Posted on 02/27/2009 12:24:55 PM PST by delacoert
Judging by that poll, I guess I do live a sheltered political life. That’s pretty astonishing.
At the same time, it’s impossible to divine exactly what everyone had in mind when responding to poll questions, so I’ll try to clarify. I’m not going to pass a blanket judgment on people who give some consideration to religion in their decision-making process. That’s all very individual, and I can understand having SOME affinity for candidates of your own faith. But for people who would flat-out disqualify a candidate because of his or her religion? Yes, I think that’s bigoted.
At the moment it’s hard to think of any religion other than radical Islam that would present serious problems for me, but I added “and the like” to account for any other faith that might, in the future, choose to associate itself with mass murder. I suppose Satanism isn’t too appealing either. Blatant identification with evil incarnate would lead me to question whether your heart is in the right place, yes. Again, these are extreme examples. For any faith whose adherents are generally peaceful and law-abiding - such as Mormonism - I don’t care about the theological specifics.
Thank you, in all seriousness, for posting that poll though. Most illuminating.
My primary discriminator was his history as Gov. of Massachusetts. You don't get to be gov there by running as a conservative. That is what generated my initial opposition. There were mormons here that see it strictly as a religious issue. That was only a secondary issue - an individual that would accept and buy into a belief system generated concerns - especially when they claim to be Christian - yet do not accept Christian as Christians. Smith's goal was the establishment of a theocracy - not our representative republic. That mindset continues in varying degrees today.
Thank you for responding. (Many times, a poster will post a hit&run comment, and then when challenged, won't bother to answer back). So I appreciate that you took the time to read my response, and to communicate back. That shows both a willingness to be open to other considerations and maturity.
At the same time, it’s impossible to divine exactly what everyone had in mind when responding to poll questions...I’m not going to pass a blanket judgment on people who give some consideration to religion in their decision-making process. That’s all very individual, and I can understand having SOME affinity for candidates of your own faith.
Well, I won't try to "divine" that either. Still, the Salt Lake Trib clearly indicated in Feb '08 that up to 96% of Utah Republican voters based their primary vote for Romney on the basis of a candidate's "qualities" -- not primarily issue stances. That equates to LDS voters voting for an LDS candidate because of the LDS connection.(And we know also that 93-94% of LDS voters in states like AZ & Nevada voted for Romney). While you indicate it's "OK" for "affinity" voters who vote on the basis of religious affiliation (and I think that's OK, too), I guess I just don't understand the disconnect of how it's OK to gush forth with what you might label as "prejudice" or "bias" in taking religion into primary (or only) consideration if you're giving an affirmative vote but it's suddenly not OK to do exactly the same thing if you're giving an avoidance or negative vote.
Both groups should be equally accused or equally absolved of such accusations.
Below I provide several considerations a voter may make re: a candidate's religion. (Keep in mind, tho, that some of the points below might apply only to a POTUS candidate -- and not office candidates across the board):
Point 1: This would open the door wide open for the massive LDS public relations propaganda campaign. (This especially applies to POTUS and may or may not apply to all political 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 2: Let's say the candidate is an open doctrinaire communist. He comes to me (let's say I'm a successful businessman who has benefitted from capitalism) & says: "If you check out my most closely-held tenets of my 'faith,' they state that you are an apostate from Marx. Every capitalistic creed is an abomination before the sovereign state. Your capitalistic leaders are corrupt. There are only two economic systems: the system of the devil (if he exists), capitalism; and the perfect ideal system, communism. I can expect your vote, then?"
Now ya wanna explain how the above is any different than a doctrinaire Mormon who subscribes to the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, verses 18-19? I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join NONE of them, for they were ALL wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that ALL their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were ALL corrupt..." LDS cannot just take or leave for this is authoritative "Scripture"; this verse originates as the supposed description of the very foundation of the church--the First Vision of Joseph Smith. One of the top 4 teachings explained by every LDS missionary is the doctrine of the universal apostasy of the historic Christian church (they teach this right alongside their key doctrine of "restoration"). Any true-believing LDS candidate (not necessarily a Jack Mormon candidate) who approaches us historic Christians is saying: "You are an apostate; I am a restorationist built upon the complete ashes of your faith. Your creeds--all of them--are an 'abomination' before God. Your professing believers are 'corrupt.' As it says in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:9-10, there's only two churches...Ours, the Church of the Lamb; and yours, the Church of the devil. Now, that I've properly inspired you, Mr. Joe Voter, I can expect your vote on Tuesday, then?" [Just because this is NOT communicated face-to-face by an LDS candidate or somebody at the LDS grass roots level does not mean it's not being done millions of times each year as every Pearl of Great Price/Book of Mormon comes off the printing press in dozens of languages--all supported by tithing members...and, by the LDS missionary enterprise which is supported by every local ward & stake whereby all 60,000 LDS missionaries go door-to-door proclaiming their doctrine of alleged Christian apostasy...]
Point 3: Taking this voter alienation into consideration, & taking the potential MSM onslaught into consideration in '12 with an African-American Democrat running against a 1978-policy changing LDS church, a smart voter MUST consider candidate viability. We would see MSM questions like, “Mr. Romney, why as a 30 year-old adult did you belong to a religion restricting blacks from priesthood?” "Do you believe you will be a god? Do you believe conservative voters from other churches are 'apostates?' Do you 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 4: (related to Point 1 & applicable only to POTUS):
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? (Besides, how are LDS who in print openly label all Christians as “apostates” any different than Muslims who in print openly label all Christians as “infidels?”)
Point 5: (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.
And who will be running against him?
ONE sided conjectures ain't worth much.
(chuckle)
ROTFL!
individual mormons may be Christian or not - mormonism is decidedly NOT Christian.
It is a polytheistic, heretical, amalgamation of Hindu, New Age thought, and most heresies the Christian Church condemned a thousand years ago... placemarker.
I agree!
Mormonism owes more to William Blake than Jesus Christ.
There aren't "many" that would be so silly. What are you even talking about? There are a lot of confused people in the U.S.
Jesus founded the Catholic Church. That information is level 1 basic Grade School truth.
And mormons are not "Christian", and joe smith is only a false prophet. Jesus warned us of those.
This is all so basic. Mormons are smithians, is all. Nothing more; nothing less. Call 'em as you see 'em. Get the facts.
You must be pretty new to FR. I am Catholic and have seen the most outlandish anti-Catholic statements on FR. Just bring up the subject of the Vatican, the Pope, Excommunication, or Theistic Evolution and stand back.
Mormons aren't Christian. Let's get real.
Basic stuff, folks.
“Mormons aren’t Christian. Let’s get real.”
__________________
I have a question for you. You seem to be expert on who is and isn’t a Christian. I’ve often been told many in the following group is Christian and we should therefore be accepting of them.
What do you think?
____________
Death in Mexican Culture
The image of death is pervasive in many aspects of Mexican culture. Probably the most widely known manifestation of this is the feast of the Day of the Dead on the second of November, when Mexicans frequently parade skeletal images and render honors to their deceased loved ones. Another example is the image of the Catrina Calavera, a skeleton in a wedding dress that was popularized in the satirical works of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century artist José Guadalupe Posada.
The fact is, Santa Muerte probably has more in common with the roguish saint Jesus Malverde, who is sometimes glorified in Mexico’s famous (arguably infamous) narcocorridos, or Mexican drug-ballads, and who is worshipped by Mexican drug traffickers as a protector saint, especially in the Mexican State of Sinaloa.[7] There may also be influence or inspiration from Catholic-African synchronistic religious practices, such as Haitian Voodoo, Cuban Santeria, or Brazilian Palo Mayombe, with some witchcraft thrown into the mix.
The color symbolism in the Santa Muerte is distinct from other esoteric practices. Although other religious/occult traditions use candles in ceremonies, especially in Afro-Caribbean traditions, the association of a particular color of candle with a particular intention seems more akin to the practices of European occultists, especially Wiccans. There is even some direct correspondence in certain colors. However, this is not consistent, suggesting possible influence but not direct heritage. Furthermore, the parallel is limited specifically to the color of candles, not the vestments of the statuary.[23] Finally, the functions of the colors themselves consistently although not without exception, have applications for crime: lust, power, help with legal power, cursing enemies, defending against curses from enemies, and help with drug addiction. Although these benefits may have applications for any follower, they would particularly appeal to those who live in a world of drugs and crime.
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/Santa-Muerte/santa-muerte.htm#death
Brilliant one how to do expect one to know they been ping if you don’t put it in the ping window?
I cannot ascribe a lot of the anti-Catholic rhetoric to ignorance. Too many have been raised in a legacy of militant protestantism. Many of the posts simply leave me with a WTF???
It is for this reason that I sympathize with the Mormons. I do not accept their religious views, nor they mine, but I have always found them to be decent, honest, patriotic, hard working people and really good neighbors.
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.