Christian Blogger Endorses Romney; Debunks 'Can't Vote for Mormon' Belief

The Christian Post ^ | October 15, 2012 | Audrey Barrick , Christian Post Reporter

[2ndDivisionVet]

A popular Christian blogger says he's voting for Mitt Romney and is challenging notions that Christians should sit out this year's election or that they shouldn't vote for the GOP presidential candidate because he's a Mormon.

In a series of blog posts, Frank Turk listed several reasons on Pyromaniacs why he's voting for and endorsing a "Mormon son of a Mormon who was not very conservative in Massachusetts and has not demonstrated very safely-right ideology in governing in the past."

One of those reasons is abortion.

Turk recognized that there are some Christians who will either try to vote for a third party candidate or not vote at all because both Romney and President Obama support abortions, though Romney only approves of it in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother.

For many Christians, abortion is murder, immoral and sinful and voting for a candidate who supports abortion would be wrong.

So by not voting, these Christians "protect their holiness."

Turk offers: "Doing nothing and calling it a moral victory is cowardly. It may actually be evil. But if it is nothing else, it is certainly this: failing to do as much as possible to make a difference toward the improvement of those things which you can effect and can make better. Failing to show that much compassion and effort is morally lazy.

"In the world we actually live in, where in our country there are about 1,200,000 abortions every year, one candidate/party is saying that we could eliminate 960,000 abortions by saying the only exceptions might be physical health and welfare of the mother. It's moral malpractice to say that seeking to reduce the number of abortions by 80% is the same as saying 100% of all abortions are politically and morally OK."

So Turk is endorsing Romney in order "to avoid the obvious moral failing of doing nothing at all – or participating in the moral equivalent of performance art – to turn back an unacceptable outcome even if the alternative is only less-unacceptable."

Turk also argued against the common argument that electing Romney to the White House would equate to assisting Mormonism in becoming a mainstream religious option.

In Romans 13, the Apostle Paul indicates that a non-Christian person, in his case Caesar, is capable of being a sound ruler.

"Even Caesar and his functionaries were able to approve of good conduct and strike terror into those who have bad conduct. In Paul's mind, being an unbeliever does not disqualify anyone from being a political ruler," Turk wrote.

Additionally, God instituted the governments, he argued. Even if the government may serve God poorly, the institution of government "is actually God's ordinary means of looking out for justice and judgment."

"Paul says that explicitly about the Roman government – which, let's face it, is barbaric by our standards. The kind of morality the average Roman would ascribe to would be absolutely wanton by our post-Christian standards. Yet somehow the Mormon view of morality is not going to work for an American magistrate?" said Turk.

Regarding the notion that Christians would be assisting a cult in becoming more mainstream, he said: "That sounds very high-minded and God-glorifying – until we start to think about all the things we have to give up which, frankly, make things that are non-Christian into socially-acceptable practices. We'd have to give up the internet, for starters; we'd have to give up our iPhones. We'd have to give up books. We'd have to give up Capitalism and Democracy.

"If we can rightly, theologically justify all the other ways we cooperate with non-believers on the secular stage, ignoring the means of doing so now to maintain your alleged holiness is, at best, evidence which ought to be used to convict you of greater transgressions."

Providing one "America" reason that the "don't assist in making a cult mainstream" doesn't work out, the blogger wrote, "Voting for any man does not affirm that you accept his religious expression, or his systematic theology: it affirms that you accept his right as a citizen to run for office."

In his concluding post, Turk stated that his intention is not to make Christians into "mindless voters for red-state dominion."

"What I want is for you to not pretend this election is just another election," he wrote.

"Vote effectively. And Vote prayerfully."

[2ndDivisionVet]

Well, since there are at least two Muslim members of Congress and Lord knows how many in state and local office, it would seem to be a moot point, nicht wehr? I’m burning your straw men as quickly as I can with this Bic lighter, but I sure could use a flame thrower.

[Colofornian]

From the article: In Romans 13, the Apostle Paul indicates that a non-Christian person, in his case Caesar, is capable of being a sound ruler.

So what? This doesn't prove anything.

Both the Old and New Testaments are rife with listing specific non-Christian rulers (and even some Jewish kings like Manasseh) who were absolutely horrific.

Some unaffiliated U.S. presidents like Lincoln have been wonderful; some affiliated as "Christian" presidents -- like Grover Cleveland (Presbyterian) and Warren Harding (Baptist) each fathered illegitimate children...Cleveland later married a 21 yo girl he had been the legal guardian of since she was 11...Harding oft had liquor-filled parties, had numerous affairs, etc.

So mere theological affiliation alone is NOT enough to evaluate POTUS candidates re: character, etc. Each are individuals...

Mitt Romney is NOT a cafeteria Mormon; he's a temple Mormon, an ex-bishop, an ex-Missionary President...But the only thing he has openly condemned within Mormonism is past polygamy. That's it. He's left everything else on the table for associating with him.

[2ndDivisionVet]

BTW, there’s no “supposed” about it. Mr. Obama recited for Mr. Kristof the opening lines of the Arabic call to
prayer. The opening lines of the Adhan, the Muslim call to prayer, translated, read as follows, with each line repeated twice:

“Allah is supreme! Allah is supreme!
Allah is supreme! Allah is supreme!
I witness there is no God but Allah.
I witness there is no God but Allah.
I witness that muhammad is his prophet…”

Kristof said Obama recited the prayer “with a first rate accent.”…New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof

Sincere recitation of the Shahada is the sole requirement for becoming a Muslim, as it expresses a person’s rejection of all other gods.

[Colofornian]

since there are at least two Muslim members of Congress and Lord knows how many in state and local office, it would seem to be a moot point, nicht wehr? I’m burning your straw men as quickly as I can...

Go back to your original context. A religious test for POTUS. Article V of the Constitution has been associated with that phrase ("religious test"). Article V of the Constitution doesn't address Congressional or state-house candidates, now does it???

So, first you use language found in reference to ONLY the POTUS candidacy. I address that by using a Muslim parallel (& other cult) parallels. And now you're digressing by veering off into races not even covered by Article V of the Constitution...

So...now we're discussing Congressional races???
...State-house races?
...What next, 'DIVISIonvet, local dog-catcher races?

Will you then cite how many local dog-catchers are either Muslim or Mormon to prove some esoteric political point???

And, then what? Who are you going to quote as some "opposition" supposedly attempting to keep all Muslims, Scientologists, and Mormons "out" as local dog-catchers??? (Talk about extreme straw men)

Hey, if Mitt hadn't put his dog on top of his station wagon and drove him cross-country on a vacation, I'd endorse Mitt for dog-catcher.

[Colofornian]

BTW, there’s no “supposed” about it. Mr. Obama recited for Mr. Kristof the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer.

Good point.

Now please respond then to two questions I have:

In post #12, you said: ...there is no religious test for office in the United States.

If that is the case, why would Obama's Muslim ties be any more relevant than Romney's Mormon commitment?

Q 2: Ozzymandus lamented alleged religious "bigotry" in a previous post. Is it religious "bigotry" to wax negative about Obama's Muslim ties? Or does that get selective treatment on FR?

[Colofornian]

From the article: ...though Romney only approves of it [abortion] in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother"

OK, "class": This is a lesson in "reductionism." When a writer -- and perhaps also the poster of an article like this -- wishes to present their fave candidate in a better light...they will reduce their true position in order to steer readers away from its more negative realities.

In this case, Romney already went on the record in August of 2012 saying he embraced abortions beyond rape, incest, and life of the mother:

Romney says abortion legal for mother's health

"Health"...why that's the very weasel word chosen by the 1973 Supreme Court to give this nation abortion-on-demand. "Health" was the very exception of allowance -- 'cause "health" could mean ANYTHING (even "economic" health).

And guess who gets to determine if a mom is "unhealthy"??? Why the abortion industry does!!! The abortionist does!!!

We know a writer has lost his/her credibility when they can't even present the proper pro-abortion stances of a given candidate correctly.

Mitt, btw, is ALSO on the record as saying that embryos can either be up for adoption -- or, "given" away to "research." (December, 2007)

That's hardly objecting to some "asterisk" exception in the interest of protecting our holiness or our purity.

Frank Turk is off-base if he thinks THE MAIN THING is ourselves when it comes to protecting the pre-born. Ironically, though, he has hit upon a possible reality...but has distorted who to apply it to: The EXACT problem of the FORMAL pro-life movement right now is that many of these groups TEND to be more interested in maintaining their "place" at the table of influence and their OWN survival than protecting pre-born embryos, pre-born infants whose moms claim they aren't 100% "healthy" and whose dads are incest-perpetrators attempting to cover up their crimes with the dismemberment of their second victims!!!

We know this because we don't see them critiquing Romney for his "health" of the mom statements...or for all embryos are up for "research" statements. These kind of statements just get "hunky-dory" endorsements from the formal pro-life groups!!!

I guess we can just thank our Father in Heaven that He didn't elect to send Jesus as an embryo & pre-born infant in a time when politicians like Obama and Romney said the Son of God could be "donated" to research in his early "earth-life" or could be dismembered if Mary had not "felt" up to it, "health"-wise...

[Colofornian]

After opposing Romney all through the primary season and resisting giving him my support even when it became clear that he would be the GOP candidate, I now plan to vote for him.

You know, I concede I've been "inwardly cheering" for Ryan (in debate vs. Biden)

The Democratic leadership is utterly dispicable. But I won't vote for either Obama or Romney.

This is not because he is a good choice for the presidency. My belief is that because of the sickening moral degradation of America, we are essentially doomed. I don't see any Great Awakening in the offing although God may forestall His wrath for a season as He did for King Josiah. No nation that sanctions the butchery of over 50 million children will long stand. Romney's election may slightly slow the steady march to destruction and thus give us a short window of time in which we can better prepare ourselves for the coming judgment both spiritually and physically.

Well, I believe you are right about judgment; and wrong about any comment of it "slowing" due to Romney's election.

Reread Exodus. Reread other OT books on God's reaction to when His people sanctioned false gods and high places where idol worship was embraced. Reread how Jewish king after Jewish king were EACH judged on key things like whether they allowed false worship centers to remain front & center in their culture.

Now fast-forward: Imagine you are God. Your people on earth sanction a guy who claims to be a competing god (in embryo). Is that any less provocative to you as God?

Unlike human jealousy, God's attribute of jealousy is pure and is based upon love and His "creator" right. He made us. We are His. And yet a goodly number of God's people will openly endorse and sanction a guy who says he's a "god in embryo" -- a rival "god" to THE God -- and they won't even give a caveat or qualifier about their vote...

And they think God will ignore that???

Our judgment bed was made well before November 2012.

[BlueDragon]

Hey, if Mitt hadn't put his dog on top of his station wagon and drove him cross-country on a vacation, I'd endorse Mitt for dog-catcher.

Hey! he built a plywood windbreak of some sort, and the dog made it safe and sound (maybe loved the trip, too. An ultimate hang-the-tongue-out-the-window opportunity...)

The Muslim probably wouldn't be very good at dog "catching". Their religion (extreme forms of it anyway) teaches that dogs are unclean (Mad Mo said so! end of story!). We want our "catchers" to bring animals in, not shoot them on the street, like they were modern-day policemen or something.

So Mitt should be given extra credit for inventiveness, allowing the dog to come along on vacation with the family. Kennels are a real drag, it's like doggy jail for the innocent. Just ask any dog who's been in one. It's only slightly better than being in that other doggy jail, the Pound.

Now if he had made his wife or kids ride on top, with the dog being the privileged caste, then maybe there would be a problem...

[sasportas]

Back in the 60’s, 70’s, and even the 80’s a Mormon running for president would get absolutely no where. Reason being back then most knew their Bibles, they knew what Mormonism was. Joseph Smith’s golden plates religion, they saw on a par with Mohammedism.

The Apostle Paul prophesied a great falling away to precede the rise of Antichrist. Look where we are, the Republican Party gave, once Christian America, us Mormonism to vote for...and with hardly a whimper amongst so-called Conservatives they accept it. We expect as much from the Libertarians who could care less what you believed religiously, an atheist would suit them just fine, but social Conservatives?

It is a clear sign how far down Christian belief has fallen in America. The falling away is clearly here, all the FReeper posts I see here convinces me of that fact, obviously they could care less if they have golden plates Joseph Smith Mormonism for THEIR president. We are in the foothills of antichrist.

[ozzymandus]

You mean yourself. Obviously.

[ravenwolf]

which is slightly diferent than when he said for years ABORTIONS DONT NEED A REASON LETS HAVE LOTS

---

Are you positive that is exactly what he said?

[ravenwolf]

America doesn’t appear in the cataclysmic endtime Bible prophecies. There’s a reason.

---

A lot of people would disagree with you there.

[ravenwolf]

In Romans 13, the Apostle Paul indicates that a non-Christian person, in his case Caesar, is capable of being a sound ruler.

---

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

---

I am not sure that i will ever understand why Paul wrote that as it contradicts every thing we know that happened to our Lord Jesus, James, and other Christians and later to Paul and peter in Rome.

Did Jesus or his Apostles do evil? did Peter and Paul do evil in Rome?

Or was Paul at a time in his life when he was just not thinking straight? yeah i know this will make some people mad but if you think of all of the Christians who were killed by these rulers you have to admit it is something to consider.

[Jean S]

Are you voting for Obama?

[UltraV]

There are a number of countries where Christians don’t have the option of voting for a Christian. They have to hope that they can at least vote for an ally. Romney is certainly an ally.
So am I.

[UltraV]

If we thought 1st term Obama is bad, we haven’t seen anything yet. 2nd term Obama has nothing to lose. Our constitutional republic is hanging by a thread. There won’t BE a 2016 if we don’t stop him from gaining more power.

[crosshairs]

Better a Mormon in the White House than the Muslim we have now.

At least the Mormon isn't an enemy of this country.

[UltraV]

Exactly the same! How can we support a Mormon when the Mormons are causing so many terrorist attacks!

Not.

[American Constitutionalist]

How many of these same Christians voted for Muslim friendly Obama in 2008 ?

[a fool in paradise]

The alternative is the red diaper doper baby secular humanist pro-Islamist president we already have in the White Hut. How’s that workin’ out?