by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
I was waiting to see where he would bomb trying to emulate JFKs vote-for-me-I-am-only-a-pretend-Catholic speech. He did a good job instead. I don't think he will make inroads into the hard evangelical vote that is discombobulated because the term "Christian" is in the LDS description of that faith. But I think he eased the minds of a lot of other folks who needed to see him confident and sincere and on the side of folks who know that Christian Values are the bedrock of the Republic. LDS is a repository of those values in higher and more effectgive concentration than just about any other major religious grouping in the country. That is day to day values regarding homosexuality, social relativity, the Ten Commandments and other things that are actually relevant to the way he will approach his job. The perceived nature of Jesus and the LDS conception of the Eschaton is NOT relevant to the running of the country. It is as silly for religiơus Christians to reject him for his particular Faith as it would be to reject him for his choice of breakfast cereal. Is the real atheism and Marxist Faith of the Democrats preferable to Christian Values as held and espoused by someone whose Faith is not quite orthodox? What about Mrs. Clinton's "faith?" Have any of yall looked up Hussein's church? How is it Christian? It is at least 95% Black Nationalist and they say "Jesus" a lot.
44 posted on 12/07/2007 8:51:43 AM PST by arthurus (Better to fight them OVER THERE than to have to fight them OVER HERE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rface
Rush said that the speach was a home run

Rush would have spelled "speech" correctly, as he keeps notes in his magical Mormon underpants.

45 posted on 12/07/2007 8:52:37 AM PST by humblegunner (My KungFu is ten times power.©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....” And that’s good enough for me.


46 posted on 12/07/2007 8:55:00 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Choozer
"How's that?

You know, them. Somewhere. Out there, up in the hills. Or 'holler' as they call'm. You know, the millions of black tooth stumped, snake charming, pint bottle booze in the preachers coat pocket Eee-van-jell-icles. Those types.

High school graduates. Biscuit and gravy eaters, daughters in Daisy Dukes( not that there is anything wrong with that ), moonshiners, cousin marrying, jug eared.

We all know them. Somewhere. There's a hundred millions of them. Any moment they're ready to descend upon slick city fellers and shoot them with their squirrel guns. So, don't align yourself with these hill/swamp/ strawmen.

47 posted on 12/07/2007 8:56:18 AM PST by Leisler (RNC, RINO National Committee. Always was, always will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

just maybe I spelt speach the way I wanted to.....and maybe I don’t know what’s magic about the underpants? Where did this term come from?


48 posted on 12/07/2007 8:56:57 AM PST by rface (kooky inside and out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: rhombus; repentant_pundit

“This discussion of who is in and who is out is probably not something that any person is qualified to make so statements like Mormons aren’t Christian just seem preposterous to me.”


People keep pretending that this is just a personal thought, but in reality this is the official position of all Christian leadership.

Whether we are Catholic or Greek Orthodox or Southern Baptist or whatever, we should know that the official position of our church is that Mormonism is a non Christian cult.


49 posted on 12/07/2007 8:57:18 AM PST by ansel12 (“Sanctuary Mansion? The savings help me to become leader of the anti-illegal worker war. Romney 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Where are the queries about Joseph Smith’s regard for Muhammed?

““I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ””

Is Romney able to discern the difference between Jasser and members of the political jihadist CAIR or would the beliefs of the founder of his religion get in the way?


50 posted on 12/07/2007 8:59:20 AM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 901-914 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson