Posted on 10/30/2007 12:08:40 PM PDT by delacoert
Sometimes things happen in American politics that make no sense at all. We are experiencing just one of those moments in the 2008 presidential campaign.
I thought that the concept of a religious test for public office in our country was put to bed once and for all when John Kennedy, a Catholic, was elected president in 1960 and Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, was nominated for vice president in 2000.
Now we have a candidate with a record of accomplishment, Mitt Romney, who is consistently lagging in the polls with the most credible reason being that significant numbers of Republican primary voters will not support him because of his Mormon religion.
When voters, particularly in the South, are asked to identify candidates that they would not support for president under any circumstances, Romney leads the list. Romney is rejected as a potential presidential candidate in this type polling more often than other polarizing figures such as Rudy Giuliani. It has become increasingly clear that many conservative voters will not support an otherwise qualified candidate who happens to be a Mormon.
As a Democrat, I wouldn’t vote for Romney in the general election if he is nominated by the Republican Party. But I’ll be damned if I can understand why he should be disqualified from seeking his party’s nomination because of his religion. This makes no logical sense in the world’s greatest democracy in the 21st century.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Martin Frost is a highly partisan Democrat who, when he was in Congress, spent time as Chairman of the Democratic House Campaign Committee. This piece is an attack on Republicans that is not born out by serious polling, but merely Martin being Martin.
When reading tripe like this, remember to consider the source.
I have defended the view that there should not be a religious test for public office; however, as a conservative or traditional Christian, it is a difficult discussion to vote for cult member. I will vote for him if he is chosen to be the GOP candidate, and I will base this primarily upon his political conservatism, not religious affiliation. Nevertheless, I would prefer that he were not a Mormon.
“Mitt is doing very nicely and I know of no person who won’t support him because of his religion....at least he has one.”
Stick long enough on the threads with the Mitt-bashers and you’ll find a few... but they are very few. The Democrats want to make an issue where there really is none.
Meantime, Romney has picked up many endorsements and notes of support from evangelicals and other Christian leaders.
He has also been leading in polls in IA, NH, NV, and MI, so ‘lagging in polls’ is a distortion.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/15/bob-jones-dean-endorses-romney/
A top official at Bob Jones University, the Evangelical Christian school with a history of anti-Mormon rhetoric, plans to throw his weight behind Mormon presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
Robert R. Taylor, dean of the university’s college of arts and sciences, said he believes the former Massachusetts governor is the only Republican candidate who both stands a chance of winning the White House and will reliably implement the anti-abortion, antigay marriage, pro-gun agenda of Christian conservatives. (See a related post on Romney.)
“The fact that I’m seen as a Religious Right person would hopefully get others to step out for him,” Taylor said in an interview in Greenville, S.C., the university’s hometown.
Not so. ColorCountry refers to herself as a "born-again" Mormon. I don't refer to her as an "apostate." I'm sure I don't agree with her on everything; that doesn't mean that I issue some blanket statement on her (like the LDS "scripture" does) calling her an "apostate."
Show me where Catholics label Baptists as apostates. (I've worked and rubbed shoulders with plenty of Catholics; none have ever considered Protestants as "apostates"). [Straw man on your part]
...all Jewish faithful label all Christians as of an apostate faith.
Technically, an "apostate" is one who has left the faith. So if Jewish faithful never considered Christians to be of of the faith to begin with, then, no, they don't label us as such. [How many strikes, again, does it take to strike out?]
Additionally, you said ALL Jewish faithful. There, you are doubly wrong, for thousands of Messianic Jews are among those "Jewish faithful"--and they don't consider us as "apostates," either. (If you want a precise answer, just contact Jews for Jesus)
So when can we expect just one time for you to admit that you are wrong?
Let’s face it. If anyone thinks they are right, they automatically think others are wrong. BIG DEAL.
We all have certain "blinders" on. That doesn't mean that just because the church filter I see through = all other church filters are wrong. If we agree on the essentials, then the rest is secondary. (Just like if I agree on the essentials with my spouse, then the rest is secondary. Unity does not = Unanimity)
Face it, there are some "secondary" things where folks can agree to disagree. (If the two believe contradictory things, both can't be right and in fact, both may be wrong).
Finally, LDS "scripture" takes blanket condemnation of all non-members to the nth degree. For example, I can believe that LDS are "right" on some things...losing your salvation, for example. I don't label every creed they adhere to as "an abomination before the Lord." Nor do I call all their "professors as corrupt."
Yet, when you reverse this, LDS cannot say the same thing.
What you say is true with many LDS. But not so with Mitt.
When he was governor of MA, he ensured that funding of GLBT youth programs was continued. He promised the Log Cabin of MA that he would try to inject what was being done for sexually-confused youth (in those GLBT programs) into the national level.
So, while it's true (as you say) that he has spoken up for our values recently on inappropriate sex ed programs, he had ample opportunity to do the same thing re: programs for sexually-confused youth in GLBT programs in MA from 2002-2006. Did he do so? (No)
1. You will find that the GLBT funding and supporters have gone overwhelming to Rudy G.
2. The Episcopalians have gone over to promoting the gay lifestyle and ordaining gay bishops. Are they a cult too? :-)
Explain, please? Because of his father's place of birth, perhaps?
I agree. In fact, we can also agree that by just what's obvious that the Log Cabin Club which endorsed Mitt is now running ads against him. But so what? Nobody is claiming Mitt is as left as he was 2-5 years ago. My point is that I don't know what's at his heart value level. I don't know what he's saying for convenience sake (to attract the values voter).
His track record on social issues is too mixed to get a beat on what his heart beats true about (other than what we know--that his heart beats as he says, "true blue, through and through" about Mormonism).
2. The Episcopalians have gone over to promoting the gay lifestyle and ordaining gay bishops. Are they a cult too? :-)
OK, "cult" status is intrinsically a worship-based word. (I don't think Episcopalians, no matter how far off they are, are worshipping sexual minority lifestyles & bishops, do you?)
I think you can compare a number of mainline denominations to Israel in the OT. Did many Israelites go way off base (even worshipping idols?)? (Yes) Were they all cultists? (No) Were some cultists? (Yes, those who worshipped false idols)
Wow. Your selection of the word "choose" makes it sound so noble, so free - even politically correct. The vastness of that lie is breathtaking. LOL.
I wonder how free to choose it makes someone feel to have a stake leader come up and subtly check to see if they were "choosing" to wear thier garments?
Yes.
wet-paper-bag alert.
You're claiming that Mitt Romney was elected as a "fiscal conservative pro-family" in 2002 -- when he pledged his support for government funding of abortion????
That's the furthest thing from "fiscal conservative pro-family" there is!
He ran on 2002 in a way that respected the majority views of the Massachusetts voters on a topic he would be powerless to change anyway. It was a great way to defang an issue the liberal Democrats would have used to gain power with. At the same time, he opposed abortion liberalization and supported parental notification.
In 2005, he said this:
“I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.”
- Governor Romney, Boston Globe, Op-Ed, July 26, 2005
... Amazingly, Romney both (a) kept his promise and (b) moved as prolife as possible....
“Even with all the 2002 quotes, I’ve yet to see someone state the most important move Governor Romney made in 2002. He created a moratorium on the Abortion issue. So he ran as a pro-choice candidate, but stated to those pro-choice voters that he would not change any of the laws in regards to the issue. For four years (2002-2006), he kept his promise and veto’d any bill that attempted to make the abortion laws more liberal. If this came as a shock to any pro-choice supporter of Romney, then they were not listening to his promises made during the campaign. He promised a moratorium and he kept his promise. He had a total conversion experience later and choose Life. If you want to know how “stable” Romney’s word is, then look at his promises and his record. He made promises, he kept his promises and his record proves it.
Posted by: Nathan W. on January 31, 2007 11:30 AM”
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2007/01/mitt_romneys_pr_1.php
Being a RINO is a religion?
If only I'd known years ago! Hyphenated Americans have sooo many more benefits. LOL!
No they don't. The Roman Catholic church has some issues with the authority of Protestant churches, but don't quite define "authority" the same way LDS do. (To Lds, authority is everything and lack of it = apostasy).
Otherwise, you'd be able to find a recent formal Rome-based document that labels Protestants as "apostates" (you can't). So it's not just the informal Protestant-Catholic relations you cite above that lacks any such labeling, it's also the formal recent Catholic statements on Protestants that lacks any such labeling.
The first Christians were Jewish and were considered apostates. Jewish people today are also, I find, tolerant and respectful.
In one sense, you can apply what I said about Catholics to Jews. I'm sure you can find some early formal Jewish docs that may label Christians in an unflattering manner, but those are recent docs. (And Jews don't consider any such statements as "Scriptural" level revelation from God)
Likewise, Mormons have that statement in their history about the Creeds being an abomination. However, Mormons don’t go around telling people their creeds are an abomination. As a matter of fact, few people even care about creeds anymore.
"Few people even care about creeds anymore"? (Are you serious?). That might be true in Europe, not here. Creeds are not just sunflower seeds you toss out the window. As for Mormons don't go around telling people their creeds are an abomination then what's with LDS training & sending 60,000+ some-odd missionaries to go door-to-door world-wide, where the training inherently focuses on 1 of 3 major doctrines--the apostasy & restoration?
(And, what's with LDS tithing to publish & distribute world-wide millions of copies of the Pearl of Great Price...including multiple-language translations? Next, you'll tell me, "Oh, nobody cares about the Pearl of Great Price or LDS missionaries at their door.")
Many Christians believe that because Mormons do not agree with the Nicene Creed they are so apostate they are not even Christians. They call them a cult.
Technically, Christians would not refer to Mormons as apostates (which implies spiritual infidelity & unfaithfulness) as much as they would use the term heretics, which I would agree is equally unflattering. But if "anything goes" in theology, then a "Big Tent" church = a church not left with many absolute truths. Furthermore, we don't label every non-Protestant or non-Catholic to be a heretic or apostate, because we know we serve and worship a God who transforms us. Again, that can't be said of LDS.
Jewish and Islamic people are more Christian than members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
You’re right. Of the front runners, I think Romney’s the best chance to pull in independents/swing voters.
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.