Posted on 01/17/2008 6:38:28 AM PST by tortdog
"They said all sorts of ludicrous things [about Romney]... that when he became president he would pass a bill for same-sex marriage."
The push-polling has hit other candidates too, but it highlights Mr Romney's particular difficulties in selling his candidacy to the religious right since he is a Mormon. While much attention has focused on the possibility of "firsts" in the Democratic race with a woman in Hillary Clinton or African American in Barack Obama as real shots at the White House, Mr Romney would be the first Mormon president.
It's something that's firing up the evangelical community, which is highly suspicious of Mormonism, claiming it is a perversion of the Bible and describing it as a cult.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
So let me get this right. Because you can’t find anything by Romney in which he states any opinion on partial birth abortions, you believe it is accurate to claim that Romney favored PBAs?
That’s your spin?
=================================
Splitting hairs.
Here is a quote from 2005:
>Romney’s core positions — personally anti-abortion, pro-parental consent, and in favor of a ban on what opponents call ‘’partial birth” abortion — haven’t changed.
So apparently Romney has always been:
* personally anti-abortion
* personally (not sure on that) pro-parental consent
* in favor of a ban on PBAs.
Amazing what Google can do, isn’t it?
What is this? (People haven't had their morning coffee yet?) Let me repeat for the third time, and this time I'll break it down where ALL THREE statements have to be true--or the description wasn't applicable:
(1): Someone who is not divine... (There, Stark, we agree: Moses was NOT divine)
(2): ...who claims to have a monopoly on all truth...
(3): ...while all others are wrong in the eyes of God.
Since Moses was not divine, (1) applied to him...but being the most "humble" man on earth at the time...I don't think you could say that (2) applied to him.
I completely disagree. Being in favor of a person’s RIGHT to have an abortion is not the same as PUSHING an abortion.
I believe a man has a right to be a racist. That doesn’t mean that I PUSH for racism.
That’s a huge difference. It goes to when the government should get involved in preventing a personal choice.
Kind of playing your cult game. So according to your definition, aren’t the following “cult leaders”:
* Moses
* Jesus Christ
No. Moses never claimed to be divine. Nor did he claim a monopoly on all truth. Jesus did, but in His case He really was divine, so he doesn’t count as a cult leader either :)
======================================
Please. First we are not talking about just anyones opinion, but that of the Governor. Mitt actively defended the right to murder babies. Rationalize that away all you want.
Second, I was not the poster to make the statement about "pushing". I quoted it from aimhigh, so take it up with aimhigh please.
>No. Moses never claimed to be divine.
Nor did Joseph Smith.
>Nor did he claim a monopoly on all truth.
Nor did Joseph Smith. What he did claim is that he was called by God as a prophet just as Moses, and that we had to pay attention to what God said.
If Joseph Smith was a cult leader, then so were all the other prophets of old.
And let me add, if Joseph Smith claimed to be divine, would you then agree that he was not a leader of a cult?
>Mitt actively defended the right to murder babies.
How did he actively defend this right?
>Second, I was not the poster to make the statement about “pushing”. I quoted it from aimhigh, so take it up with aimhigh please.
I didn’t see that you had marked it as a quote.
A few YouTube videos of Mitt in his own words are all it takes to insure that the Religious Right won't vote for Mitt no matter who the opponent is. We are back to Christians being willing to die rather than participate in and agenda directly opposite of that of God. Ceaser couldn't make it happen, and Mitts supporters can't either.
Christ is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
May I suggest the decaf?
>But Mitts ... support for the right of homosexual men to make the Boy Scouts take young boys off into the woods are different matters.
Actually, Mitt supported the right of the BSA to refuse leadership positions to gay leaders.
>Christ is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
Which is why most Christians celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday, refuse to eat unclean animals, and keep women in the church silent and out of public during their menstrual cycles.
“The Republican Party is being split by the Elites in politics and the MSM.”
and religious bigots on the right.
QFT.
I would not vote for Mitt in any election and I would work to make sure he lost. I have very low standards for politicians and when someone like Mitt can't meet even the bare minimums it says a lot.
What is your beef with non-christians?
“First, we don’t even know what Moses actually wrote.”
We don’t actually know what Jesus said either. We only know what we some people heard Jesus say. Plus what is the bible today was created by the Catholic Church hundreds of years after his death. Many previous parts of the Bible were excluded.
Disingenuous.
Mitt said the Boy Scouts could make their own decision (how gracious of him to admit they have rights!) but if it were up to him the Boy Scouts welcome gay men to take boys out into the woods. Mitt actually served on the board of the Scouts, so presumably if he'd managed to get a majority to support him he would have had them end the prohibition on gays.
Lucky for the young men and boys in the Scouts that the majority of the board held firm!
>What is your beef with non-christians?
*Applauds*
I’m so sick of the Christians who seem to hate anyone who they do not consider part of their flock. I consider myself to be Christian because I believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Only Begotten, and the Son of God.
Get over the hate.
>We don’t actually know what Jesus said either. We only know what we some people heard Jesus say. Plus what is the bible today was created by the Catholic Church hundreds of years after his death. Many previous parts of the Bible were excluded.
Excellent point. And the gospels were written long after Christ had died (from memory since no one bothered to write them down at the time), and it’s obvious that some gospels borrowed from others. Not to mention that Christians religions can’t even agree on what parts of the Bible should be included as scripture.
Pathetic.
“Religious bigots?”
So, it’s the everybody else’s fault, not yours?
Geez. No wonder we don’t have our act together.
I am a social conservative (not a prude). I am a fiscal conservative (not a Scrooge). I am a defense/security conservative (not a war-monger).
So, am I one-third “religious bigot.”
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.