Posted on 10/04/2007 9:40:06 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
When Mitt Romney appeared last week (via closed circuit from California) before the Council of Retired Chief Executives meeting in Washington, he faced kindred souls: rich Republicans who had managed big enterprises. Yet the second question from the audience was whether Romney's Mormon faith was hurting his quest for the Republican presidential nomination. He replied that about the only people who brought up his religion were members of the media, an answer that simply is untrue.
Romney is asked about Mormonism wherever he goes. In my travels, I find his religious preference cited everywhere as the source of opposition to his candidacy. His response to the former chief executives that only reporters care about this issue sounded like a politician's tired evasion. Romney was either too obtuse to appreciate his problem or was stalling because he had not determined how to deal with it. Contact with his advisers indicates that it's the latter.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
2. What is your source?
I will when you can finally admit you were wrong. I won't be holding my breath. ;)
Does that bigotry and lack of tolerance extend to Christ-killer Jews and Papist Catholics?
Nope! I know that I was lost and I know that I am saved to a certainty. Do you? If not, please consider praying.
Well then maybe instead of saying, "I couldn't vote for a Mormon or any other candidate who wasn't an Evanglical or Catholic Christian," you should have just said I won't vote for a non-Christian.
Not all Christians consider themselves Evangelicals, primarily people who go to non-denominational churches.
This thread has been astoundingly eye opening in seeing that people believe what they want to with nothing to back up their posts. The picture of the LDS garments is extremely offensive, knowing that to those who wear them they are sacred and not even to be discussed, much less shown. And I suppose if something is in quotation marks it is accurate? Disfellowshipped members are not asked to stop wearing the garment. Once again, Republicans are more interested in fighting amongst themselves than pulling together for any decent candidate in the real battle against the queen of all socialism.
“That’s funny, I heard Mitt on Hugh Hewitt last night clearly refuting what Media Matters put out and clearly defending Rush.”
Romney did not address the press release that he sent to the Huffington Post joining the attack on Rush.
Romney did not address any aspect of his having “thrown Rush under the bus”.
Romney has not acknowledged any thing about what Rush told his audience yesterday about Romney’s attack on him, an attack that even after today’s show is still hanging out there.
Romney has not contacted Rush or apologized, and Rush reinforced that today.
Not in this case kabar. Would you draw the line anywhere or would you march off and vote for a scientologist if they had an (R) next to their name on the ballot? How about a follower of David Koresh or Jim Jones or the blind sheik? Where do YOU draw the line and why is everyone else’s line bigoted to you? Your line is special?
It is certain that sooner or later, Romney will address the nation. His task is vastly more complicated than John F. Kennedy’s was on Sept. 12, 1960, when he told the Greater Houston Ministerial Council that as president he would not take orders from the pope.
Romney will no more attempt explaining Mormon theology than Kennedy ventured into Roman Catholic doctrine.
He will do what I suggested he do 17 months ago: deplore a religious test as un-American. ~ Robert Novak
I am a Catholic who was married in a Mormon church. I am eager to vote for Mr. Romney or any decent Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Baptist, etc., and I simply can’t understand why anyone wouldn’t, and I think it’s very sad.
Don't mix up qualifications for presidential candidacy with qualities of a president.
Lots of folks (perhaps even you?) might be worthy to be qualified to run for president. (Candidate qualifications)
Mitt would have such qualifications. The Muslim congressman from Minnesota would likewise have officeholder qualifications
But qualities of an officeholder--while common to many voters--are still more subjectively distinct. Frankly, while some common consensus points of evaluation exist, they still vary according to voter. Some voters weigh social issues more; others weigh character more; others weigh pet issues more; others weigh experience...
So a Catholic/New Ager like Dennis Kucinich (friend of Shirley MacLaine) certainly has the qualifications to run for office; but some of his New Age leanings (has been influenced by a spiritual "healer"/teacher from a New Mexican New Age organization) may effect how a voter views his qualities as a President. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
Ping
It is certain that sooner or later, Romney will address the nation. His task is vastly more complicated than John F.
Kennedy’s was on Sept. 12, 1960, when he told the Greater Houston Ministerial Council that as president he would not take orders from the pope.
Romney will no more attempt explaining Mormon theology than Kennedy ventured into Roman Catholic doctrine.
He will do what I suggested he do 17 months ago: deplore a religious test as un-American. ~ Robert Novak
Silly numbers. The Mormon church never drops anyone from their rolls. You have to ask, usually multiple times before they do it. You are lucky if you have 5 million active Mormons from what I’ve read and the church has been stuck there for a long time. Appropriate for a cult. Christians gained 3,000 in the first sermon after Pentacost. Mormons get used by thier church, social pressure for missions, like the social pressure to give up 10% in tithe plus 4% in “charity” . . . and their church does not grow except in wealth.
A Republican cannot win Arizona (sadly now a swing state) without a significant portion of the Mormon vote. That said, I don’t know a single Mormon who would vote against the GOP if they don’t pick Romney. Most Mormons I know although they like Romney prefer the more conservative candidates to him.
I personally wouldn’t have a problem voting for a deist. The deists don’t falsely claim to be “Christians” while denying basic Christian truths (as the Mormon’s do). Mormon’s deny that there is one God (they believe there are many gods spread out across multiple universes). Deists also don’t have the history of falsehood, deception and violence that the Mormon church has. False church, lots of blood and shattered lives. It’s a cult.
“1. Where’s the pentagram?”
Huh? I never mentioned a pentagram, I don’t know if they are on there are not, google it and then tell me.
http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/mormonism/what-are-mormon-garments/
Comparing Mormonism to David Koresh or Jim Jones or the blind shiek is pure sophistry. I will tell you where I wouldn't draw the line, i.e., against an established Christian denomination that has over 12 million adherents in this country and whose members don't represent a threat to this country. Where do you draw the line?
The Dems and the MSM have been attacking every one of the Rep candidates to create the imporession that they are all "flawed." The most flawed candidate in this race is Hillary Clinton and I will take any Rep candidate over her. That's where I draw the line.
What just happened there, why was that post pulled?
I am a Catholic who was married in a Mormon church. I am eager to vote for Mr. Romney or any decent Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Baptist, etc., and I simply can’t understand why anyone wouldn’t, and I think it’s very sad. [GOP_Lady]
In the interest of helping you, GOP_Lady, to understand another perspective, and in the interest of challenging Bobkk47's "ridiculous" assertion, then please answer some of the following points:
Point 1: Religion IS NOT a qualification for public office; but it's certainly is one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc.
Point 2: If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist!
Point 3: Other-worldly commitments (faith) is a character issue! There's no way around this realization! To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).
Point 4: (This especially applies to POTUS and may or may not apply to all races): Bill Clinton was a presidential role-model disaster for our young generation re: the scandal. Any president the voting block elevates to the highest role model position in our land accords the highest vote of respectability to the public aspects of what that person stands for. If that person, for example, is a neatly tucked-away communist who's adopted a mask of "family values," & we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere. It would fuel their door-to-door boldness and other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!"
Point 5: (Not sure if this applies beyond POTUS). The Bible shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the the true Lord & who do not worship false gods/idols. The OT is replete w/ such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture. It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" just like the soup kitchen down the street. History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader holds, the more trouble that leader's "exhaust" settles on the people-at-large. Kings & presidents need all the grace, mercy, & guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving & directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god & has no true relationship w/the living God is stifling access to God's resources; & a nation may suffer for that.
Point 6: Let's say the candidate is not a closet communist but rather an open doctrinaire communist. He comes to me (let's say I'm a successful businessman who has benefitted from capitalism) & says: "You are an apostate from Marx. Every capitalistic creed is an abomination before the sovereign state. Your capitalistic leaders are corrupt. There are only two economic systems: the system of the devil (if he exists), capitalism; and the perfect ideal system, communism. I can expect your vote, then?"
Now ya wanna explain how the above is any different than a doctrinaire Mormon who subscribes to the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, verses 18-19? (LDS cannot just take or leave its "Scripture," ya know...this verse comes from the very foundation of the church--the First Vision of Joseph Smith). Any true-believing LDS candidate who approaches us historic Christians is saying: "You are an apostate; I am a restorationist built upon the complete ashes of your faith. Your creeds--all of them--are an abomination before God. Your leaders are corrupt. As it says in the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi, there's only two churches...Ours, the Church of the Lamb; and yours, the Church of the devil. Now, that I've properly inspired you, Mr. Joe Voter, I can expect your vote on Tuesday, then?"
Point 7: Taking this voter alienation into consideration (based upon common polls), & taking the MSM onslaught into consideration in '08, a smart voter MUST consider candidate viability. Come '08, we'll see MSM questions like, "Do you believe you will be a god? Do you believe conservative voters from other churches are 'apostates?' Do believe that although polygamy is no longer practiced on earth, it's being practiced at now & for eternity in another dimension known as the celestial kingdom?"
Point 8: (related to Point 6 & applicable only to POTUS):
If I...
...(a) was a POTUS candidate from a commonly regarded "cultic group"; and
...(b) mislabel 75% of my voting base's primary faith tenets & claims as mere "apostate" status (Note: 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party) Then...
Conclusion: I not only show open disdain for my voting base, but betray my ability to inspire confidence in my ability to accurately define a major world religion. If I cannot accurately define a major world religion, what confidence do I inspire re: my ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?
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.