Hit and run....stop in long enough to whine about the poor little persecuted mormons, make veiled and unsupported allusions to the "cabal" being "taken to the woodshed", then as usual, have a convenient reason to run away.
Posted on 11/30/2009 6:01:03 PM PST by delacoert
I’ll just leave this here…
Before a defense of any kind of religious discrimination, one ought to make all of the necessary disclaimers: of course I oppose government-sponsored discrimination, and I certainly would not support the kind of absurd treatment described by Steven Reinhart in his piece featured below. That being said, there is a legitimate case to be made for judging any candidate for office by his religious convictions.
In late 2007, Mitt Romney made his somewhat-famous speech on religion, where he spoke the following words:
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
Similarly, Romney has stated: “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.”
If freedom requires religion, if his Mormon faith sustains his life and he will be true to those practices, then I’m at an utter loss as to why we should ignore Romney’s religious beliefs when evaluating his fitness for the White House.
We ask plenty of questions of any Evangelical Christian candidate: what do his beliefs about the nature of God, the nature of the cosmos, and the meaning of man’s life mean for his potential tenure in office? But for whatever reason, these questions are looked at as unnecessarily piercing and prejudiced when asked of a member of a minority faith.
When Sarah Palin gave her fumbling answer about Israel’s settlements, several commentators jumped on her faith, wondering whether she subscribed to the bizarre but potent sect of modern Christianity that believes in the imminence of the End Times. Will anyone ask Mitt Romney about the oddities of the dogma of the Mormon Church? There are plenty of Mormon doctrines that may strike people as a bit odd — and rightly so. It is established in the church that the devout can reach the upper echelons of heaven and eventually become gods themselves, able to create their own universes and govern them as they see fit (all while supervised by the One True God). Why is it that when I bring this up to Romney fans, I am dismissed as a bigot?
As an atheist, I both understand and accept that in a predominantly Christian society, my thoughts on religion are necessarily going to open me up to questions. If I were to ever run for office (don’t count on that, by the way), I would not expect my supporters would try to ward off any questions about my atheism with the victim-card of discrimination. One’s philosophy of religion contributes profoundly to his worldview and thus is a completely valid criterion by which to partially evaluate a candidate’s fitness for office.
I view all religions as equally bizarre and irrational. But mainstream Christianity is often adopted as a cultural guise, meant for purposes of assimilation with the majority. Probe most self-described Christians and you’ll find plenty of deviation from standard dogma. Devotion to Mormonism, which is completely outside of the American mainstream, requires a certain level of commitment. To what extent will Romney’s faith influence his decision-making? I ask that question of devoted Evangelicals and judge them accordingly, and I will do the same of a Mormon. And I am not going to apologize for that.
I usually stay away from the Religious sub-forum but I can't let this comment stand. I don't care what religion he is. I care about what his political views are. Don't presume you know what I am thinking.
I find that quite interesting. FR is a politically conservative website established for the furtherance of conservative ideals. Yet, you & the cabal DAILY post threads &/or posts that have absolutely nothing to do w/ the furtherance of conservative ideals but rather to tear down a church or two that don't meet your religious litmus test. Kind of a strange way to accept folks into the cause don't you think?
I haven't said anything about Romney for some time now. During the last cycle, I thought he was the best viable candidate. He certainly has his warts. I don't know that I will back him this next time around depending on what the choices are. I will support the best viable candidate.
Your repeated assertion that LDS folk blindly support LDS pols is annoying at best, & disingenuous at worst. I don't believe there is a single LDS conservative here on this board that supports or makes arguments for Harry Reid, who happens to be LDS as well. I for one, am actively engaged in the overthrow of Reid in fact. So much for that red herring.
I don't begrudge those who don't support Romney. I think there is merit to many of the arguments against him. What I am against, is the non support simply because he is LDS. Does that exist? Ask Amoreperfectunion. He at least has had the intellectual honesty to admit he would never vote for a Mormon for POTUS, period. If you don't believe there are others that believe likewise here, then you probably believe you're doing a great conservative work in carpet bombing Mormons on a daily basis on the anti-Mormon threads.
Very conservative! /Sarc
The day you folks start spending far more time advancing REAL conservative causes here rather than brow beating your conservative brethren b/c of religious beliefs, is the day you may be taken more seriously.
There was a recent thread where conservatives took you guys to the woodshed over your paranoia w/ Mormons. Perhaps you should seek professional help. At the very least, perhaps it would be good to spend time on a conservative site like FR actually advancing the cause, rather than tearing it down through your malicious rants against conservatives that actually do work hand in hand w/ those that have different religious views. You know, kind of like our fore fathers did.
Some of the cabal here probably wouldn't have voted for Washington, Adams, Jefferson, or Lincoln simply because they weren't Trinitarians, or in other words, their view of "real" Christians. Boggles the mind frankly, especially conservative minds.
No wonder the Libs have so much success portraying the right as conservative loons. You guys often give them a lot of ammo. Got to prep for a bus. trip. Have a great week.
Reno,
Hope this finds you well. We disagree on the false teachings of mormonism, but I consider you a friend in the cause.
Some feedback based on your post:
1. Fortunately, I didn’t have to worry about Romney’s involvement in the whole mormonism heresy, since he was a RINO. I could have safely not voted for him without any regard to his mormonism problem.
2. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, or Lincoln - I could have voted for these former presidents. Based on my extensive reading, they were not in cults. Nor would voting for them have elevated the legitimacy of a cult.
Ironically, America’s Great Contribution to Cults came much
later in her history - after the Great Awakening. In the wake of this spiritual event, a number of significant cults arose, including yours (mormonism), scientology, Christian Science, etc. It is a sad contribution of America to the world, but there ya have it.
In any case, Romney-ites have the freedom to run for office without regard to religion. Americans have the freedom to follow their conscience with regard to a host of issues, including religion. What a country!
I hope Romney runs again so I can vote against him. He dropped out before I got the chance the last time.
best,
ampu
Now the mittbots come crawling out of their holes - we're conservative too, mean old Christians leaving us out of the picture. News flash for ya Reno - conservatives are also found as hindus, moslems, gays, buddists, wicca, etc - are they doing the cry baby? (crickets) When will mittbots grow up and realize this perpetual whining and crying is not really endearing themselves to others out there and only draw attention to your weird neo-gnostic doctrines of a con man. It is not too difficult to understand, mitt is a rino with a slick hairdoo.
As I said before, if mormons want to make their own manifesto incorporating mormom doctrine - knock ur self out. But I can assure you Christian conservatives won't be crying and whining because WE weren't included.
Hit and run....stop in long enough to whine about the poor little persecuted mormons, make veiled and unsupported allusions to the "cabal" being "taken to the woodshed", then as usual, have a convenient reason to run away.
Sorry,
I view the guy as a socialist bordering on a marxist and oppose him for that reason. The only time I would even consider his religion would be if he was a muslim, simply because I see all the other religions as benign and not worth parsing.
Do you know just how simple it is for anyone who cares to check, just how laughably false your rantings are?
- - - - - - - - -
The truth about BY and the danites are available for anyone who wants to do the research. Go ahead and verify they sources, I have.
http://1857massacre.com/MMM/danites_index.htm
http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_danites.html
http://utlm.org/topicalindexa.htm#Blood%20Atonement
http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/reminiscencesofearlyutah_ub021.htm
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no106.htm
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/bancroftshistoryofutah_chapter5.htm
And the book by Will Bagley (LDS) called “Blood of the Prophets”:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0806136391
Why did Joseph Smith hate the PRESBYTERIANS?
He did not hate the Presbyterians.
- - - - -
No, he just went around saying they were an corrupt and their creeds abomination before God. But to be fair, he said that about ALL Christian Churches.
Wow!!!
So what are you doing to further the Conservative cause, huh?
Look at your posts just in the past couple of months, all of them to LDS threads.
Look at the man you wanted for POTUS, one you supported whilst calling yourself a CONSERVATIVE.
Romney would further Conservative goals?
And it was more than just simply you supporting the most viable candidate, you defended him and his health care plan (the biggest “wart” of all) in an exchange with me one time. I am sure there were others.
Irony and comedy, just to gifts you bring to the table.
I hope Romney runs again so I can vote against him.
______________________________________
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
You hater you...
So I think the lot of us are being pretty generous when we try and treat their arguments seriously.
But that's just me.
“Hit and run....stop in long enough to whine about the poor little persecuted mormons, make veiled and unsupported allusions to the “cabal” being “taken to the woodshed”, then as usual, have a convenient reason to run away.”
... it’s not a going problem, it’s a growing problem!
If it happened it wasn't an impressive effort...
Perhaps this thread will refresh your memory:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2381495/posts?q=1&;page=1
I've seen enough flit and run disingenous comments to take those arguements far less seriously.
Two actual real links in one day.
My cup runneth over...
Now to find the woodshed...
LOL!!
I guess hope springs eternal that once they will pay attention when crafting a response, stop and look at what they are writing and go "I believe what?"...
Well, that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard on a FR forum, perhaps ever. How one could be alive in this time and have any sense of history and make such a statement is quite beyond belief.
You’re just a bigot!
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.