Posted on 12/29/2011 3:10:05 PM PST by Colofornian
There is a reason the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc, hire so many Mormons - you can trust them, you can’t easily blackmail them and they are patriotic people that love their country.
- - - - -
No, more likely it is because they have lived abroad and often are bilingual because of their LDS missions.
The LDS I know are easily blackmailed and not trustworthy at all - not even to their own as evidenced by the high white collar crime rate and fraud in Utah that is mostly Mormon on Mormon.
Why thank you, from you that is high praise indeed...
Why thank you, from you that is high praise indeed...
No prob...nothing like a bunch of religious bigots to attract people to our side !
We currently have an individual as President who is quite legalistic in his thought processes which seem to be based mostly on near term advantage or watered down Marxist delusions.
Why would we want to replace him with another of his kind?
I don't think Romney can win.
Never had that close a hit anywhere else though.
First of all, my comments don't address voting for Mormon dogcatchers. We are talking about the POTUS role.
Also, just about all of the founding fathers were NOT vying to be THE leader of the free world...as is Romney.
There are usually seven past Presidents identified as "other than what we would recognize today as technically Christian":
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Millard Fillmore
William Howard Taft
And then some also include Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson.
With George Washington and James Madison, I've seen comments from both sides. And many Madison quotes cited by "the other side" are from later in Madison's life. The last four in the list above had unitarian memberships...though John Adams was a Congregationalist growing up and was associated with that church by anybody who may have cared in looking that aspect re: voting for him.
Re John Quincy Adams, he constantly referenced himself as a "Christian" and his diary is filled with critiques vs. liberal Unitarians.
Re: Madison:
Madison's religious views and activities are numerous, as are his writings on religion. They are at times self-contradictory, and his statements about religion are such that opposing positions can each invoke Madison as its authority. An understanding of Madison's religious views is complicated by the fact that his early actions were at direct variance with his later opinions. Consider six examples of his early actions. First, Madison was publicly outspoken about his personal Christian beliefs and convictions. For example, he encouraged his friend, William Bradford (who served as Attorney General under President Washington), to make sure of his own spiritual salvation: [A] watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.[1] Madison even desired that all public officials - including Bradford - would declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony: "I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way."
Source: James Madison and Religion in Public
See also: Was James Madison a Christian or Theist?
I think then that the three presidential candidates who were clearly "not" Christian to the voters of their times -- had they bothered to investigate that -- would have been...
...Jefferson
...Fillmore
...Taft
I'll leave it to other posters to highlight some of the negative aspects of the presidencies of Fillmore & Taft.
Don't miss what I was stressing. Mormons are "qualified" to lead -- and are "qualified" to run for POTUS. As are Unitarians, etc.
I stress what voters integrate into their voting: Qualities...that is distinct from qualifications.
Even the 94% of Utah Mormon voters who voted for Romney -- per a February '08 Salt Lake City article -- said that per exit polls Mormon voters bucked the national trend of issues and chose Romney based upon "Personal qualities."
So even 94% of Utah Mormons -- those who might otherwise disagree with me on my perspectives -- have to conclude that "personal qualities" were major considerations.
If you want the exact quote, here it is: Salt Lake Tribune, Feb. 7, 2008: Exit poll data from Tuesday's primary elections showed Utah Republican voters cared more about presidential candidates' personal QUALITIES than their positions on issues, the opposite of the national trend in Super Tuesday voting.
Oh stop, you’re making me blush...
You are quoting the pastor in this article...I'm not him.
I think it's a bit obvious that I'm not the only FR poster who posts articles where I don't agree 100% with the application (and sometimes the content) re: everything stated in those articles.
So don't assume that I wouldn't vote for a Mormon dogcatcher. Remember, I'm a descendant of Mormons. I have Mormons as my relatives. I've eaten with plenty of them; I love them; I've been an overnight guest as a relative in Mormon homes; etc.
The main focus of the article concerns voting for someone who is THE leader of the free world.
Given a choice, should a Christian vote for a conservative Buddhist or a liberal Christian?
Tell you what...time for YOU to answer a question: Would you vote for a conservative Muslim or a liberal Christian? Would you vote for a conservative Scientologist or a liberal Christian?
Here's Magritte "bigoting" up a thread just today:
ALL religious groups are the same, FULL OF of the good, THE BAD, THE UGLY, THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS, THE SMUG, THE RAPIST, THE MURDERER, THE HYPOCRITE, the “saint”. [Magritte]
Source: Magritte open belittling all religious groups' uniqueness while denigrating them as FULL of rapists, murderers, hypocrites, etc.
Magritte could have limited his comments to how "chaff" -- including his list above -- lives among the wheat. He didn't. He wanted to emphasize his anti-religious bigotry by claiming how "FULL" we are of these people.
I guess he's able to claim to be an "expert" on bigotry simply because he's pretty good at it.
Ya just crack me up...happy New Year to you and your family !
I could not believe what Graham said about voting for a non-Christian.
Fair enough. I'd vote for a conservative Muslim over a liberal Christian. I'd vote for a conservative Buddhist over a liberal Christian. I'd even vote for a Native American who still believed in..well...whatever it is they believe over a liberal Christian. As to Scientology, I have enough concerns that Scientology is a criminal conspiracy that I might not be able to ever vote for Scientologist. For the most part I will vote for the most conservative candidate that has at least a legitimate chance to either win, or build on an electoral setback and win within the near term (ie, I will vote for a true conservative that might not win this cycle but is a clear leader and would likely win in the next available cycle).
I am looking for a candidate that promotes conservative policies that foster an atmosphere where Christianity and traditional, conservative values can flourish. The candidate doesn't necessarily need to be Christian to accomplish this. There are, for example, many conservative people that aren't particularly religious or practice something other than Christianity, but that recognize the things that make a society strong and vibrant. Those people will promote conservative policies that support individual freedom, economic prosperity, defense of the nation, and generally further an environment where what we consider Christian faith can grow and proper.
I agree, he should.
But Andrew says Mormonism, the common name for the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is a cult, and as such a Mormon cannot lead the nation in a godly way.
Its refreshing to see someone stand for the truth now a days.....
Well, you've made my point. You do take religious worldviews of a candidate into consideration.
And, thus, you and I represent the 60ish% of Americans that do that!
The fact is...
...92% of Evangelicals,
...78% of Republicans,
...62% of Americans,
...and 55% of Democrats do take into consideration the faith & beliefs of a candidate according to a late 2006 Rasmussen Reports poll.
This poll can be found Election2008:43%WouldNeverVoteforMormonCandidate
Excerpt from that thread: The Rasmussen Reports survey found that 35% say that a candidate's faith and religious beliefs are very important in their voting decision. Another 27% say faith and religious beliefs are somewhat important. Ninety-two percent (92%) of Evangelical Christian voters consider a candidate's faith and beliefs important. On the partisan front, 78% of Republicans say that a candidate's faith is an important consideration, a view shared by 55% of Democrats. However, there is also a significant divide on this topic within the Democratic Party. Among minority Democrats, 71% consider faith and religious beliefs an important consideration for voting. Just 44% of white Democrats agree.
You see, Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. These are "qualities" of a candidate voters weigh. Nowhere are we as voters authoritatively directed to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
Right?
Sure does, that's why we have a muslim in the white house sending this country to hell. That's why we need someone who can also uphold Judeo - Christian values.
Right?
Well, I thought when we began this discussion that you believed we should not vote for a Mormon for President. I am saying that I would not have a problem voting for a Mormon so long as he or she was actually a conservative who promoted conservative policies. The fact that I WOULD vote for a politically conservative Muslim over a politically liberal Christian makes the point of what I think is most important when I go into the voting booth.
I want politicians in this country to promote policies that further individual liberty, freedom to raise our children religiously or however we believe, freedom from oppressive government regulations, a strong defense of the nation, a market economy, etc. I want an atmosphere in this nation that allows Christianity to flourish, but the politician to further these policies does not necessarily have to be Christian.
That Romney is a Mormon does not bother me in the least. What concerns me about Mitt, and the reason he is among my least favorite choices in the field, is that he has simply not demonstrated that he is actually a conservative. In fact, I believe Romney is willing to say pretty much anything necessary to get elected.
What’s your purpose in replying?
I've known, and know some mormons.
Are you a mormon?
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.