Posted on 10/10/2011 8:10:32 PM PDT by Rufus2007
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/individuals/robert-jeffress
Fox news is really against Perry because they are in the tank for the establishment candidate, Romney.
The media is not threatened by Cain...yet. They must destroy Perry though as he is feared to be the threat to Romney. Obviously Cain and Romney are in the midst of a rather public love fest for one another, so Cain gets a pass since he is deemed VP material for Romney. After all, the democrats expect to lose, and naturally find Romney more to their liking. Cain will get the Palin treatment, probably from more black Leftists, just as Perry is getting it now, only when he sustains better poll numbers than Romney. Thankfully, Rick refuses to whine about all this and is moving along with a severe media induced limp as the only broadly experienced conservative walking, but now he’s too religious.
What is this nonsense you're spouting? The very same day Perry's campaign said he didn't agree Mormonism was a cult.
With all the perfectly sound reasons to go after Romney, this is a really crappy issue. While I realize that attacking Romney on the Mormon issue may be a winner in Texas politics, it’s a loser nationwide. Perry really needs some people in his campaign with chops in national, not just Texas, politics. And he needs to listen to them. Whatever you think of Mormonism—and I think its theology is crackers—this sort of attack is just boneheaded. Saying don’t vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon presupposes that Mormons are bad even though Jeffress tries to deny it. In fact Mormons as a group are as clean and decent and wholesome as anyone. They are also, as a group, a very conservative and Republican constituency. Why alienate them needlessly? Also, Jeffress’ definition of a cult is off. He sees cultishness as something theological, whereas the dictionary distinguishes religious cults by their propensity for controlling and cutting off their members from the outside world, and for their absolute allegiance to charismatic leaders. Mainstream Mormonism isn’t that (leaving aside some fundamentalist Mormon groups that do qualify). If Jeffress wanted to be accurate from a theological standpoint, he could refer to Mormonism not as a cult, but heretical. But “heretical” doesn’t pack the same punch. In any case, this deplorable flap will further poison Perry’s prospects for winning Jewish support. Most Jews will have nothing to do with a candidate associated with the view that Christians make better candidates than non-Christians.
With all the perfectly sound reasons to go after Romney, this is a really crappy issue. While I realize that attacking Romney on the Mormon issue may be a winner in Texas politics, it’s a loser nationwide. Perry really needs some heavyweights in his campaign with chops in national, not just Texas, politics. And he needs to listen to them. Whatever you think of Mormonism—and I think its theology is crackers—this sort of attack is just boneheaded. Saying don’t vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon presupposes that Mormons are bad even though Jeffress tries to deny it. In fact Mormons as a group are as clean and decent, wholesome and patriotic as anyone. The LDS church forbids its members conscientious objection to military service; it gave draft-dodgers no cover in the Vietnam War era. They are also, as a group, a very conservative and Republican constituency. Why alienate them needlessly? Also, Jeffress’ definition of a cult is off. He sees cultism as something theological, whereas the dictionary distinguishes religious cults by their propensity for controlling and cutting off their members from the outside world, and for their absolute allegiance to charismatic leaders. Mainstream Mormonism isn’t that (leaving aside some fundamentalist Mormon groups that do qualify). If Jeffress wanted to be accurate from a theological standpoint, he could refer to Mormonism not as a cult, but heretical. But “heretical” doesn’t pack the same punch. It seems to me the pastor is a political animal in a low way that ill becomes a man of the cloth. He equivocates, at one point saying simply that Christian candidates are to be preferred to non-Christians, later that he might support a non-Christian candidate over a Christian, based on other considerations. In any case, this deplorable flap will further poison Perry’s prospects for winning Jewish support. Most Jews will have nothing to do with a candidate associated with the view that Christians make better candidates than non-Christians.
Had I not done this study, I probably would have been horrified at the pastor's comments. Several of the members of our Sunday School class were uncomfortable with the study, and one member actually left the church because of it. It had to be understood within the context of Dr. Martin's criteria and recognized for what it was based upon - one man's opinion. I found it fascinating and it allowed me the opportunity to learn more about these groups that I had heard of all my life but really did not know much about.
Try reading American Thinker....heard Rush mention it once and I do check in on it daily...
Kraut is correct in that the Mormon bashing does not help Perry. If Perry has evidence about a Jeremiah Wright in MR’s past, then that is legit.
But attacking Mormons by proxy is stupid.
How about Krauthammer sever ties with Obama and DNC
and al Qaeda in America?
[Unlikely, is it not?]
Krauthammer’s GOALS:
Defend the Marxist Obama. Lie to America.
Defend the Mormon Romney. Lie to America.
Typical goals of a PR Rep like Krauthammer.
Then he lied.
Mormonism fits every definition of a cult.
A quote from Herman Cain, from another thread:
I’m not going to do an analysis of Mormonism vs. Christianity
People applauding him for not stepping in to the argument but examine that statement and you will find that Mr. Cain is, in effect, correctly saying that Mormons are not Christian.
Agreed. The leftist media is shameless and Perry needs no help to implode.
Herman Cain is ducking the issue.
Well, I really have no problem with Mormons as long as they aren’t pushing it in my face. They are not like Jehovah’s Witnesses I believe.
I think we have to keep religious issues seperate from political ones, and on political ones I have SERIOUS concerns with Romney and Obamacare, the Second Amendment, ties with globalists, etc. I think he’s a RINO.
I feel exactly as you do about Kraphammer. I formerly liked him, but realize now he has a RINO agenda. Fiscal responsibility and middle eastern stability appear to be his sole issues. And his constant pandering to Romney, as well that of his colleagues and fellow FOX people is becoming quite annoying.
We DON’T need another George Bush II in the White House with his nation-building and “Compassionate” conservativism.
We need someone to rectify the grievious damage wrought by Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama. And frankly, Romney doesn’t fit the bill. Cain does, so perhaps does Perry. Bachmann certainly, but she has tanked.
It's what politicians do and in this case, perhaps, wisely so.
He or no other politician can win on this issue, whatever stance they take.
I agree with you on all but this:
Separation of State and Church was on Stalin’s platform and we HAVE to dump it. Religion (even atheism) has to be a part of the political worldview...if you compartmentalize human beings—take “religion” out of the worldview...you reduce them to animals and atheists....which makes a “civil” society impossible.
That is where we erred as a nation-—Separation cr*p in 1954 from the Communists, the policies of the Soviet Union and China. No freedom of speech and thought in the public square forces Atheism or Secular Humanism. Religious thought can NOT be constitutionally eliminated or silenced by government.
I am not saying “establish” a religion—I am saying “recognize” religions in the public square—exactly like we used to do until 1954.
We have to recognize God, because that is where our Natural Rights are derived from and it is His standards that all laws are based on-—those that are “Just Law”. (Barney Frank laws are unjust according to our Constitution if not based on God’s standard of Right and Wrong).
We should recognize all religions that accept “God”—not Wiccan ones or Satanic ones....those are antithetical to our Philosophy of the US Constitution. Those people are “free” to think their weird thoughts but not free to have special priviledge granted to them, especially in the military. They will not be able to take oaths-—for jury duty, like in the Founding days....because they can not swear to God-given rights which is the philosophy of our legal system. They are free to believe, but there philosophy is incompatible with our legal system, and will have to be excluded from things where there is a requirement for a belief in God for oaths, etc.
After the Marxist’s insanity—we started to embrace ANYTHING that people “claimed” were religions...like Wicca.....but these things can not be defined as legitimate religions because of the philosophy of the US. We used to have a standard....Communists destroyed that and now we get unjust—unconstitutional laws like homosexual marriage...etc. and any rediculous belief system and stamp it a legitimate “religion”. That’s nonsense if you are a rational government. We are not designed to be a “tribe”.
Right Reason according to Nature. Logic and Reason and Science and Faith......the combo that is inline with Natural Law Theory recognizes the Judeo-Christian bible and Deism as the basis of rational religions in this country. Ben Franklin—defined what could be recognized in valid religions—and God and do unto ALL others were the guiding principles along with the ten commandments. It is why polygamy was illegal. (and should be because it gives more worth to men than women, especially in procreation. It is unjust).
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.