They Shoot Mormons, Don't They? Religious Bigotry, alive and well today

Saundra Duffy

[George W. Bush]

Your #400...excellent and concise post.

What a nice thing to say. I'm so rarely accused of being concise. LOL.

Before I proceed to prove why that is so, I'll state that, as a Calvinistic Southern Baptist, I consider my Mormon-bashing and Catholic-bashing credentials second to none. Theologically, not politically.

For all the talk about anti-Catholic and anti-Mormon political prejudice, I think it should be pointed out that the very Protestant/Baptist/evangelical GOP has put five Catholics on the Court. And that is no accident. And it is just a coincidence (or maybe not) that that Court is disproportionately Italian in ethnic makeup. Conceivably, those five Catholic justices are potentially more powerful than any president we can elect to serve, at most, eight years. And li'l ol' Catholic-bashing Baptist me is just fine with that. In fact, I think it's downright brilliant and I was certainly one of those here at FR who demanded that evangelical Aunt Harriet be thrown under the bus so we could get the brilliant Catholic jurist, Alito, instead. Funny, my Catholic-bashing tendencies just seemed to fail me there.

Now, let's look at the Mormon thing more. Not long ago, in conservative circles the most notably conservative state legislature and the real bellwether of GOP state politics was reliably conservative New Hampshire (honorable mention for Montana). However, with the invasion of New Hampshire by liberals fleeing the results of their own voting habits in other neighboring liberal states, New Hampshire is no longer the state legislature we once so admired.

So who is? Utah. They have distinguished themselves repeatedly at resisting federal intrusion in education and other matters. It's a very impressive conservative record. Their reliance on their churches for relief and general rejection of federal welfare programs is pretty unique and is certainly no vice in the GOP. If only we had a half-dozen more legislatures that conservative!

The Mormon standard for clean living and work ethic is admirable. And they are the single largest force in Scouting, an interest Romney certainly shares (and will drone on about endlessly if allowed to as he did one night on CSPAN). Part of what we defend when we defend Scouting from molesters is the safety of Mormon children who are in Scouting. Not that we should ever need to be thanked for it either. This is all part of the Mormon/GOP connection and it is a Good Thing for both.

In addition, Utah and other states with large Mormon populations are among the Reddest. They will vote GOP come hell or high water and they have done so for generations. This is true of Mormons in any state.

Ann Coulter made the point well at CPAC (before her other rather ill-considered remark). When asked who she currently favored, she mentioned she was leaning toward Romney. She explained that she likes Mormons and offered that a state like Utah in which, during the 1992 election, Clinton came in third tells you something about just how reliably Republican the Mormons have been. Mormons are remarkably Republican with a few like Harry Reid being the exception that proves the rule.

Now, for all the real anti-Mormon bigots out there, it's time for all of you to understand that we cannot elect a president without Mormon votes. And I don't know why we'd even want to. We can elect a president without RINO votes in places like New York but we can't without the Mormon vote. They are absolutely vital in any close election.

We need to embrace our Mormon allies. They are our longtime and loyal political partners. They are not second-class citizens in the GOP. If they can field an attractive candidate (and Romney is), then the standard we should apply is whether that candidate is conservative and will adhere to our party goals as spelled out in the party platform. Period.

Given that FR exists in part to expose libmedia's hidden agenda, I'd also point out that the libmedia attacks on Romney's Mormon background and even the marriage records of his ancestors is a blatant attempt to split off a faction of the GOP from the Party Of Reagan. Just as they are trying to use Giuliani to drive wedges into the party, they are also trying to fan the flames of anti-Mormon bigotry in order to split the party base and create a situation where Hitlery can win.

If we fall for it, perhaps allowing Giuliani to become our nominee merely because he might be the only credible alternative to Romney, if we allow anti-Mormon bigotry to rule our choices of nominee, we will lose. And we will deserve to lose. This is the only hope the Dims have to win, the only chance the Wife Of Clinton has to reach the White House. And we have to avoid falling into their trap.

Questions remain about the extent to which Romney represents the values of our party base, particularly the pro-gun and pro-life factions. Personally, I'm willing to wait for the pro-life/pro-family and pro-gun organizations to tell us whether we can trust Romney on those issues. That is their job in our coalition and they've done pretty darned well at it.

We are the Party Of Reagan. We share power with all those who share the goals of our party platform and adhere to them. They are our partners and that includes Mormons. It is somewhat distasteful that it should even need to be discussed.

Threads about Romney should not be Mormon threads, bashing and defending Mormon theology and history. It is a profound mistake to allow this to happen. Theology threads belong in the Backroom with all the other theology debates.

When you start bashing Romney over Mormonism, just remember that it's not you who is winning or losing a debate. It's Keith Obertroll who is winning. It's Dan Rather who is winning. It's the New York Times and the Washington Post who is winning. It is, in short, all our libmedia enemies who will rejoice at having sown such discord and fanned the flames of intra-party warfare here at FreeRepublic, the bastion of online conservative discussion.

Don't fall for it. Don't let libmedia (and a few hotheads) split the party and elect the Wife Of Clinton.

[JimRob, I hope you'll read this and consider it. I think I'm right about libmedia's intent to split the Party Of Reagan with a multi-pronged RINO-Giuliani and anti-Mormon strategy.]

[Ditter]

I think Mormons are wonderful, upstanding people. I would not have a problem voting for one for president, any more than a Baptist, Lutheran Catholic etc.

Years ago I read several books about Mormons and Mormonism and it is the history of the sect that is off putting. Joseph Smith found golden tablets from God and then he lost them before he could show them to anyone else? The members of his sect were encouraged to have multiple wives?

I am sorry but that is just plain weird. He must have been very charismatic to get others to follow him or maybe it was just the multiple wives part.

[needlenose_neely]

I love my Church and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

What did he save you from? Just death?

And what did he save her to, as well? Being one of millions of celestial wives of an exalted man who is a god, so she can produce spirit babies to inhabit his planet?

[P-Marlowe]

If I could be assured that Romney was more conservative than any of the other candidates, he would receive my full support. But Romney has New England Liberal Republican credentials. Up until he decided to run for president, he was a staunch abortion proponent. So from a primary point of view, Romney is not acceptable to me.

However if he gets the primary nod, then I will fully support him. However, if Rudy gets the primary nod, I will not be voting for a Republican for president. Rudy is an UNREPENTANT abortion proponent. Romney is a repentant and allegedly former abortion proponent who is running now on his opposition to abortion. It's a hard pill to swallow, but not impossible.

If Fred Thompson were a Mormon, I would still be hoping and praying that he enters the race. It would make no difference to me at all.

[xzins]

I will even accept a recanting of his abortion position by Rudy IF he does so in a way that PROVES it is real and not just a matter of expediency.

1. Must be full and public recantation for all media outlets to run.
2. Must pledge to fully support fully pro-life planks in the party platform.
3. Must pledge to appoint as chief WH counsel and judicial picks advisors pro-life jurists AND name those persons and get their agreement to serve.
4. Must pledge to support pro-life and pro-family amendment to Constitution.

BTW, given Romney’s RECENT past, I expect the same thing from him.

[Netizen]

Why don't you pray directly to Jesus?

Because Jesus told us to pray to Our Father.

[colorcountry]

Mormonism is not what makes Utah conservative. Utah is conservative because it is a member of the Intermountain States and all those States are governed by individual rights. They are rugged indivualists and abhor Federal Government intrusion precisely because of their status as minority (and therefore overruled) by large urban interests. We see this in every single ‘Red’ State, and not just Utah. Your assumption is incorrect.

Now let us address your assumption that we cannot win without Mormon backing. There are about 5,000,000 Mormons withing the United States (by their own recogning). 1,000,000 of them live in Utah. That leaves 4,000,000 divided between the rest of the 49 States. California has the highest number of LDS (about 2,000,000), but California’s electoral votes almost always go Democrat. Mormonism’s effect in California is negliglble.

Between California and Utah, the balance of Mormons live in the West and so the States where they reside have few electoral votes to consider. Of the 3,000,000 or so Mormons that live in the US (besides Utah and California,) by all estimates only 1/2 of them are active LDS. EX-Mormons and inactive Mormons are predominantly liberals as can be viewed by opinions on this site. http://www.exmormon.org

So, of those 1,500,000 active LDS living in the balance of the 48 States, only 1/2 of those are of voting age (if that many, since Mormons have a high preponderance of their membership in children due to their birth rate). So we are left with 750,000 voting LDS members (some of whom will vote democrat)

Now let us divide those 750,000 members by 48 States, and if every active Mormon who is able to cast votes does so for the Republican candidate, we would have an average of 15,625 Mormon votes per State.

The effects of those votes even if they went 100% in favor of Democrats would be nothing. Mormons, if they turn tail and run to the Democrats would show the preposterousness of their own political position.

Believe me, Mormons need the Republican party FAR more than we need them. They are using us IMO to further their own political agenda. They get away with it by accusing us of bigotry, hate, and prosecution. This is clearly a liberal tactic.

In the realm of politics, if you think you have something better, then prove it. If we don’t accept your proof, that’s just too bad. That’s politics.

If Romney were gay instead of Mormon, we would never even be discussing the issue. A gay politician has beliefs that conflict with ours, we are not required to accept the position that somehow we must accept him or be labled as bigoted, hateful, persecutors.

[needlenose_neely]

There are aspects of Romney's religious beliefs, such as new revelation given by their god supplanting previous revelation given by their god which is a form of flip flopping, which Romney is prone to do, and makes truth not absolute but relative just like the postmodernist view, which make Romeny highly suspect.

Also, the White Horse Prophecy of Mormonism, and it's effect on Mormons in high office decision making process is also a cause for scrutiny.

Just to name a couple.

Also, Romney, and along with him, the GOP, could not withstand the scrutiny of a Presidential campaign.

Romney has already flip flopped on homosexual marriage, abortion and embryonic stem cell research, as well as other issues of the economic and security variety.

[greyfoxx39]

Threads about Romney should not be Mormon threads, bashing and defending Mormon theology and history. It is a profound mistake to allow this to happen. Theology threads belong in the Backroom with all the other theology debates.

The original post on this thread certainly does.

When you start bashing Romney over Mormonism, just remember that it's not you who is winning or losing a debate. It's Keith Obertroll who is winning. It's Dan Rather who is winning. It's the New York Times and the Washington Post who is winning. It is, in short, all our libmedia enemies who will rejoice at having sown such discord and fanned the flames of intra-party warfare here at FreeRepublic, the bastion of online conservative discussion.

A little hyperbolic here, IMO. There is a difference between discussion and "bashing" in the first place and secondly, I certainly wouldn't describe this as warfare or even "sewing seeds of discord." If you follow some threads closely, you will see, in some cases, a spirit of competition over "who is the better theologian" rather than "warfare".

Don't fall for it. Don't let libmedia (and a few hotheads) split the party and elect the Wife Of Clinton.

This is a point I have made time and again on FR. The media right now is playing these cards. As an example, the PBS special on mormonism this past week. A Romney nomination will bring on an onslaught from the media on the peculiarities of mormon beliefs with the specific intent of both tarring all Christians with the same brush, and keeping evangelicals from the voting booth.

[JimRob, I hope you'll read this and consider it. I think I'm right about libmedia's intent to split the Party Of Reagan with a multi-pronged RINO-Giuliani and anti-Mormon strategy.]

Agreed.

[George W. Bush]

If I could be assured that Romney was more conservative than any of the other candidates, he would receive my full support. But Romney has New England Liberal Republican credentials. Up until he decided to run for president, he was a staunch abortion proponent. So from a primary point of view, Romney is not acceptable to me.

Ronald Reagan signed the most liberal abortion bill in the country in 1968. Although his biographer claims that in conversations with Ronnie, he was always opposed to abortion, there is no proof that he was. In 1975, Ronnie came out against abortion with a profound conviction of its immorality. That was only a year before he ran for the nomination against Ford as a pro-lifer.

Most of us are pro-life converts. This is true of the entire pro-life movement.

If he has converted to pro-life, then we should accept him. The same way Ronnie was accepted without further questioning of his motives.

I would point out that Romney and his wife looked into supporting embryonic research because it was a political issue and because she suffers with MS. As you know, multiple sclerosis is not an easy death. So they consulted with a Harvard researcher. What they found repelled them and turned them against embryonic research and Romney took action as governor. They have, since then, consistently opposed abortion and embryonic research and cloning. Given that the lovely Mrs. Romney faces a hard death from suffocation, it would be only too easy for them to champion embryonic research. That they refuse to do so on moral grounds and speak to the issue extensively should go some distance in allaying concerns over the sincerity of their pro-life convictions.

Many of us pro-life converts could tell a not dissimilar story of when we finally realized just what being pro-abortion really means. And how we, like the Romneys, recoiled from it and became pro-life.

I would also point out that converts are often your most energetic and effective advocates. And, although it might sound cynical, Mrs. Romney would easily counter any further attempts by Michael J. Fox to go off his meds deliberately to tape more pro-infanticide/pro-cloning commercials by using pity for his condition to soften up the voters, as happened in Missouri and other states in '06.

If the Romneys are sincere (and I don't have reason to doubt it yet), Mitt could be far and away the best pro-life nominee we could field.

However if he gets the primary nod, then I will fully support him. However, if Rudy gets the primary nod, I will not be voting for a Republican for president. Rudy is an UNREPENTANT abortion proponent. Romney is a repentant and allegedly former abortion proponent who is running now on his opposition to abortion. It's a hard pill to swallow, but not impossible.

I entirely agree. I will never vote for Rudy. NEVER! Romney, well, if he can pass muster with the pro-life and pro-gun arms of the GOP, it will be good enough for me. So far, he's making the right moves.

If Fred Thompson were a Mormon, I would still be hoping and praying that he enters the race. It would make no difference to me at all.

Exactly so. We will face defeat if we start bickering over theology. We will deserve defeat if we let the libmedia bait us into doing it.

BTW, you did notice that Harry Reid is a Mormon, admittedly a very corrupt one (unlike the squeaky-clean businessman and CEO that Romney is)?

It's no accident that the Dims selected a Mormon to lead their Senate. They are trying to split our loyal Mormon allies from the Party Of Reagan. This is a deliberate strategy that will entail our long-term defeat at the polls. Without our Mormon allies, there would never have been a President George W. Bush. And the Dims know it! (I forgot to mention this part in my previous post.)

None of this is an accident. It's part of a plan by libmedia and the Dims. They have grown smarter. We'd better understand that before it's too late. But the GOP is not the Plantation Party. That's what our enemies are. Either the Mormons are our full partners or they really should look elsewhere. If they have a good candidate who supports the entire party platform then he gets a fair shot, not just some cheap shots at the theology of his church.

BTW, you did notice that Utah went after the FLDS very strongly? That is also no accident, IMO. They're cleaning up the last embarrassing remnants of the polygamy era. About time too, especially if they're planning to field a serious presidential candidate and back him financially (which they are certainly doing). I think the FLDS will not exist in America by the end of the year.

[DelphiUser]

Why would a faith use Smith and say he was persecuted?

When I think of the strong men of the Bible, they had strength of conviction, powerful reasoning skills, leadership abilities, and a spirit of guidance. They stumbled, but carried on. Some reached their goals, others did not. But all of them were looking to God to guide them. And if they failed, they didn’t blame Him. It is a give-and-take relationship. And we are blessed by their examples.

Painting Smith into a hole where the entire state was out to get him, makes him look impotent.

Really? I thought the effort to paint him a a womanizing wife stealer was just the opposite. (lol)

There is truth and perspective, truth just is. Perspective can be manipulated. Are you saying there was no extermination order? If there was, then the whole state was “Out to get him”

I wouldn’t follow such a weak person. Why others do is beyond me. Were they so lost that they couldn’t see the danger?

So to you, strength is crushing your opposition in the here and now? His opponents thought killing Joseph Smith would destroy Mormonism. They were wrong.

Jesus Christ was murdered on the cross by politicians, lawyers and religious leaders who thought killing him would destroy his religion, the were wrong.

would you follow such a weak person?

It is so easy to twist words, the truth however, does not twist and those who deny it will discover, like Saul that it is hard to kick against the pricks.

[DelphiUser]

Saundra you haven’t been in the Church long enough to be familiar with the pride Mormons had in being a “peculiar” people, you should look up those referrences. Come on now Saundra, we know you are a recent convert, but you simply must get up to speed with Mormonism before you post embarrassing one-side opinion posts like this one.

The condescending tone in your post is telling more than the words you are speaking.
You might want to fix that.

[DelphiUser]

I’ll be honest. I have trouble seeing myself voting for someone who wears magic underwear.

Magic?

Would you have a problem voting for someone who wears a yamica (sp?)? How about a prayer shawl?
Priests collar?

Religious clothing is not new, and Underwear is hardly a topic for a candidate, I don' want to see it, or see it aired, if you know what I mean.

Bill Clinton thought it was funny to be asked what kind he wears, and answered the questions!

I for one was embarrassed for America that day.

[DelphiUser]

I’ve never had a Methodist say to me, “You’re wrong!” But, I have had Mormons say that to me. A Methodist is not threatened because the mainstream Protestant faiths are very similar.

I have been damned to hell by lots of ministers, then again, I grew up in the bible belt as a Mormon.

Some people even damn me to hell without meeting me, Sigh.

[Zechariah11]

I agree. That was an UGLY and VICIOUS smear against evangelicals. if there is anything that would change my open mind about Romney, it is that type of stuff.

[George W. Bush]

We see this in every single ‘Red’ State, and not just Utah. Your assumption is incorrect.

I've lived in two states that were all-Red in 2000. I don't think I'd agree entirely. Certainly, Nebraska doesn't fit your generalization.

Regardless, without Utah, there would be no Bush administration in the White House.

Even discounting Utah, it would be difficult to believe that the Mormon voters of Florida did not provide far more than the margin of 500 votes for our victory in 2000. Of course, it does not hinge around Mormons. But they are a key component of the party.

Given that Mormon voting populations are more concentrated in certain states than you suggest, I'm not going to respond to your other analysis. But I don't accept it.

EX-Mormons and inactive Mormons are predominantly liberals as can be viewed by opinions on this site.

And ex-Catholics and inactive Catholics are also liberals. Look at the northeast. I don't think you actually have a point here.

Believe me, Mormons need the Republican party FAR more than we need them. They are using us IMO to further their own political agenda.

And what, precisely, is this "Mormon political agenda"? Describe it in detail.

They get away with it by accusing us of bigotry, hate, and prosecution. This is clearly a liberal tactic.

Aside from the tendencies in this vanity's original post, I don't see it much. I certainly don't see it coming from Romney, he's running a very positive campaign, notably so. I like his commercials on Fox News during the Hume show. Very effective. I very much like when he talks about vetoes: "I like the veto.". He sounds like a Boy Scout going after his Veto Badge. Makes me smile. Almost as funny as his remarks about being a longtime "rodent hunter". Pretty humorous, though in part unintentional so.

As for your other conclusions, I think I have already provided a far more comprehensive set of answers about libmedia/Dim strategy against us and the attempt to neutralize the Mormon/GOP vote.

[DelphiUser]

I left the LDS Church at great personal peril.

Let the flames begin.

No flames from me CC, I do however find it sad that you take a personal tragedy and make it our fault. If there be faults (and there are and will still be faults) they are the faults of men.

I pray you will find the peasce in Christ that eludes you.

[colorcountry]

Do you seriously think Mormons would abandon the GOP and vote dem, if we don’t nominate Romney?

Even when Senator Smoot was under investigation and not seated in Congress, the Momons support the Republicans.

The Mormon political agenda is very similar to the Republican agenda. Family values, States rights, the protection of the unborn. Like I said they need us more than we need them. Don’t get confused. The GOP supports their lifestyle. We needn’t get confused and think that we are dependant upon them. The GOP is FAR, FAR more in need of the Evangelicals whom (if we can use the OP as any indication) are completely despised by the LDS. I would think twice before alienating Christians over Mormons.

The GOP has a big tent. We have always protected Mormons as well as anyone. We don’t need to “prove” it to the Mormons. We need to stick to our principals. It is our principals that make our ideas valuable. Part of our principals in a belief in One God. I will not pretend to think that electing a Commander in Chief who believes he will become a god is not an important aspect of his character.

When it comes down to each individual who votes his own conscience are we going to worry about alienating gays, or abortionists, or socialists (of which there are far more in number than Mormons)? Must we bend to this special interest group to show our lack of bigotry?

BTW, Utah will continue to be conservative (unless the socialists from other States continue to move in in alarming numbers). As will the rest of the Intermountain West. What we need to fear is the influx of liberal agenda into the lifesyle and politics of traditionally conservative States. This is something to fear!

[FastCoyote]

“Now, you would think that evangelicals would welcome Mormons as political allies for the very same reasons that the liberals reject them. You’d be wrong. Evangelicals, many of whom believe the cosmos and world did not exist a little over 6000 years ago, reject Mormons because they have some “weird” beliefs. “

The 6000 year thing IS a weird belief and isn’t the doctrine of any major denomination I know of. Seems Christians reject things over time that that have found flat out wrong (like the world is flat), Mormons appear to offer a new Revelation and then pretend nothing happened.

I am a Lutheran - good old Martin was a beer drinking good old boy who besides rocking the world and starting a major protestant war was also a bit of a semite. BUT HE WASN’T GOD AND HE WASN’T A PROPHET!!! So I’m happy to reject his failings. How’s about you rejecting Joseph Smith’s failings. Oh, that’s right, if some of his grifting turns out to be true, the whole foundation of Mormonism collapses. That’s why you have to defend Joseph to the Death, no matter how much evidence of craziness is presented.

[Afronaut]

Look for the Mormons to propagate the Religious Bigotry card as the Kennedy's did in the 1960 election. Let's all see how it works for them.

Having an open mind to the point of having your brains spill out is not a good idea.