Posted on 05/18/2007 4:36:41 AM PDT by Liz
THE ISSUE: Whether Mitt Romney can become the first Mormon president. (Rich Lowry "Mauling Mitt For Mormonism," PostOpinion, May 15)
**** As a conservative, Romney is among the candidates for president I like most. The appearance of a squeaky-clean "Ozzie and Harriet" family life is no small part of his appeal. We need a leader who lives the way we should all aspire to.....the liberal media who idolize the likes of Bill Clinton do not feel the same way. Manhattan
**** Romney should be given a fair shake.....his policies and leadership qualities should be scrutinized, not his religious affiliation. That kind of bigotry should have gone by the wayside with the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic....beyond the good looks and stylish presentation of Romney, is a highly intelligent, very driven and skillful politician. He's a caring man with a nice family. Why should he be criticized for having that? It used to be the American ideal; maybe it's time to have it again. Manhattan
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Translation: "Muzzle it, CC. You are an unreasonable person. Keep your mouth shut if you want to come across as a reasonable person. Zip it."
Romney isn’t what I want in a presidential , but, unlike Guliani and McCain, if he gets the nomination, I’ll vote for him in the General election.
I vote for the Jimmy Stewart character who was a friend of "Harvey." He was a good man.
(He said irrationally)
My understanding of Christianity is that Christ will inherit all that God has and that Christian man may inherit all that Christ has. If Christ is god and man has all He has does that not imply some kind of godhood?
I think one Christian idea is as far fetched as another but we are all free to believe any of them we want.
I have no opinion of Catholicism, Judaism or Pentacostalism because I have not researched those beliefs. If I was considering voting for a man for POYUS who professed those beliefs, I certainly would find out what those religions entail
My experience is that most people that leave their faith simply fade away from it and have respect for the good people that they left behind
Have you had any experience of those who leave cults? They behave in a different way than those people who are in a beliefs system that don't expect perfect performance, and unquestioned obedience. Perhaps you would be better prepared to answer how I should behave if you studied cults and indoctrination.
BTW are you Mormon. You seem to be espousing the long standing "you can leave the Church but you can't leave it alone" doctrine. It's just more of Mormonisms example of mind control.
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own.
I have said nothing about whether one persons religion or political ideas are good or bad, I simply question why we would pick on a religion other than our own as bad. Most religions even the weirdest of them have a lot of good going for them. I just think it is wrong to think of someone as bad because they don’t share my religion.
There's a saying about digging while in a hole...
So somebody who "holds blindly" to a religious opinion that say, the best creeds are LDS ones [the supposed definition of bigotry] because said voter is LDS himself/herself, and converts that opinion into a vote for an LDS candidate is also a "bigot" in your definition?
Those LDS who vote for Mitt or any LDS candidate only because--or primarily because-those candidates are Mormons are "bigots?"
You can't have it both ways: You can't say folks who take character issues (and faith is one of those) into consideration to vote against a candidate is a "bigot"...but voters who likewise take character/faith issues into consideration to vote for one are not.
Whose job is it to judge people and their view of superstitions (like Color Country's)? While you obvious think it's your job based upon your postings I think it is mostly none of your business.
(Ya gotta love the echo acoustics in this thread when ya got folks who carve out high judgment seats for themselves that they afford no one else!!!)
“The bottom line is that Mitt thinks he’ll become a god someday. So you want a divine-to-be in office? “
Every faith is based on irrational beliefs. That is why they are faiths and not science.
Mitt’s beliefs have absolutely no effect on you or anyone else, except to make him want to live a good life here, to be worthy of what Mormons believe awaits them in the hereafter.
What matters is not what our theology teaches about the nature of God, where he came from, or what the afterlife consists of. What matters to others is whether the believer lives the commandments, and lives a good life here, treating others — including his family — with integrity, trying to be a productive, contributing member of society.
To the extent that Mormon doctrine will influence Mitt as a politician, it will be to inspire him to protect the Constitution — which we believe is an inspired document — and to attempt to protect the family and individuals from government policies which lead to their dissolution.
What is “irrational” is your insistence that you get to define who is “Christian.”
What is “irrational” is for you to insist that it is perfectly rational to believe that prophets existed in former times, but not now. Why is it more “rational” to believe that prophets can only exist when they are safely removed from the present day?
What is “irrational” is to hang your definition of “Christianity” on the Nicene Creed, which is comprehensible to no one, and which was cooked up hundreds of years after Christ’s earthly ministry by a bunch of clerics under pressure from government.
We Mormons are no more irrational than any other believers. Our beliefs are no less rational than any other beliefs, just less familiar.
What is “irrational” is your continual assertion that our set of beliefs disqualifies us from serving in political office, when the truth or untruth of them can’t be proven until the next life, and when those beliefs will have positive effects on the way we conduct our lives here.
Cute, subtle wordplay there. Mormons think they will be gods. (Equal to God.)
"g o d s"
Christians know they are God's. (Belonging to God.)
"G o d ' s"
See post #49 where I address this.
Are you consistent? Do you label not just "anti" voters but "pro" voters who have character/faith considerations tied into voting decisions? (You expect LDS voters, for example, to wear their religious blinder lens when they step into the voting booth...Mitt's LDSism is to be irrelevant to them, as well, eh?)
I understand. It is all about appearing to be perfect, like your Mormon family members. You do understand JAKraig that none of us is perfect, not me, not you, and not Mormons.
I too have Mormon family members. It is hilarious that you want to paint me a bigot when my mother, brother, in-laws and husband are all believing Mormons and I have good relationships with all. They understand that I can question Mormonism, and indeed can come to the conclusion it is false without being a bigot.
I am not suggesting that anyone blindly holds to any religion. Many people change their religion at various stages in their lives because they find another “truth”. Does that mean they were bad before their change?
We are all bigoted to some degree I suppose, I think I would find it very hard to vote for a Moslem for any office. However if that Moslem presented a platform that harshly berated Islomafasts I might be convinced to vote for him.
Blind faith works two ways. If you only see things your way and blindly ignore the good in others then I would say your blindness has a detrimental effect.
Anti-amnesty is a rare consensus issue----most sides of the political spectrum DO NOT want amnesty. Politicans from both sides of the aisle are hearing the same thing from constituents.........NO amnesty.
Repubs better wake up----they will be relegated to the dustbin of history should these invading hordes of illegals (and aliens registered to vote fraudulently) are given any say in the US political/electoral system.
And so your indecisive theological relativism is now supposed to be the standard that we all operate under?
What kind of religious imperial nonsense is that?
Yesterday was the anniversary of David Koresh & Branch Dividians' death. How many kids died again?
But you would live in a world where we are to not "comment" upon that or upon religious kool-aid drinkers...a leader (Jones), BTW, who in that circumstance, once held to fairly straightforward orthodox Christian views.
I've got news for you: Not all religious opinions have equal weight.
Someone who treats abortion as a sacrament is not on the same faith opinion ground as those who treat the Body and Bread of Jesus Christ as a sacrament.
I respectfully disagree.
While rationality is not the basis/source of our beliefs, that doesn't automatically place them into the "against" reason/rational reality position.
Even if we take your angle on this, if you were a kid who got beat up hundreds of times when you walked down alley ways by one or both 6-4 white blond weightlifting twins...and when you grew up you acted in an "anethema" way toward tall blond men, weightlifters, or blond male twins, or walking in alley ways, such a perceived "phobia" wouldn't be "irrational." It'd be based upon a pattern of real-life experiences. The kid-now-adult simply has a "faith" that certain characteristics in people or cities are not good for his health. Frankly, his reaction is very "rational" if the threat was still real AND if he wanted to stay alive and well.
Faith is not always aligned with what some would deem "rationality," but that doesn't make it inherently "irrational."
Christians, including Mormons, believe in the divinity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, his resurrection, and salvation through his atonement. Those are supernatural, not “rational,” matters that defy understanding through any means other than faith.
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.