IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
Posted on 10/09/2011 3:48:42 PM PDT by hocndoc
Presidential campaigns are filled with potential speed bumps, some merely shaking the dust off the hubcaps, others wrecking the suspension or even knocking off the wheels. Some appear unexpectedly, others are self-constructed.
******
Mitt Romney has to deal with his Mormon religion – again – while the other candidates figure out how to respond to a prominent evangelical pastor’s slam against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Rick Perry (whose supporter was the minister who said Mormonism was “a cult” and “not Christianity”) still is trying to explain how and why his family’s hunting camp had a racially offensive name.
Herman Cain had to pronounce himself “humble and contrite” for statements he’d made about Islam and Muslims. (He had supported a Tennessee town’s effort to ban a mosque, had said Muslims “have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them,” and had said he would think twice about naming a Muslim to his cabinet “because terrorists are trying to kill us.”)
**************
While the candidates would much rather discuss their economic policies and foreign policy talking points, things like Romney’s religion keep interfering. (Jon Huntsman is a Mormon too, but he’s so far from front-runner status as to be virtually invisible.)
***************
The issue dogged Perry, who’d taken his campaign to Iowa. In essence, he rejected the Jeffress assertion about Romney without being personally critical of a Baptist minister with a megachurch in Dallas (which might not have been appreciated by many evangelicals).
"I don't think the Mormon Church is a cult," Perry told The Des Moines Register over the weekend. "People who endorse me or people who work for me, I respect their endorsement and their work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I endorse all of their statements."
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Perry told The Des Moines Register over the weekend. "People who endorse me or people who work for me, I respect their endorsement and their work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I endorse all of their statements."
Although the article is accompanied by a picture of Governor Perry, and seems to focus on him more than others, and Bachmann, Paul and Johnson weren’t mentioned, the author managed to take a dig at everyone else.
still is trying to explain how and why his family’s hunting camp had a racially offensive name.
Stop trying to “explain” it and move on. Continued attempts to “explain”only keep the issue alive....and its a non-issue!
How do you not answer a direct question, especially when all of the other candidates are answering?
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
What a slander! Muslims are also perfectly willing to enslave infidels as well.
Makes you wonder why he’d apologize.
Cheers!
Why should Pastor J. apologize?the Doctrines and practices of the experiment concocted by Joseph Smith has all the elements of a cult —as does Islam. Neither reflect the essential truth of Christianity. And Herman Cain ought not be apologizing for what he said about Islam neither. If the infidels and useful idiots led by the ACLU —and/or CAIR can force a community to remove a Cross Memorial Then the people ought be allowed to say NO to any Islamic Mosque. A cross is not an establishment of religion.A mosque is. IF our Government wakes up and starts supporting the US Constitution and our Laws there may be some chance my grandchildren will not be Muslim slaves.But that is pure speculation.
I don’t think that Brother Jeffress should apologize.
And neither does the Governor, who gave a good answer that separated his own beliefs without throwing the preacher under the bus.
Raisin’ Cain is raisin’ Romney.
1) Apparently, the media is now using the phrase "Evangelicals" as shorthand for "devout practicing Christians". Whenever they say something like "Evangelicals don't think Mormons are Christians", "Evangelicals campaign for value voters", "Evangelicals take hard-line on abortion" and "Evangelicals support traditional marriage candidates", you can pretty much substitute the latter phrase to make the media's article accurate. For some reason, they seem to want to pretend that conservative Catholic and Orthodox voters don't exist and the ONLY Americans expressing those views are "evangelical" protestants. As a Catholic, I find that offensive. Rick Santorum's a socially conservative practitng Catholic and everyone knows the media despises his "values" as much as they do Bachmann's. Actually, I think most Christians should find that offensive, given that Catholics and Ortohodx are the no. #1 and #2 largest Christian denominations in the world but the media wants to pretend only "Evangelicals" hold those beliefs. Please stop with the "Evangelicals" talking point.
2) As a replay from 2008, the media is once again bringing up Mitt Romney's Mormon faith and implying anyone who is against him must hate Mormons. Some freepers have actually been brainwashed by this propaganda, I just read a post from some freeper who said anti-Mormon "bigotry" from "Evangelicals" (remember what "Evangelicals" is codeword for!) caused him to lose Iowa in 2008. That's a load of BS, I was there in Iowa and first off the state isn't even very "religious", it's not part of the bible belt and most voters are mainline protestants or lukewarm Catholics -- and secondly the fact is Romney's liberal record was exposed to voters and rejected by rank and file conservatives, period. I'm sure a tiny handful of people may be of the "I hate him just cuz he's Mormon" but they aren't anywhere near a large enough to sway elections. Had a solidly CONSERVATIVE Mormon been running in Iowa -- say Jason Chaffetz or Raul Labrador, you wouldn't have heard reports of anti-Mormon "bigotry" because conservatives would have lined up to support them. And that's the bottom line -- if Mitt Romney has any Mormon "problem" is that he's not Mormon ENOUGH. Most of us on FR, even if we deeply disagree with Mormon theology, can't dispute that most Mormons live very good personal lives (low divorce rates, kids are model citizens, etc.) and the vast majority are solid on social issues like pro-life and anti-gay agenda. Romney's a rare exception to the rule, he's never been solid on anything and nobody trusts him. He has a "Mormon problem" like Ted Kennedy has a "Catholic problem".
3) As a result of #2, it seems many of the Perry people are helping reinforce the "Evangelicals hate Mormons!" media propaganda by trying to exploit it and point out "Perry's a CHRISTIAN!! We gotta have a CHRISTIAN in the White House and not a MORMON like Romney". As I just noted, this plays right into the media's propaganda about the "mean-nasty bigots," and it's an especially stupid thing to highlight since the Perry fans seem to be unaware that about 90% of the Presidents and Presidential candidates we've had are also "Christians". Thus, their argument that we HAVE TO support Perry to get a "Christian" makes as much as sense as arguing we need him to ensure we have a male President. One Perry supporter even tried to explain Perry's tanking poll numbers in NJ by claiming that NJ Republicans "hate Christians", even though the most recent survey showed the state was over 70% Christian (maybe they think Hindus took over since then or something). Then we have a small minority of freepers who complicate things because they DO fit the media's sterotype and claim everyone who's not from their specific denomination is "not Christian"... i.e., when they say they want a "Christian" presidential they really mean a "born again" type who goes to tent revival meetings like their church or whatever. (my response is that's the reason Jimmy Carter was touted for President). Another irony here... when Perry was still "thinking about" getting in, the Perry fans were bashing Michele Bachmann left and right for overplaying her "Christian values" and alienating non "Evangelicals". Now that Perry is in, they seem to be taking a page right of her book and playing up to the same crowd with all the stuff about what a faithful bible-believin' Christian Perry is and all the great stuff he did like have a national Christian prayer day in Texas or whatever. Hey Perryboys, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. ;-)
As for me, whether a candidate is a "fellow Christian" (or more specifically, a fellow Catholic like myself) doesn't factor into who I vote for. As impy noted, I'd happily take a proven conservative Jewish, Buddhist, or Hindu politician over a self-described "devout Christian" socialist politician any day. It's sad that others base their vote on whether politicians hold the same religious beliefs that they do. (and by the way, the Catholic Voting Guide issued by Catholic Answers specifcally instructs voters NOT to support a candidate simply because they profess to be a "Catholic", but rather to judge the candidate based on whether they follow Catholic values like being pro-life and pro-traditional marriage)
By saying that its already been answered.
Which it has....
You’ve made a good point: Religious differences are a no-win subject for Presidential candidates. I agree.
Even people who worship together can get into nasty, heartbreaking religious arguments. And they go on for thousands of posts on these pages.
At least none of y’all are those old Galations, Ephesians or Romans from the Bible.
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.