Posted on 05/23/2011 8:32:35 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
Five Principles as to Why the Religion of a Candidate is to be Seriously Considered:
Question #1 at hand: Is it important to have a POTUS whose God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
Principle #1 that addresses this: THE 'BATPHONE' PRINCIPLE DURING A JACK BAUER-TYPE OF '24' CRISIS [LET'S HAVE A 'COMMISSIONER GORDON' WHO ACTUALLY HAS A 'BATPHONE' DIRECT LINE TO THE GOD OF THIS WORLD IN THE MIDST OF CRISES SITUATIONS!]
Question #2 at hand: Who rejected who?
Principle #2 that addresses this: DID THE BASE LEAVE THE CANDIDATE BECAUSE OF HIS CULT? OR, DID THE BASE FINALLY REALIZE THAT THE CANDIDATE'S CULT WAS LESS-THAN-INSPIRING DUE TO ITS LABELS OF THE BASE AS 'APOSTATES,' 'CORRUPT' AND CREEDALLY ABOMINABLE?
Question series #3 at hand: Don't candidates already inject 'religion' into their campaigns? And so we as voters are supposed to ignore that? Or other sub-blocks of voters? Don't they often favor a candidate because of religious alignment -- yet they are not criticized for it? Why is it seemingly 'OK' to vote for a candidate for primarily or only because of his faith; but the reverse is often frowned upon?
Principle #3 that addresses this: NUMEROUS REASONS EXIST AS TO WHY THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF A CANDIDATE ARE RELEVANT
Question #4 at hand: Is there a transcendent-yet practical-issue beyond faith under consideration here?
Principle #4 that addresses this: WE MUST WEIGH A CANDIDATE'S LEVEL OF VULNERABILITY TO DECEPTION - FOR THAT TRANSCENDS RELIGIOUS CONSIDERATIONS (And a candidate's level to deception in the most important area of his life, his faith, is an excellent indicator of potential other gullibilities)
Question #5 at hand: Is true faith and misdirected faith part of our character? And if yes, why wouldn't "character" ever NOT therefore be an issue upon which to seriously evaluate a candidate?
Principle #5 that addresses this: OTHER-WORLDLY COMMITMENTS (FAITH, WHETHER IT'S TRUE FAITH OR MISDIRECTED FAITH) IS A CHARACTER ISSUE!
Say what? Obviously God hears the prayers of all people. But we know from reading the Bible that God seemingly responds more favorably to those He is in an actual relationship with...versus examples like Pharisaical religious legalists whom Jesus said were of their father, the devil (John 8). You mean religionists who might prefer having a POTUS in the White House who actually knows the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in order to call on that Living God during a Jack Bauer-like crisis is NEVER to be preferred over voting for an atheist candidate on faith grounds??? (Otherwise, that "weakens the religious foundation" of our country? How does that make any sense?)
Principle #2 - SOME PEOPLE TURN ON ITS HEAD WHO REJECTED WHOM! [DID THE BASE LEAVE THE CANDIDATE BECAUSE OF HIS CULT? OR, DID THE BASE FINALLY REALIZE THAT THE CANDIDATE'S CULT WAS LESS-THAN-INSPIRING DUE TO ITS LABELS OF THE BASE AS 'APOSTATES,' 'CORRUPT' AND CREEDALLY ABOMINABLE?]
Were we to discuss candidates representing a broad range of alternative religions, I would guestimate that 60-80% of them do not necessarily go out of their way to slam Christianity or badly slander the spiritual reputation of Christian adherents for chunks of 170-180 years at a time. That can't be said about true-believing LDS candidates (in distinction from Jack Mormon candidates).
Simply put, the true-believing 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.' Can I count on your vote then?" [See below for chapter & verse]
Conclusion: When a candidate mislabels 75-90% of his voting base's primary faith tenets and claims & reduces them to mere "apostate" status--Note that LDS "Scripture" specifically labels the entire Christian church as "apostate" and Note that 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party)...
...Then...
...he not only shows open disdain for his voting base, but betrays his ability to inspire confidence in his ability to accurately define a major world religion.
If he cannot even accurately define a major world religion, what confidence does he inspire re: his ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?
Specific citation to above: 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 originated as the supposed description of the very foundation of the Lds church--the First Vision of Joseph Smith. They claim that this is their "god's" judgment of Christians and their church bodies; they have since translated this into over 100 languages and circulated this nonsense world-wide with millions of copies.
Principle #3:
(Backdrop to this principle): From a 2009 Mormon news release where apostle Oaks was speaking of "religious freedom": The religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign.
My 'Principled' Response: NUMEROUS REASONS EXIST AS TO WHY THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF A CANDIDATE ARE RELEVANT. Before outlining them, let's see if Mr. Oaks applies this same standard to his own people:
Q #1 for Mr. Oaks:
Mitt Romney delivered a "Faith in America" speech in Dec 07 that discussed his Mormon faith & some of its perculiarities in early December. Q: If this was so important to not address his religion as a political campaign issue, as Mr. Oaks claims, why couldn't Romney leave "religion out of" his political talks?
Q #2 for Mr. Oaks:
If "the religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign," then somebody forgot to tell Utah and Western State Mormon voters! Why then did Utah residents give 91% of their Republican $ to Romney in 2007? Why did Utah, AZ, Nevada, and Wyoming Mormon voters pile on FOR Romney in the primaries by margins of 93-7% and 95-5%? Why hasn't Mr. Oaks addressed his Mormon faithful, telling these voters to stop making a candidate's religion an issue in a political campaign by voting according to such identity politics?
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not calling these Utah residents "bigoted" or "intolerant" of non-Mormon candidates. It's a free Republic so Utah/Mormon citizens should support who they want to support. My question is not so much geared at Utah residents as it is statements like these from leaders who fail to consider the inconsistent application of their claims. I mean, Mr. Oaks implies those who think and act counter to his claims are "anti-religous freedom" simply because some voters take other-worldly commitments into voter consideration. Well, if that's the case, then how do Utah voters, and Western-state Mormon voters escape Mr. Oaks' implied labels?
Additional Points of Considerations:
Principle #4 - WE MUST WEIGH A CANDIDATE'S LEVEL OF VULNERABILITY TO DECEPTION - FOR THAT TRANSCENDS RELIGIOUS CONSIDERATIONS (And a candidate's level to deception in the most important area of his life, his faith, is an excellent indicator of potential other gullibilities)
We all have blinders to truth. Nobody has a monopoly on it. (But I would say the Bible has the best snapshot of God & humanity and the interaction between the two). Deception exists in the world, and when compared to trustworthy sources of truth (the Bible), deception exists as a continuum. 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! Even one 2007 poll indicated that 54% of Americans would not vote for an atheist.
Principle #5: OTHER-WORLDLY COMMITMENTS (FAITH, WHETHER IT'S TRUE FAITH OR MISDIRECTED FAITH) IS A CHARACTER ISSUE!
There's no way around this realization! To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).
The MSM is feeling its oats. In ‘08 they pushed the weakest candidate in the GOP field (McCain), and he won. In ‘12 they KNOW Romney doesn’t have a chance in Hades against Hussein.
(1) Romney's on record saying his "pro-choice" opinions go back to when his mom ran for Senate (1970).
Assessment: [Pro-abortion, then, eh, Mitt?]
(2): "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review last year, says the Concord Monitor (Source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/REPOSITORY/612100304/1217/NEWS98)
= Assessment: So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"
(3) Romney now invokes in this thread's article a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice.
Well, what are the 1994 facts?
FACT a: Romney's wife gave a donation in 1994 to Planned Parenthood...
FACT b: On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attended a private Planned Parenthood event at the home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney.
"Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts
"Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts
"In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts
FACT c: 1994 campaign in Massachusetts "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
= Assessment: Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent
(4): Fast forward to 2001, when Romney needs to reassure Utah Mormons that...he's not really "pro-choice," after all: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01)
= Assessment: So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)
(5) “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05)
= Assessment: Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?
(6): In November of '04, he & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" where he links it to stem cell research
= Assessment: (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)
(7): On May 27 '05, he affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.")
= Assessment: OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!
(8): What about his gubernatorial record 2003-2006? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. So I assume somewhere in 2005 or so were so pro-life decisions. ("As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.")
= Assessment: So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine
(9): April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. Assessment: (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).
(10): On January 29, 2007 during a visit to South Carolina, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07)
= Assessment: OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?
(11): Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering that "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
= Assessment: Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!
(12) "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007
= Assessment: OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"
(13): Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."
= Assessment: That whatever he was from 1970 when his mom ran as a pro-abortion senator & he sided with her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion inlook or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?
Yeah, then we’ll all get hollered at for encouraging a third party run by Palin, Bachman, or someone who has actual conservative credentials and splitting the R vote and thus handing Barry a 2nd term.
But you know what? As long as they best the R party can give us is Willard, I can live with that. I understand you have to win the Presidency begore we can undo a lot of Obama’s crap, but who thinks Willard is going to do that?
But how solid of a "conversion" did Romney undergo on embryonic research?
He supposedly underwent a pro-life "altar call" in late 2004. By May 27, 2005, he was still singing praises to the god of abortion: "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice." (press conference comment) (So that’s “pro-life?”)
Furthermore, his so-called "conversion" was based upon a supposed "rethink" of embryonic stem cell research.
Few people in the media point to Mitt's interview with Katie Couric late into his last campaign (December, 2007): December 5, 2007: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law."
Any "inquiring minds" want to try to wrap those minds around how a politicican can in one sentence discuss "adopting" embryos out (which was certainly a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath say that if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what????
How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the difference, then, Mitt? Here you indeed call parents of embryos "parents" -- but these are "parents" with "research" give-away rights?
Mitt, you treat the unborn like you're ordering breakfast: "I'll have 'em scrambled; but maybe I better have 'em over easy in case I get somebody who comes in here and wants to 'adopt' my special order here."
How bizarre that we have such schizophrenic "pro-life/pro-abortion" language emerging from such a "candidate!"
The Republicans supporting him are part the pro-abortion deep-end fringe!
Shame on Utah for voting for him 95% in '08!
(And here we thought Utah was a "pro-life" state!)
Well we have the RomneyBot trolls stalking the threads trying to get consertvativers banned from FR because we will not vote for Romney
Its the old De Jevu of 2008
“Mitty is a Conservative and youre not”
“Youre a religious bigot cause you wont vote for our sweet lil ol Mitty”
“Youre vile cause you hate Mitty”
“Youre not a good Christian cause you wont vote for Mitty”
The trolls are busy trying to turn the evil liberal Romney into a white washed “conservative”
by accusing conservitives of not being conservatives
We’ve seen it all before...
Its old and not a bit entertaining...
Charles Babbington, formerly of the Washington Post.
Mitt Romney is a mayonnaise sandwich on white bread.
(kinda like the RNC.)
Artemis, trouble is ... there is some truth to “Romney is the guy to STOP in GOP field”. He needs to be defeated early, before the race goes to the 2012 version of “Super Tuesday” cause he has the resources to run everywhere.
The assumption is that he will lose IA, and if he is beaten in NH, SC, & FLA that it would enough to kill MITT’12. But he might live on, even after that.
[”It’s Romney’s to lose,” said Scott Reed, a GOP consultant who managed Bob Dole’s presidential campaign. ]
Bwahahaha! You can’t make this stuff up. The Oracle of Delphi has spoken! A Dole consultant.
Romney is going to fold like a cheap suit, his support is an inch deep.
I’m no fan of Romney’s, but I don’t see how this is a barf alert. Romney is going to be a finalist in the Republican nomination, and it wouldn’t hurt if conservatives recognized that and started thinking about who best to beat him. I think Palin will have the opportunity to prove intelligence and leadership if she hops in. But I also like Cain and Pawlenty. My guess is that of the three Pawlenty does the best at going head to head against Romney, but I welcome beign proven wrong.
Mitt Romney is more conservative than Barack Obama.
AP propaganda.
Unfortunately, this is true. Better for conservatives to recognize the situation and coalesce against the best alternative early.
They go to ‘BOB DOLE’S’ GOP Consultant for a quote. Man, I know Babington is a complete loser, but that is ridiculous on it’s face!
Bob, you’ve just fallen victim to AP/GOP nonsense.. I will never vote for some GOP moderate RINO bastard again just to ‘gain power.’ I’ll take 4 mores years of hating Obozo over that! You KNOW there’s ONLY ONE candidate that can take this commie prick down,...and SHE may not run because of what the Demonrats have done to her these past 4 years!
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.