Finding Truth in the “Would Not Vote for a Mormon” Polls

RomneyExperience.com ^ | 7/26/07

[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...

[Old Student]

“What happened to them ‘four Mormon brothers’ that were mentioned earlier in this thread??”

Someone noted that the Donner Party rescue was in 1846, a year or so before his/her first Mormon ancestor moved into the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, IIRC. That part of the discussion died right there. (If accurate info, that is as it should be. I like heroic ancestors as much as the next guy, but see no need to make them up.)

[Old Student]

“Well; judging from your home page, you are around 55 yo, so at the time you were born, abortion was illegal in this country.”

52, and it may have been illegal, but it was available. It was offered, and my mom refused. The last time I talked to her in person, a few weeks before her death, she still said it was the easiest decision she ever made, and the only one she never regretted. She got thrown out of High School in the 10th grade because she was pregnant. She married at 15, I was born before she turned 16, and she was divorced at 19, and worked as a waitress for most of the rest of her life. She died about 3 years ago. Her life would have been so much easier if she had me aborted. Once upon a time I though that she should have. I know better, now.

[Old Student]

“Ah! You guys are, quite literally, on a different page! OO is looking IN the thread itself, and OS is looking at the page that lists POSTS TO HIM —> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/my/comments";

I did figure it out, eventually. With help. Got the wiper blades changed out, now, too, which makes things much easier. ;)

[Old Student]

“I thought JS was 14 when he had a vision (or two).”

For the first one, yes. But he was only 44 when he was murdered for his beliefs, too. The guy who wrote about the moon-men apparently wrote about it fifty years after it supposedly happened. One thing you learn in history classes is that journals written immediately after the event tend to be more accurate than those written long after.

[Elsie]

Praise your Mom and her values! You seemed to have turned out ok, even given the rough start. My mom was the one who brought me up, alone, as well. We received no handouts from gummint (taxpayers) and my lack of 'things' has made me a bit (ahem) hostile to the politicians, who, in their misguided thinking, feel that it's OK to 'subsidize' broken families.

IT AIN'T!!

Quit it!

Or I'll change my tagline to: "A Boy Named Sue"!

[Old Student]

“Many times I’ve been standing in the shade.”

I think much of the time I was standing in the sun myself. Sunstroke would explain SO much...

I’m a Mormon because that is the church I was asking about when my prayer was answered; after about 30 years of on-again, off-again searching. Baptist wasn’t it, Catholic wasn’t it, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 7th-Day Adventists, Presbyterians, et cetera, weren’t it. I also investigated Wicca and Islam. They’re not it, either. Not for me, anyway.

[greyfoxx39]

~”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.

"Romney’s religion would be the biggest factor in the region of the country where it is likely to hurt him the least."

I would like to see the source that proclaims that Romney will win the PRIMARYwithout the votes of Southerners and Evangelicals, please.

Also, are you putting New York and California, Pennsylvania, Ohio in the Romney PRIMARY column?

[Old Student]

“I thought the ‘south’ was DEMOCRAT!!!”

I think that was before “Democrat” started to mean “flaming liberal barking moonbat.”

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I criticize Romney for being a politically expedient flip flopper,
but I repeat myself.

I criticize mormonism for being a cult.

I won’t vote for Romney for both...

and because he would lose to Hillary.

Any other questions?

best,
ampu

[aMorePerfectUnion]

CP,
Have you been reading these threads???

“In what part of the Christian message are you instructed that political leaders should be Christian?”

In what part of my posts did you read that I said they should?

“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?”

What part of my posts said I don’t care about those things?

“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?”

What part of my posts said any such thing?

Again, are you actually reading before posting???

ampu

PS - the Christ that you point out that romney proclaims
is not the Christ of the Bible.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Hey, now, it’s the new century; guys can compliment other guys’ looks without risking aspersions about their own proclivities.”

It’s one thing to say, “yea, he’s a handsome guy.”

It’s another to say, “he’s a hottie!”

First you said you were looking for a woman who would weigh
a lot. Now you think Mitt’s a “hottie”.

I fear for the toll these discussions are taking on you tant...

[tantiboh]

~”I would like to see the source that proclaims that Romney will win the PRIMARYwithout the votes of Southerners and Evangelicals, please.”~

I’ve been concentrating in this discussion on Romney’s chances in the general. The primaries are a whole different topic.

I have no source for you; it’s all a matter of speculation and opinion at this point, for both of us. I do think, though, given his rather weak opposition, that Romney has better than an even chance to win the primary, too. I don’t think he needs the south to win the primary. If he picks up the Iowa, New Hampshiire, Florida, and much of the West and Northeast, Giuliani gets California and New York, and Thompson gets the South, that means Romney wins. I think that’s a reasonably likely scenario.

Really, Florida is turning into the linchpin in all of this.

[tantiboh]

~”I fear for the toll these discussions are taking on you tant...”~

That is a feasible hypothesis...

For the record, what I actually said is that I like my hot chocolate like I like my women - sweet and conducive to weight gain.

That means -I- gain weight.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

tant,

still, if we put this together...

“For the record, what I actually said is that I like my hot chocolate like I like my women & presidential candidates - sweet, hot and conducive to weight gain.”

It is perplexing! Yikes!

:-)

best, you hottie!
ampu

[greyfoxx39]

I’ve been concentrating in this discussion on Romney’s chances in the general. The primaries are a whole different topic.

Well, I admire your optimism, but I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Especially since Fred hasn't even entered yet.

I wouldn't put Florida in Mitt's column just yet...from an article at Redstate, People are paying attention to Collamore's departure without looking at Randy Enwright's hiring. That Thompson got Enwright when other candidates could not get him speaks volumes to me. Enwright knows Iowa and he knows Florida -- two states Fred will have to do well in. Enwright is also close to the guy all of us would like to see run, but who can't: Jeb.

Doom, Gloom, and The "Flight" From Fred's Campaign

If the Iowa primary can be bought, Mitt will win there. NH is in the bag for him, being a MA neighbor and all. I would like to know what you mean by "much of the West" going for him? I guess the mormon-heavy states, right? UT,ID, NV, AZ?...CO and NM are definitely not a sure thing for him, and I can't see where you claim CA by default.

[Osage Orange]

Weird....

Here's what I see.....at the bottom of your post.

219 posted on 07/27/2007 3:26:31 PM PDT by Old Student

(We have a name for the people who think indiscriminate killing is fine. They're called "The Bad Guys)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[colorcountry]

I would like to know what you mean by "much of the West" going for him? I guess the mormon-heavy states, right? UT,ID, NV, AZ?...CO and NM are definitely not a sure thing for him, and I can't see where you claim CA by default.

I too thought this was interesting. The only sure state for Romney are Utah and Idaho. Both have gone overwhelmingly for Republicans for many, many election cycles. Romney won't change a thing in those two States. NV, AZ, CO and NM are more than likely to reject Romney than vote for him. I haven't seen recent polls in those States, but the populations in those States have recently tilted farther left, and most decidedly non-Mormon.

[Old Student]

“Weird....
Here’s what I see.....at the bottom of your post.

219 posted on 07/27/2007 3:26:31 PM PDT by Old Student

(We have a name for the people who think indiscriminate killing is fine. They’re called “The Bad Guys)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]”

Someone else pointed that out to me. I’ve apparently never actually looked at it carefully. Thus the comments of mine re: window in my navel and changing of wiper blades...

OS<———Smacks self in forehead again...just for good measure.

[Osage Orange]

Number one....I don't buy into your blanket statement "it's bashing".

Number two...like it or not..I believe you are incorrect. There are a large number of Christians that hold fast to their opinions on Mormonism.

I believe that to be widespread......Is that somewhat anecdotally speaking on my part. Yes, I suppose it is. But I would also doubt anyone could possibly place a number on it..

[Homeschoolmom]

I just can’t let this pass without clearing something up.

You said,”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.

That sounds so lovely. It truly does. It makes sense to our human hearts, too. However, it is opposed to everything that Jesus taught. The way is not “broad”.

“For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those that find it.” Matthew 7:14

“I am the way the truth and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by Me.” John 14:6

You also said, “I read John 3:16 very broadly: “For whosoever should believeth in Him....”

One must look at the entire Bible in order to understand the way to salvation. If only belief were involved, Satan would be saved. Of course, that’s not the case.

The way to salvation is the thread throughout the entire OT and NT. It’s in the picture of Abraham and Isaac. It’s in the repentance of David. It’s in the stubbornness and submission of the Israelites. It’s in the thief on the cross who looked to Jesus for salvation at the last minute.

Why did Jesus have to die on the cross? Couldn’t we simply “believe” in Him without His death? The reason is that God is holy. We are separated from Him because of our sin. Because He is a righteous judge, He can not allow sin to go unpunished.
Imagine that an earthly judge had a rapist in front of him. Would he be a good judge he let go free the rapist who simply said, “Hey, look, I won’t do it again. I’m sorry.”
Certainly not! There would be an outcry because sin demands justice.
God is much more of a good judge than any earthly judge.

Hebrews 9:22 says, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sin.”
Jesus had to shed His blood to pay the penalty for our sin. He was sinless and only His blood could cover our sin. We all sin. We can not help but sin. It’s our very nature. We have broken His commandments and deserve to die eternally.

So Jesus took the punishment that we deserved (death). But belief in Him is not enough to save us.

The Bible teaches that we must first realize our need of a Savior. We need to realize that we are sinners to the very core. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. Romans 3:23

Romans 3:10 “As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;”

We can not save ourselves through good works. “For it is by grace you have been saved through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.” Ephesians 2:8-9

Titus 3:5 “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;”

We must confess and believe. “That if you confess with our mouth, “Jesus is Lord”, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with our heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with our mouth that you confess and are saved. Romans 10: 9-10

We must repent of your sins: (which means to turn away from sin and toward God) From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”

Jesus said that there was joy in heaven over one sinner who repents. Luke 15:10

“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,(Acts 3:19).
God Himself “commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30).

So we see that not only must we believe, we must realize our need of a Savior because of our sin. (We can not save ourselves with our good works.)
We must confess and believe that Jesus is Lord, that He died for us and rose again on the third day.
We must repent and put our trust in Him completely. Ask Him to forgive us and turn our entire lives over to Him.

There is no Mormon church mentioned, no Baptist church mentioned, no Church of Christ mentioned, no Roman Catholic Church nor any other organized group.
Our faith must rest in Him alone and *His* finished work for us. Anything added to that is not the true Gospel taught in the Bible. To trust in any church, work that we do, or anything else is to completely miss the mark. Jesus is enough.

Yes, that’s pretty narrow, but then Jesus said it was.