Posted on 12/13/2007 5:43:42 AM PST by Kaslin
When Mike Huckabee asked a New York Times' reporter, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers," he crossed a line he cannot uncross.
Previous to this he had played a game of teasing the anti-Mormon vote, and had been called on it by Charles Krauthammer and others.
But Huckabee had maintained deniability.
No more. Huckabee's obvious attempt to salt the mine and get the reporter to carry antt-Mormon rhetoric into the paper without Huckabee's fingerprints on it backfired, and the transparent attempt to use the MSM to further the anti-Mormon message was repulsive.
Until he crossed that line, Huckabee remained a viable protest vote for conservative evangelicals who distrusted Romney's conversion on life issues. The hard core anti-Mormon fanatics are actually few in number and many of them are on the left --like Larry O'Donnell-- and Romney had successfully put the issue of his faith behind him with his speech at the Bush Library.
But Romney still needed to connect with movement social conservatives leery of his embrace of the cause of the unborn. Until he unfurled the banner of Christian identity politics, Huckabee provided these voters with a place to park their vote, even though the effect would be to elevate Rudy Guiliani. Some of these values voters were going to vote their conscience, regardless of the result.
But there are millions and millions of evangelicals who will want no part of the appeal to "vote against the Mormon."
With his recent rise in the polls, Huckabee began to experience a scrutiny of his record that was already eroding his appeal to social conservatives. The Committee for Growth blasted Huckabee for his record of hiking taxes in Arkansas. The former Arkansas governor looked not ready for prime time when he was caught flat-footed on the NIE. Huckabee's advocacy for Wayne DuMond could not be fast-talked away, and the argument for isolating victims of the AIDs virus set off alarms as beyond any reasonable position even though Huckabee made the proposal in 1992. Suddenly Huckabee began to appear as a light-weight, and the charming,,joking second-tier fun guy took on a distinctively different look.
Then comes the below the belt hit on Mormons, so profoundly off-putting to Republicans who believe in the big tent as well as to evangelicals and Catholics who know the gulf between their theology and that of the LDS Church but who would no more verbally assault their Mormons friends, neighbors and business colleagues than they would any other American different from them on matters of faith. It just itsn't done. "Republican voters will not tolerate attacks on faith," pollster Frank Luntz declared on my program yesterday. I think he is right, and I hope he is right.
Such attacks on different religious beliefs have been part of American history, but aren't part of the American future. The common creed of moral convictions that Romney referred to his his College Station speech on faith now includes as one of its tenets that you do not mock or insult another person's religion.
Buck Mike Huckabee did. To the world's most influential newspaper.
Huckabee ought to have apologized during the Des Moines Register debate, but he didn't, perhaps waiting for the moderator to provide a moment to show some feigned regret.
So he went to CNN immediately thereafter and asked for forgiveness.
Will that put Huckabee's anti-Mormon genie back in its bottle. I don't think so. "That which is said while drunk has been thought out beforehand," goes the old saying. In the modern media world, candidates for the presidency don't say careless things to the New York Times. It was a premeditated aside, an attempt to get a virus into circulation. It didn't work, but it did tell us a lot about Mike Huckabee.
I see. So you would never vote for a Jew. Okay, just so we're clear.
You replied: It shows a prejudice against someone elses beliefs. Make no mistake, it was a swing at another religion.
You didn't answer the question. I asked how it was an attack, and your basic answer was "it was an attack." I ask you again, and please answer this time, "how is bringing up a theological doctrine held by another" somehow an attack?
Certainly if a candidate was an Islamic, and he believed Islamic doctrine that every Muslim must work to subdue all the world for Islam, then it would be a legitimate campaign issue. The candidate would not be able to get away with saying "keep my religion out of it."
We voters have the right to know what candidates believe. It it isn't an attack to bring up their beliefs.
Of course, there is no religious test for the office of president. But that does not mean we don't have the right to be aware of the religious doctrines a candidate holds. And when the light of day is shed upon them, it is not an attack. It is part of a legitimate AND responsible political strategy to bring them up...especially if the other party will most certainly dredge them up in the general campaign.
“Romney is, I suspect, deliberately obfuscating shared moral values with religious beliefs.”
No, he’s not. Read and listen to his speech, he explicitly makes the distinction. You seem desperate to argue a strawman here ...
” The bottom line is that most Mormons simply do not accept Jesus Christ as God. “
Arguable but suppose that is true (even though Mormons point out that their savior is Jesus Christ, they have a different theology about him than orthodox Christian trinitarian theology). That is also true of Jews. Are you going to insist that a Jewish candidate for President cannot be an examplar of our shared Judeo-Christian values?!?
“One of us is wrong, and I simply cannot, in good conscience, vote for an individual who will not place his faith in the true Christ.”
So in a race between a rock-solid conservative, brilliant, honest, clean-living Jewish Republican and a southern Baptist Christian but socialist moron like Jimmy Carter, you’d sell the country down the river and vote the Christian label?
(Shakes head in disbelief)
Let me know your answer to this.
What does that have to do with the price of beans? Romney already said his public policy would be seperate form his beliefs
Huckabee is going after the bigot vote, and I for one don't want to leave this to the Mormons to defend against. Personally, I think Gastric Bypass Boy is a scumbag, pardon the French.
This is your right, but it is a sorry reason to withold your vote from a candidate.. any candidate. Both Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter profess faith in Christ, and look how poorly their presidencies turned out. We are trying to decide on president, not on pastor.
I agree that mormonism is not Christian, in spite of its many attempts to fool people into believing that it is. But there are many mormons who are good leaders ... and some who are great leaders.
Romney would be a good president in my humble opinion. But I agree with you that his religious beliefs are fair game for scrutiny.
“I see that you left out the rest of my quote. If you’re a Christian, I simply cannot fathom how you can believe that a person’s religion will not affect their behavior.”
Strawman. It’s not that his religion wont affect his behavior, its that the way religion influences his behavior in office is through the values that religion teaches him; the specifics of his sects doctrines are of much less relevence than his personal values in ascertaining how he will behave in office. Romney made that point well, and pointed to the ‘common creed’ of our shared value to basically tell folks like you that, no, he doesnt have a 6 foot tail and horns and he not the spawn of satan.
“Do you think that any man is capable of living a Godly life without being filled with the power of the Holy Spirit?”
Do you think only southern Baptists are capable of being morally upright? Are all non-Christians less moral than Christians? Do you think only protestant Christians are capable of being moral leaders? Or good political leaders?
Mahatma Ghandhi lived a life that by most accounts was a good and moral one, perhaps even a Godly life.
He was not a Christian. But he was a force for good.
He once said, in fact, that: “There is no higher religion than truth.”
“If not, why do you expect that Mitt Romney can, enough, at least, to say that his beliefs don’t affect his behavior?”
Again, that’s a strawman. Romney said the opposite in fact. It would be helpful to read/listen to what Mitt Romney actually said.
“”My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.” - Mitt Romney
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Faith_In_America_Address
I thought she was Satan' elf. I think she's evil.
It doesn't have to seem goofy if a good minister lays it out.
If you look at it from the standpoint of the earthly world rather than a sky-bound spiritual world it helps. You can see a definite difference between individuals and their spirits if you will. From what I can tell there are actually a limited number of master spirits and many splinters all originating from the core source. Whether you call them an "it" as in just a force or a living being is a choice but it makes a major difference to your theology and belief system when you make each of those determinations.
From what I read from the Book of the Mormon it leans more in the direction of God as an "it" rather than a living person, which is actually the opposite of the mainstream protestant religion.
The Trinity separates God (the person), the Holy Spirit (the force), and Jesus (the Son). If you view the spiritual world as just as force and the split in the spirits is just a separating of energy then you could easily conclude that Lucifer and Christ are "brothers" of a sort....although I don't believe that to be the case.
That is my rather rough interpretation since I am not a professed Theologian.
So you’re prejudiced against someone because of where they are from?
or is it just white southerners from where they are from?
what about all Jews from North Miami Beach?
or all blacks from Harlem?
or all Arabs from Dearborn?
or all latinos from East LA?
or all Orientals from San Francisco?
I don’t think it’s bigoted to disagree over someone’s religion.
but I don’t like either Huckster or Romney for different reasons.
folks here toss around the bigot, prejudice and racist words like so much spoiled milk because they think it makes them look rightous and morally superior
it amazes me how so many conservatives today race and bigot bait as easy as the Dems do
does not bode well for out future
If you look at it from the standpoint of the earthly world rather than a sky-bound spiritual world it helps. You can see a definite difference between individuals and their spirits if you will. From what I can tell there are actually a limited number of master spirits and many splinters all originating from the core source. Whether you call them an "it" as in just a force or a living being is a choice but it makes a major difference to your theology and belief system when you make each of those determinations.
From what I read from the Book of the Mormon it leans more in the direction of God as an "it" rather than a living person, which is actually the opposite of the mainstream protestant religion.
The Trinity separates God (the person), the Holy Spirit (the force), and Jesus (the Son). If you view the spiritual world as just as force and the split in the spirits is just a separating of energy then you could easily conclude that Lucifer and Christ are "brothers" of a sort....although I don't believe that to be the case.
That is my rather rough interpretation since I am not a professed Theologian.
Sounds like Quantum Mechanics to me!
So telling the truth is shilling? This needed to be said and Hewitt said it very well.
It has gotten so bad aroud here that one day, someone will google religious bigotry and free republic will pop up!
You may as well call Muslims Christian. They think he’s pretty spiffy too.
“Hewitt is hardly believable anymore due to his shameless shilling for Romney.”
So telling the truth is shilling? This needed to be said and Hewitt said it very well
Why didn’t you show my entire post??? I stated right after that....”That being said he is correct on this one.”
Jeeez, you Mittophiles are beyond help.
I read your whole post. Everyone shills for someone. Who is it for you?
But the Mormons do believe this.
Omigod. The Republic is in danger. The point is, only a bigot would think it relevant in a national election. You don't like his church, don't go to it. Mormons' beliefs neither pick your pocket nor break your leg. sheesh.
The biggest thing that makes Mormons not Christian is because they preach that God, our God...the God of Issac, Jacob and Abraham, was once a man, a human being, that became our God. And good Mormons will also likewise evolve into becoming Gods to people on other planets, where they will be worshipped and prayed to like we worship and pray to our God on earth,
It’s the old lie of the serpent that Adam fell for, that we can be as God, and Joseph Smith fell for that same lie of the devil, and his adherents are also falling for that lie.
Ed
Except that the Bible clearly teaches, and Jesus said Himself, that He created the Universe, and has been around since the beginning of time, along with His Father.
Ed
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.