| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/03/2007 6:34:01 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poor behavior |
Posted on 07/26/2007 5:03:33 PM PDT by tantiboh
Democratic political consultant Mark Mellman has a very good piece up today at The Hill on the baffling and illegitimate opposition among voters to Mitt Romney due to his religion. I liked his closing paragraphs:
In July of 1958, 24 percent of respondents told Gallup they would not vote for a Catholic for president, almost identical to Gallup’s reading on Mormons today. Two years later, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic to assume the oath of office. Within eight months, the number refusing to vote for a Catholic was cut almost in half.
[snip]
Mellman also discusses an interesting poll he helped construct, in which the pollsters asked half of their respondents whether they would support a candidate with certain characteristics, and asked the other half about another candidate with the exact same characteristics, with one difference. The first candidate was Baptist, the second candidate was Mormon. The Baptist had a huge advantage over the Mormon candidate, by about 20 points.
[snip]
However, more recent polls have attempted to fix the anonymity problem. A recent Time Magazine poll (read the original report here), for example, got to the heart of the question by asking respondents if they are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney specifically because he is a Mormon. The result is not as bad as some reporting on the poll has suggested. For example, while 30% of Republicans say they are less likely to vote for Romney because of his religion, fully 15% of other Republicans say that characteristic makes them more likely to vote for him. And while many have reported the finding that 23% of Republicans are “worried” by Romney’s Mormonism, the more important (but less-reported) number is that 73% say they hold no such reservations...
(Excerpt) Read more at romneyexperience.com ...
No problem.
“I voted for Nixon...”
Gee, someone who is still willing to admit to doing that - congratulations! Me, I have to admit that I did the same, three times, the first being in 1960.
As an aside to that, I have a bar that was in the home of the Chairman of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party in 1960. He was the first big city pol to support JFK’s run for the Presidency. Jack and Jackie were guests in his home several times during that time, and later. Jack was served from the bar that I now have. A bit of history that I saved from being lost in a move a few years ago. I call it my “Presidential Podium”.
A Catholic could very easily make the point that you have abandoned God and His Church and have gone the way of your own pride in declaring you above the Church He established on earth through Peter....
I think you’re being a bit harsh on Mormons. I’ll leave it at that.
The thing is, most of these evangelicals who are going to be so vehemently opposed to voting for a Mormon are going to be in the south.
It’s not going to hurt Republican to lose their votes, as the south is going to go Republican, anyway.
On the other hand, Romney’s Mormonism is going to help in the West, where we are on far quakier ground. On top of that, his strong insistence on fiscal conservatism will play well with small “l” libertarians.
I expect he’s going to put New England, parts of the midwest, and the west—maybe even Oregon—in play.
So in the end, who gives a rip about a few cranky evangelicals? Romney holds their values, anyway. And I say that as an Evangelical Presbyterian from Tennessee.
>>between opposing socialist evil (complete with abortion,
etc) and voting against the most cherished core beliefs
of what makes them evangelical.<<
In what part of the Christian message are you instructed that political leaders should be Christian? I suppose if you were an Orthodox Christian in Iraq or a Coptic Christian in Egypt that you’d be up a creek because you’d never be voting for a Christian leader.
Indeed, you’d never have any say whatsoever in the direction your country was heading and would divorce yourself rom politics entirely, right? You could claim no real concern for justice or ecomomic prosperity because, afterall, those wouldn’t be real values if they weren’t held by an Orthodox Christian. Right?
I just can’t think you’ve thought this through. Do you really think that Christ intended that men would divorce themselves from upholding justice and freedom whenever it wasn’t carried out by a Christian?
On the contrary, I believe that it was Christ who praised the work of the Samaritan and cursed the strict adherence of the Law by the Priest and the Levite who ignored the man in need in the ditch.
“Go and do the same,” I believe, were Christ’s words.
And I’ll further ask why you would so harshly criticize Romney the Mormon...or Samaritan, if you will?
He even proclaims Christ as his Savior...
CheyennePress, I’m pretty much done with this thread because I’m just repeating myself over and over again at this point. I just wanted to say one more thing.
Perhaps a Catholic could say that I have abandoned “the Church”. I, of course, would say that I never belonged to the Catholic church in the first place and do not believe it to be “the” church. However, if that is what someone believes, so be it. It certainly has no affect on me. You see, I have staked my existence in eternity on what the Bible teaches. I believe that the true Gospel is very clear and leaves no wiggle room for different paths.
It is not my pride that dictates my belief. It is my firm conviction of the truth contained in Scripture.
If I seem harsh towards Mormonism, it is because I have true grief over souls that will be lost to Hell through its false teaching. It is not a loving act to pretend that falsehoods are of no eternal consequence in order to make one feel more comfortable for a little while in the here and now.
So if anyone is of the opinion that I have left the true church, that is certainly their prerogative. It does not sway my opinion or upset me in the least. That’s because I’m convinced of the truth of Scripture and have no doubt of its trustworthiness.
I would suggest to you that the reason you find some so defensive in this thread is that the reality of the Gospel strikes a chord in them that is hard to ignore. Conviction can be uncomfortable.
Have a great week-end!
~”The thing is, most of these evangelicals who are going to be so vehemently opposed to voting for a Mormon are going to be in the south.
It’s not going to hurt Republican to lose their votes, as the south is going to go Republican, anyway.”~
That’s an excellent point; I hadn’t thought of that. Romney’s religion would be the biggest factor in the region of the country where it is likely to hurt him the least. From an electoral standpoint, that puts things in a whole new light.
Yes, they used to call it the F What A Lemon. I was an avionics tech on the F-111A during the Vietnam era. Spent most of my time at Nellis.
I was curious why the D was so ridiculed. From Wikipedia:
***
The F-111D used the new Triple Plow 2 intakes, which were located four inches (100 mm) further away from the airframe to prevent engine ingestion of the sluggish boundary layer air that was known to cause stalls in the TF30 turbofans. It had more powerful TF30-P-3 engines with 12,000 lbf (53 kN) dry and 18,500 lbf (82 kN) afterburning thrust.
More significant– and problematic– were the Mark II avionics. These were digitally integrated microprocessor systems, some of the first used by the USAF, offering tremendous capability, but substantial problems during introduction. The main radar was the General Electric AN/APQ-114, with Doppler beam-sharpening, moving target indicator (MTI), and continuous wave mode for guiding semi-active radar homing missiles (which the standard AN/APQ-113 set lacked). This was matched with an Autonetics inertial navigation/attack radar system, Marconi Doppler radar for navigation, a horizontal situation display, an IBM processor, and a Norden integrated systems display, with modern multi-function displays (MFDs). These last proved to be a major source of trouble, serving to multiply the development problems experienced with the individual systems. Considerable acrimony between the contractors resulted, and it took years before the problems were solved. F-111 crews considered the -D the most capable (and user-friendly) version of the aircraft when everything functioned, but that was rare before the 1980s.
***
Nothing like the systems on today’s warplanes. Looks like you were paving the way. Thanks for helping make us the lone superpower!
Forgot to include you in the above, OS.
I respect your beliefs completely. I just see the gift of salvation in Christ being a little broader. None of us are worthy, and Christ merely seeks our hand and our hearts.
I read John 3:16 very broadly: “For whosoever should believeth in Him....”
I don’t know how we could possibly read in narrowly given our many, many failings in life. It is my belief that God’s love for man is both undeserved though infinite. If we turn to Him through His Son, Jesus Christ and truly accept the gift given, that is enough.
The details fade away. For none of us understands them fully, nor will we ever this lifetime. We must grow through Christ, and that is all we can do.
You have said it quite well.
Phooey on them Liberals!!
No; this is NOT correct.
Open up that good eye and read a bit slower.
He said TACTICS!!!
And an opinion that PROVES you HATE us!!!!
LION!!!
--MormonDue(unloved)
Time for a POLL!!
What happened to them ‘four Mormon brothers’ that were mentioned earlier in this thread??
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I bsaw two cPersonages, whose brightness and dglory defy all description, estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My fBeloved gSon. Hear Him!18 My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.”20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself alying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, bmother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
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.