Posted on 05/04/2007 5:46:36 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
Are you consistent, then? Would you say: "In a nation that is supposed to adhere to the Second Amendment, we ought to be prepared to vote for someone who fits our values and stand on the issues, regardless of their faith--OR LACK OF IT."
If the content and direction of faith is 100% irrelevant to who's in the Oval Office, then I guess you and many others in this thread wouldn't care if an atheist was in office--as long as he/she shared many of your prominent values. Correct?
LOL :)
To "fan" a division means you have to recognize an underlying faultline is already present. So, you should have added the qualifier, "further" divide the GOP. (I mean it's not like the GOP is united in presidential candidates already, right?).
It's the pro-Romney folks who want to pretend that there is no division, and to just right it off to "bigots" and "loonies."
And this way, they are acting like the "left," whose philosophy is "all we have to do is label somebody in such a way and we can effectively marginalize them."
Shame on so-called "conservatives" to use the left's tactics!
It always strikes me that the LDS general authorities and LDS grass roots can be so vigorous to distance themselves from fundamental LDS polygamists in the Southern part of Utah/No AZ--all over (a) polygamy; and (b) which prophet to follow...
...But Christians from historic traditions are supposed to look the other way when deeper and more significant differences are identified between us and LDS.
Yet another inconsistency that shows a lack of intellectual integrity.
Sorry, that's a straw-man. As there are very few pro-life athiests, this is very, very unlikely to happen.
Point taken.
Somehow I don't believe John Adam belief was this.
I agree...that covenant was adopted in 1991 according to their website. The church was founded in 1639. It is the church John and Abigail Adams attended when at home.
How it has changed over the years is another story.
This is my paper. Copyright 2007.
What class was it in, "How to use hyper-emotional hyperbolic rhetoric to play the victim's role"????
Where did the author of the thread go? This seems strange.
It's hard to know whether that was in his mind at the beginning....
If it wasn't, it didn't take ol' Joe long to thunk it up.
Can we stop with this "antimormon" labeling?
I mean the Book of Mormon says there are only two churches--either the one belonging to Jesus Christ (which LDS say is their church alone) or the one that is "the church of the devil" (every other church).
So do Evangelicals, Protestants, RC, Eastern Orthodox always go around saying that the Book of Mormon is "anti-evangelical?" "anti-Protestant?" "anti-Catholic?" etc
The New Testament paints the most wonderful picture of Jews--the fact that the Son of God was willing to be one.
But it also paints a number of negative portrayals...from the way it highlights Judas, the elders, the chief priest, the scribes, the Pharisees to the way Stephen summarized them prior to be stoned to his death by these very same folks. (And then we have Saul/Paul, who gives us both sides)
That doesn't mean that the New Testament or early church is an "anti-Jew" document (in fact the bulk of the early church was Jewish). It is very much "pro-Jewish" because it has at its goal a spiritual exodus for that people group.
The fact is that a decent make-up of the Evangelical/Protestant church is either ex-Mormon or are descendents of Mormons. That doesn't automatically make these folks "anti-Mormons" when they speak up against the theology and practices of the LDS church. Like the NT does re: the Jews, these ex-Mormons and descendents of Mormons tend to give realistic praiseworthy assessments of LDS, but likewise negative ones as well.
And just because Apollos would go into the Synogogue in the book of Acts and vigorously debate the Jews did not make Apollos an "anti-Jew."
Just because God contends against even His people at times doesn't make God anti-humanity. Just because God judged the Israelites and sought reformation and renewal did not make God "anti-Jew."
Once again, we have some folks using the Left's tactics--to simply label someone and ostracize them.
A weekend junket to Kolob?
First of all, "very few" doesn't equal zero. Secondly, as an example, over 20% of self-id'd homosexuals voted for Pres. Bush. You can't stereotype every atheist or every homosexual according to your pre-conceived idea of what every atheist believes. You can speak of generalities and be generically true. That doesn't make it absolutely so.
You make it a "straw man" only because you choose to give no weight to what a minority of folks within a certain identity trait might believe and practice.
Just because most Mormons don't practice polygamy doesn't mean we won't one day have a polygamist Mormon run for public office somewhere. (Oh wait a minute...I guess there are certain mayors & city council members who already qualify under that description)
Yep. I vote for someone based on their position on the issues and their track record.
So a person's "track record" as let's say, a Satanist or Wicca advanced witch wouldn't really enter into your consideration, because that's "religious" and not "policy" or "public persona."
“You have to be kidding....there was a hatred for Catholics and especially Irish Catholics in Massachusetts to the point where jobs ads were posted with “no Irish need apply” in newspapers and at the hiring companies.”
Urban myth.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/03/ano_irish_need.php
Oh, their track record would include personal things, such as do they sacrifice chickens during their religious ceremonies. But merely being an atheist, a satanist or a Wiccan wouldn't cause me to not vote for that person. It would be what they do with that belief that counts.
As they might say in Jamaica,
Romney is a Moron, mon.
Oh, good grief. I guess you stand squarely in the basher camp.
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.