Posted on 12/21/2006 11:05:18 AM PST by Utah Girl
Someone who refuses to consider voting for a woman as president is rightly deemed a sexist. Someone who'd never vote for a black person is a racist. But are you a religious bigot if you wouldn't cast a ballot for a believing Mormon?
The issue arises with Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's as-yet-undeclared bid for the 2008 Republican nomination. Romney would not be the first member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to run for the nation's highest office. He follows Orrin Hatch (2000); Mo Udall (1976); his father, George Romney (1968); and not least of all Joseph Smith, who ran in 1844 on a platform of "theodemocracy," abolition, and cutting congressional pay. Despite a strong showing in the Nauvoo straw poll, Smith didn't play much better nationally than Hatch did, and had to settle for the Mormon-elected post of King of the Kingdom of Heaven.
With his experience as a successful businessman, Olympic organizer, and governor, Romney has a better chance, but he may still have to overcome a tall religious hurdle. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, only 38 percent of Americans say they'd definitely consider voting for a Mormon for president. Yet many analysts think LDS membership is not an insuperable obstacle. Various evangelical sects continue to view Mormonism as heretical, non-Christian, or even satanic. But because of their shared faith in social conservatism, evangelical leaders seem open to supporting Romney. As far apart as they are theologically, Mormons and evangelical Christians may have more in common with each other anthropologically than they do with secular Americans watching Big Love on HBO. The remaining skepticism on the far right seems to have more to do with doubt about whether Romney has truly and forever ditched
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
>>"So what if Romney's a Mormon, so's Harry Reid."
Even if all that boloney you just spouted were true, what would it have to do with Politicks
Pliticks: Etimology
First Syllable: Poli from Poly meaning Many.
Second Syllable: Ticks meaning blood sucking insects.
</Humor>
Yes... you are a bigot against Moonbats..
Whether Mormon, JW or Scientologist.. religious bigotry is required in voteing, IMO..
>>Why do they insist on making this a "Mormon" issue
Because thy have a one issue chip on their shoulder.
They have imagined that they are called to save the world from the “Evil Mormons”.
Usually it boils down to somebody somewhere did something they were offended by and they never got over it
Sigh, Children....
Interesting article on her, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawn_M._Brodie
Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History
The publication of three acclaimed biographies allowed Brodie to become a part-time lecturer in history at the University of California, Los Angeles even though she had never earned a Ph.D. (In fact, she had no degree in history at all; both her bachelor's and master's were in English.) As a woman, Brodie met some resistance from the large and overwhelmingly male history faculty, but her specialty in the trendy field of psychohistory aided both her original appointment and her eventual promotion to full professor.[34] Brodie taught both larger upper-division lectures in American history and small seminars on American political biography--of which she preferred the latter.[35]
Thomas Jefferson was a natural subject for Brodie's fourth biography. One of her courses focused on America, 1800-1830--for which she wrote meticulous lectures--and her seminar in political biography might serve as an appropriate forum for a work-in-progress. Nevertheless, throughout this period, Brodie continued to be attracted by Mormon studies and had been importuned by several publishers to write a biography of Brigham Young. Mormon entrepreneur O. C. Tanner (1904-1993) even offered Brodie $10,000 in advance to produce a manuscript. At this point, Brodie’s confidant Dale Morgan convinced her that an even closer friend, Madeline Reeder McQuown, had nearly completed a huge manuscript on Young. McQuown’s biography was, in fact, little more than rough drafts of a few early chapters, but Brodie was dissuaded and abandoned Brigham Young for Thomas Jefferson. [36]
By May 1968, Brodie was emotionally committed to writing the biography. She understood that it could not be a full account. The study of Jefferson had become a virtual career for several living historians. For instance, Dumas Malone was in the process of completing a six-volume biography of Jefferson, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1975. Instead, Brodie directed her efforts to a biography of “the private man,” a study that would build on several recently published articles speculating on a possible sexual relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemings, a slave, a quadroon, and the possible half-sister of his late wife. Not only was the topic timely during this period of increased national interest in race, sex, and presidential hypocrisy, but Brodie had also recently discovered that her own husband had been conducting an extramarital affair. [37]
To Brodie, Jefferson’s ambiguous posturings on slavery could be explained by his personal life. If he were conducting a twenty-eight year affair with a slave, then he could not free his slaves because once freed, Virginia law would force them all from the state. He could only continue his liaison with Hemings if his slaves remained slaves.[38] Because of the paucity of evidence, two of the most prominent Jefferson biographers of the twentieth century, Dumas Malone and Merrill Peterson, had discounted rumors about this sexual relationship, first published in 1802 by the unscrupulous journalist James T. Callender when Jefferson was President.[39] Ironically, Brodie's contribution to the debate arose not from her speculations about Jefferson's psyche but from her use of Dumas Malone's discovery that Jefferson had been in residence at Monticello nine months prior to the birth of each of Sally Hemings' children--and that when he was not living there, she had none.[40]
By 1971 Brodie had a fifteen thousand dollar advance from her publisher and had presented a summary of her arguments at the annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians. One commentator, Merrill Peterson, "blasted" the paper.[41] Author and publisher alike understood that the biography would be controversial. An in-house editor at W. W. Norton was especially critical: "Doesn't [Brodie] know about making the theory fit the facts instead of trying to explain the facts to fit the theory? It's pretty fascinating, like working out a detective story, but she doesn't play fair." [42]
Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History was published in February 1974, and it became the main spring selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club. Brodie did her best to ensure that the three foremost Jefferson scholars, Dumas Malone, Merrill Peterson, and Julian Boyd, would not be invited to review the book. But she scarcely needed to worry. Brodie was interviewed on NBC's Today Show, and the book quickly "became a topic of comment in elite social-literary circles." The biography was also an immediate commercial success and remained on the New York Times best-seller list for thirteen weeks. Jefferson sold 80,000 copies in hardback, 270,000 copies in paperback, and netted Brodie $350,000 in royalties--adjusted for inflation, more than a million dollars in the early twenty-first century.[43] Academic reviews were mixed. Most were generally positive with some lifting of eyebrows at Brodie's undue speculation. [44]
Brodie was at least partially vindicated in 1998 when blind DNA tests concluded that a male carrying the Jefferson Y chromosome had fathered Eston Hemings, Sally Hemings' youngest child. In January 2000, a research committee commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation also asserted that there was a high probability that Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemmings and possibly the father of all Hemings children listed in the Monticello records. Nevertheless, a similar study in 2001, organized by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, reached opposite conclusions, namely that it was unlikely that Jefferson had fathered any of Hemings' children. [45]
"I am not a Mormon, but I've read much of the Book of Mormon. It's a neat fairytale to me, nothing more. If they wish to believe in it, that's okay with me............"
So, you'd vote for a Scientologist because that is also a neat fairy tale created by a science fiction writer.
Well, I believe Mary Poppins is God and I base my spirtual believes on the Disney movie. Obviously you would have no problem voting for me for president based on that qualification alone.
Funny that someone with the name Jacob Weisberg should be trying so hard to justify his bigotry.
My ideal, however, would be Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina. I've also heard a former Virginia governor is interested (not George Allen) and he deserves a look as well.
After Bill Clinton all taboos about who is fit to be president got pretty well thrown out.
With the Democrats controlling both houses of congress, I wouldn't hold my breath. Corruption rumors have been swirling around Dirty Harry for years and even the Republicans wouldn't investigate.
The reason is simple enough-- compared to committed fifth columnists like Carl "Lenin" Levin, Leaky Leahy and Turban Durban, Dirty Harry looks positively saintly.
What makes you think the Democrats will throw one of their own under the bus when he holds a marginal seat and they hold a marginal majority?
"Usually it boils down to somebody somewhere did something they were offended by and they never got over it "
Actually, it's about ten events that all had major impacts on me. Some even impact the current health and welfare of the state of Nevada. Look up Harry Reid, Dario Herrera (his Mormon convert protege going to jail for taking money from titty bar owners and land developers in the Gsting scandal). This isn't little stuff, it is major sordid stuff linked to the real mafia and Oscar Goodman, the mafia mayor of Vegas.
You people have noooo idea how brutal some of this stuff is. Go see Casino, or watch the Godfather. The Mormons aren't the worst, but they have damn well looked the other way. Really people, research Dario Herrera and Gsting and you will find a treasure trove. Reid got Herrera to convert to Mormon.
I have 40 megabytes of research on all this, I've been a paid opposition researcher in the past, so anyone who believes I'm smoking dope - well lets just say I can go toe to toe dishing dirt in Vegas - a heavily Mormon city.
(1) No, the material is undoubtedly accurate.
(2) Now, please answer my original question:
Maybe you could answer for us, why the Boston Globe/New York Times, what with all their staff cutbacks, put resources into this Romney hit piece? Is it because the want to make sure we have a conservative Republican President? Or is it to make sure we don't?
"What makes you think the Democrats will throw one of their own under the bus when he holds a marginal seat and they hold a marginal majority?"
All I'm saying is that I'm close to a lot of source level stuff. While the Democrats are certainly covering up for Reid now (the land deal before the election would have blown a Republican out of the water), there is so much there that he is still at risk. I'm sure trying to make it happen. Go here for background on the whole sordid mess.
http://gsting.blogspot.com
I knew a lot of Mormons in the service and they were all patriots and seemed otherwise to be fine people. I do believe Mormonism is a cult, though, and this is one big strike against them many people will not get past if presented with a Mormon candidate for President.
On the other hand, there are bigger negatives among the current crop of candidates which would drive me off them more quickly than being Mormon.
When your a Democrat, scandal does not mean squat. It is only because the voters of Nevada are smarter than the average liberal district that Dirty Harry MIGHT face serious opposition the next time he is up for re-election in 2010 and if that happens and the ethic charges ever get traction, you can bet he will pull a Torricelli.
Forgive me for being extremely jaded, but after seeing so many Democrats skate on charges so much more serious than Reid's, I just can't put any hope at all in thinking justice (bought and paid for by their trial lawyer's lobby) will ever be done under our current court system.
So, you are a professional Dirt Digger, who has issues with the Mormon Church which are personal. This explains a lot.
Is it possible there were just bad people (The politicians from any religion are not exactly the best ant the brightest after all) and not the church itself? Are most Mormons good people in your opinion, or are w all politicians in sheep’s clothing to you?
Not that I expect it to help. If a Mormon offended you in any way, I apologize for any obnoxious or offensive action they may have taken. Truly the church does not teach that we should offend any man intentionally; however, there are those in every religion who are not keepers of the word, but hearers only. Mormons are no exception to this.
I will state that the illegal dealings you list here are not in keeping with the church’s teachings, and I condemn illegality be it land deals, graft, protection, or any other immoral and illegal activity in the strongest terms.
I have no interest in dishing Dirt, so I’ll just take your word that there are those in Vegas who are not keeping the commandments (the sky is blue alert!) I used to go there for conventions for work, I always felt no matter how much I washed, I was not really clean until I got home, do you know what I mean?
Any way, I am sorry some of our flock have given you problems.
It looks like the MSM is mounting a full court press against Romney today. The Washington ComPost, and now Slate. Never believe what these goons say when they pretend to give advice to Republicans.
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.