| 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 ...
“That’s a real trick, since St. Paul wrote Galatians about 1800 years before Joseph Smith was walking around New York or Missouri.”
I was confused by that statement too.
I don’t like liberals or panderers (or brainwashed cult members) all of which Mitt seems to be, but as much as I hate to admit it I MIGHT be able to plug my nose on election day and drag myself kicking and screaming against my will and go against everything I know and stand for and vote against a Hillary, Obama or whatever if that was the choice, and if I were to do such a thing I would regret it for the rest of my life and smack myself in the face every time I thought about it, and for the rest of my days I would stick my ass out at strangers for them to give me a good swift kick for what I had done.
“The attitude of is short sighted... For evangelicals to proclaim Romney as unqualified based on his faith would be a mistake, IMO.”
And this is why you do not understand the evangelical
“voting block” Sandude.
You are assuming the wrong thing twice in the portion
of your post I quoted. Here is how I view it, fwiw...
‘my candidate or no candidate’
Evangelicals do not have a candidate. The way a great portion
will view a choice between Hillary and Willard is a choice
between opposing socialist evil (complete with abortion,
etc) and voting against the most cherished core beliefs
of what makes them evangelical. Not an appealing choice
no matter who you would pull the lever for. This leaves
the option of not voting, or voting third party.
In any case, you will not see enthusiasm, working or
giving, imo
“Romney as unqualified”
No. Again, that isn’t the issue. He may be qualified to
be POTUS according to law and according to experience.
Evangelicals do not see him as unqualified. They see
him as a representative of a CULT. Since you are a member
of the cult of mormonism, I do not expect you to understand
this. But that is what is.
So it is a difficult choice for those who think - vote
against the evil of socialist Hillary, and in the process
vote to elevate a cultist, which is more evil, or vote for
the evil of Hillary and against the evil Mitt will represent.
Remember this. The confused mind always says no.
Ergo, going fishing.
ampu
Roman Catholicism is not a 185 year old wacky cult started by a sexually immoral charlatan, period.
That makes all the difference.
To say that, is to out and out disqualify millions of Christian folks who have extremely serious and very legit reservations about Mormonism. BTW, just because you say..they don't. Doesn't make it so.
And IF that statement WASN'T a back-door way to religion bash...I'm Boog Powell.
So, IMO your article "bashes" away..in the first sentence...but you've pre-claimed no responses like that?
Give me a break.......
Easy!
You just have to see it from OUR point of view!
--MormonDude(I have compartments in my head.)
Oh?
Then how can you account for many over 1000 response thread about that very thing?
Why is it that NON-LDS members never seem to worry about these threads being 'in the wrong location'?
Leave it where it is, as I'm sure that Mitt's history has PLENTY of interesting things to speak about other than his Mormon roots!
I was confused by that statement too.
I am a Jew, and have more in common values-wise, with right wing Christians than I do with left-wing Jews. I look at multiple factors in evaluating a candidate. An observant Mormon, Christian or Jew is more likely to have a political philosophy consistent with my own than any liberal. Details of his religious outlook are really of no significance to me. Mormons are not known for chopping off heads or bombing pizza restaurants.
I view myself as being on the same “team” as evangelical and other serious Christians. I think that Mormons belong on that team too. We can still legitimately worship within our different relgions.
Shabbat Shalom
That makes all the difference.
I know you are not alone there are many here including those in high places who think the same way about the LDS they just don't have the courage to say so!
That the members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are lead by a sexually immoral charlatans who also commune with Heaveny Father and Jesus Christ LDS know this by the power of the Holy Ghost!
When you AnalogReigns call the prophet sexually immoral charlatans you AnalogReigns call the members sexually immoral charlatans!
By their fruit ye shall know them says!
There is nothing new now anyone can add to the LDS list of whatever pops in their head the LDS are part of it!
Don't try to verify, malign by opinions and consensus!
Well the LDS will not fold nor go away inspite of this free for all on FR, the LDS will continue to Pressforward honoring the will and doing the will of the Heavenly Father.
In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Forget it bigots rule here!
That is a lie if it was Harry Reid I would not vote for him and I voted for Bush over Hatch whom I like!
So you are all wet!
Nixon’s mother was a Quaker, but the Civil War Midwestern type. They’d gone conventionally Christian a century earlier ~ made it easier to shoot Souvern’rs.
I think you didn't read my quite humorous post. You may try again. Go slow this time.
You obviously find it easy to ignore Romney’s obvious faults (which I have already discussed), so no, I am not.
Liberal tactics don’t work here.
Thanks you tell me what I believe, and what Mitt beleives, and now I am a liberal great!
I tell you if much more of this continues there is no need for LDS to hang around a place that thinks the LDS are unAmreican and allow religion bashing to continue so they can trash a candidate!
LDS need not apply!
Mitt is seeking for a job, and for someone to say that they would refuse to hire someone who was fully qualified and capable, with an excellent track record, solid references etc. etc. etc. just because you don’t like their religion is religious bigotry, pure and simple. How would you that table turned on you?
The way things are headed, you might find Christianity in the minority in the USA before long. Would you defend atheists who would refuse to hire someone of your faith to some important position, or vote them into office, just because they don’t want to make your religion look any more legitimate? If you want the religious majority to be able to repress others, or if you just want your own faith to have that right, then you do not understand or accept what freedom of religion really is.
The fact is we don’t need Mitt to be POTUS to have legitimacy, we already have it because of the sterling lives of millions of Mormons who live Christian lives and succeed in every worthy profession. The danger here isn’t that Mitt will make Mormonism any more legitimate, it is that those selling religious bigotry against us would be exposed as being so illegitimate.
In a way your words are a compliment. Clearly you think if people get a good look at Mitt they will come away with a positive view of Mormonism. If we were a bunch of kooky no-good weirdo’s, putting a faithful Mormon in the spotlight like that would make all your arguments for you. Instead you want to hide a light under a bushel. I can only conclude that you consider your arguments against Mormonism to be so weak that they can’t stand up to people knowing what a faithful Mormon is like.
You seem to be changing your words around you said LDSer want a Mormon in the Whitehouse and I showed you where you are all wet and if I choose Mitt who happens to be LDS over Fred I have that right too.
I choose Bush over Hatch and I had that right too!
Quit changing the topic!
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.