| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/03/2007 6:34:01 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poor behavior |
Posted on 07/26/2007 5:03:33 PM PDT by tantiboh
Democratic political consultant Mark Mellman has a very good piece up today at The Hill on the baffling and illegitimate opposition among voters to Mitt Romney due to his religion. I liked his closing paragraphs:
In July of 1958, 24 percent of respondents told Gallup they would not vote for a Catholic for president, almost identical to Gallup’s reading on Mormons today. Two years later, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic to assume the oath of office. Within eight months, the number refusing to vote for a Catholic was cut almost in half.
[snip]
Mellman also discusses an interesting poll he helped construct, in which the pollsters asked half of their respondents whether they would support a candidate with certain characteristics, and asked the other half about another candidate with the exact same characteristics, with one difference. The first candidate was Baptist, the second candidate was Mormon. The Baptist had a huge advantage over the Mormon candidate, by about 20 points.
[snip]
However, more recent polls have attempted to fix the anonymity problem. A recent Time Magazine poll (read the original report here), for example, got to the heart of the question by asking respondents if they are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney specifically because he is a Mormon. The result is not as bad as some reporting on the poll has suggested. For example, while 30% of Republicans say they are less likely to vote for Romney because of his religion, fully 15% of other Republicans say that characteristic makes them more likely to vote for him. And while many have reported the finding that 23% of Republicans are “worried” by Romney’s Mormonism, the more important (but less-reported) number is that 73% say they hold no such reservations...
(Excerpt) Read more at romneyexperience.com ...
“For those who want to know what Mormons really believe... *cue spooky music* ...try reading it for yourself.”
http://www.mrm.org/topics/introductory-issues/were-christians-just-you
“Let’s say that Romney wins the nomination and faces Hillary in the general election. Let’s also say that Romney loses a close election based on his inability to get evangelicals to vote for him. Do you think that evangelicals are in danger of becoming marginalized within the party if they will not support a qualified candidate?”
No. Republicans will no longer take this block of
voters for granted... and will realize they ran a
suicide mission... foolishly and despite warnings.
ampu
“I might consider Romney, despite his lack of good judgment on spiritual matters, if he wasn’t a weasel who will say anything to anyone at any time to get votes. His pandering and flip-flopping show he is not trustworthy.”
I think this will hurt him much more than his being a Mormon. His “stand” on important issues is determined by the current political climate in which he finds himself. I really doubt if the Mormons on this board would find him “exciting” if he were a Baptist.
Interestingly, the “would not vote for a Mormon” group is a higher percentage amongst liberals than conservatives - a point made in the original article. This indicates to me that liberals are particularly afraid of Mormons. Sounds to me like a good reason for our detractors to reconsider their position
That statement doesn't make much sense to me. Is your only goal for Romney to win the primary? There are a LOT of liberals who will be voting in the general, along with the Evangelicals.
I want the Republicans to win the GENERAL election, and Romney will lose it for us.
“Well, there you go. The unimpeachable hearsay of... of... (Who is this guy again?)
...combined with what you believe “one of [our] prophets said”.
That there is some powerful evidence, AMPU.”
In case you haven’t read mormonism’s literature lately...
““Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening called the moon? ...when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain,” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 271).”
There you have it - the moon and sun inhabited according
to mormon leaders. Somewhere else I read a quote from another
of the mormon cult leaders that said every star was
inhabited too, but it escapes me. Kooks.
gf,
1. He is a rhino
2. He is in a cult
3. He will drive away blocks of voters in the general election
Do we need any more reasons to not vote for Willard Romney?
Yes, isn't it ironic that many of the same LDSers are telling us we cannot and should not consider a person's religion in our selection process, but they themselves support him because they want so badly to have a Mormon as POTUS. How does that work?
Many, many millions already have. Richard Nixon was a Quaker. Some of them have different life-styles but their beliefs are generally orthodox.
To be fair, other denominations get their fair share of 'assault' as well.
“Yes, isn’t it ironic that many of the same LDSers are telling us we cannot and should not consider a person’s religion in our selection process, but they themselves support him because they want so badly to have a Mormon as POTUS. How does that work?”
Yes, good point!
As an aside, since most quakers are pacifists,
I would want some assurance that any quaker
running for POTUS was willing to be a true
commander in chief...
Their place in the Republican party will be the last thing an Evangelical thinks of at the ballot box. Their place with Christ will be of more importance to them.
Bingo!
Thanks for responding. I agree with you that God must come first over politics. We disagree that God would want Mitt disqualified over his faith.
Mitts lack of a spine makes him unelectable..
Where did the four brothers come from? Possibly someone can clarify this for me, but as a student of Utah history, I learned of the Donner Party coming through a year earlier in 1846. My great great grandfather entered the Salt Lake Valley in July 1847 in the second company. Two of my great uncles marched to California with the Mormon Battalion, however that was along the route from Council Bluffs to San Diego.
So where did the four brothers come from and what were their names?
Mormon folklore? Maybe it was Zelph - the white Lamanite and his brothers.
“Hmmm ~ how about a Quaker? Would you vote for a Quaker ~ they have strange beliefs ~ definitely not Christian ones ~ more like Moroccan Sufis in fact.”
Wasn’t Nixon raised as a Quaker?
Don’t bother were not naive and neither is the Lord!
I think that if the party is to remain viable that we need to support whoever wins the nomination. We go through a long nomination process and when a winner emerges we need to pull the lever even if we have to hold our noses a little. A large group sitting on the sideline or voting a third party gives the dems a huge advantage. The attitude of 'my candidate or no candidate' is short sighted.
I think that many rank and file republicans would view an evangelical boycott of a qualified candidate negatively. For evangelicals to proclaim Romney as unqualified based on his faith would be a mistake, IMO. We are in a fight for our country against those who wish to destroy it. I think it would be foolish to allow the Clinton's to come back to power over the issue of someones 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.