| 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 ...
Well, I did put CA in Giuliani’s column (although there is a chance Thompson will take it). I think he will take the entire West Coast.
But I don’t see the mountain states and the Midwest being particularly excited about Giuliani. Thompson may garner a few of them, but Romney, I suspect, will repeat his Iowa success in the rest of the heartland. He will also pick up much of the Northeast.
So, painting in broad brush strokes, Giuliani gets the west coast, New York, and a few other Northeastern states; Thompson gets the South and a smattering of Midwest states; Romney gets most of the Northeast, most of the Midwest, and virtually all of the Mountain states.
If he manages to pull off Florida - which I agree with you is a very debatable point - then that gives him a good chance at clinching the nomination.
His campaign is now viewing Florida as the key battleground state, and, I think, rightly so. Take a look at this:
http://www.pollster.com/08-FL-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
Romney’s campaign has now started pouring resources into that state, and that gives them an early advantage, particularly against Thompson, in terms of grassroots organization. Jeb Bush has tacitly supported him, so the bulk of Jeb’s massive Florida political machine will be behind Romney.
I could be wrong about this, but I think in six months, there’s a good chance that we’ll look back at the current Thompson phenomenon as a flash in the pan. Unless he can convert the buzz into substantive support (by actually campaigning?) it’s going to evaporate. That’s a shame, because I like what Thompson has to say; but we’re talking about what we think will happen here, not what we’d like to happen.
Giuliani’s political machine has always been driven by name ID, and the polls have his trajectory at a steep decline in all the early states except New York and South Carolina. His name ID campaign is running out of steam. At this stage in the game, direction of support matters far more than degree of support, and Romney and Thompson are the only two candidates going in the right direction.
So it really comes down to this: can Thompson build a good foundation from buzz? I don’t think he can. I don’t think he has the fire in his belly to do it.
Of course, there is the Gingrich X-factor, and I’ve no idea how that would shake out.
All this is why I give Romney 70% odds at the nomination, and Thompson 25%. Romney’s proven to be just plain more effective than anybody else.
~”Number one....I don’t buy into your blanket statement “it’s bashing”.”~
Interesting you say that.
Imagine if I were to say the following:
“Calvinism is a cult! All the Calvinists have rejected the truth, have been deceived, definitely aren’t Christians according to the Bible, and are going to Hell. John Calvin was a liar and a fraud; he changed the rules of religion to lead people away from Christ. The whole lot are a bunch of cultists.”
Of course, I would never say these things, because I don’t believe them, and it would just be crass.
But if I did, would I not be accused of bashing?
Get your head out of the sand, Osage. Reexamine your double standards.
~”I believe that to be widespread......Is that somewhat anecdotally speaking on my part. Yes, I suppose it is.”~
That’s fine, you believe your anecdotal evidence; I’ll believe mine. Mine says the point of view we are discussing is a fringe element. It’s a good thing, too, because people who are so intolerant of alternative views are definitely not following the example of Christ.
Oh, but wait, I forgot. I believe in a different Christ. I must be following a different example.
Your comment on our triumph in the cold war is appreciated, but my part in that effort was inconsequential. There is a little known American who played a key role in developing the strategy that eventually brought the soviets down. His name was John von Neumann.
Johnny (as he was know by friends) was one of the worlds most gifted mathematicians. I think his work is vastly under appreciated. He made key contributions in the fields of Logic, Quantum Mechanics, Economics, Nuclear Armaments (Manhattan Project), and Computer Science. He was a fierce anti Communist who so distrusted the Soviets that he proposed a preemptive strike to knock them out before they achieved nuclear weapons.
His work in Economics led to the development of Game Theory which he applied to the problem we faced with the Soviets. He was able to convince Eisenhower that the only practical path was to stay ahead of the Russians in the arms race. He felt, I think correctly, that if we were to fall behind that they would attack us. He stated that they would eventually fall because of their inability to keep up with us. Ronald Reagan proved this true when he rebuilt our military after it had stagnated in the aftermath of Vietnam. Had the Democrats been on the ball we could have ended the cold war several years earlier.
I think that poster was confused as to the party that was rescued. There were some young men (four I think) that did some extraordinary work in the rescue of the Willey and Martin handcart companies that got trapped in bad weather crossing the plains in 1856.
~”Your comment on our triumph in the cold war is appreciated, but my part in that effort was inconsequential.”~
Every part in the effort, taken by itself, was inconsequential. The team won, and you were a part of it. My children may have other things to worry about; but they’ll never have to worry about being second-class militarily, or about communist invasion. It’s your generation that we have to thank for that.
~”His name was John von Neumann.”~
I’ll have to look him up. Thanks for the reference!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann
Looks like he was one of the great minds graciously handed to us by the Nazis.
~”Congress liked the idea of a one size fits all airplane and was willing to sink a lot of money into it’s development.”~
Along those lines, then, what do you think about the Joint Strike Fighter?
Is that all you got Elsie to repeat you think for a religion you are accusing after all these years would have continues through the years to speak ill of another faith.
If that is what the Lord Church was all about.
It seems to me the Lord’s council his LDS to do his will and Keep His Commandments which means to mind our own business unless spoken ill by other and still we were to focus on Keeping His Commandments.
It something isn’t true fine it is not the LDS mission to belabor it!
Maybe Jim Robinson would run a poll for us. LOL. But how could only the Mormons vote? From what I've read here, most LDS Freepers do support Fred Thompson (if he will ever announce.) most of the rest support Romney. I'm on the fence, leaning more and more towards Romney.
BTW, wouldn't be the first time someone accused me of that....nor will it be the last. Ha!! Okay now back to our discussion. I suppose....it would depend on how one framed their argument. An opinion can be expressed without being, as you say, crass.
Let's keep to the post that you originally responded to....I defended HSM's post..never once was she rude in her post, nor crass.
Now go back and look it up....and let me know if I'm wrong.
As far as being intolerant....Jesus Himself was very intolerant of many things. I'm intolerant of many things myself. So, I guess that would make me just like Jesus, in that regard.
Thanks, but I tolerate Mormon's just fine. I just disagree with Mormonism. Not unlike many thousands of other Christians.
Frankly when you and others claim, "intolerance, bigotry, bashing, un-Christian," etc..etc...when someone merely questions or disagrees with the origins, the changing doctrine, the teachings, etc of Mormonism....It comes across just like Dim/Liberal's predictable cry's to Pubby/Conservatives...when we dare to examine the various present culture shifts in American life, ie: Homosexuality, illegal immigration, porno, etc...etc...
All fwiw-
I can understand how you feel and I for one would like to apologize to you for any poor treatment you felt at the hands of members of my faith. It's been years since I lived in Utah but I can still remember the polarized feelings that existed between Mormons and non Mormons at that time. Not everyone fell into this trap but enough did that it's effects were easy to spot.
I think the roots to this go back to the early days of the Utah pioneers. They had been hounded out of Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois and they had struggled for several decades to build their community when the federal government (concerned over plural marriage) came in and forcibly (threat of war) took over control. The people in the territory were not in favor of the new government and still looked towards Brigham Young for leadership. The president appointed several successive Territorial governors in an effort to win the people over but the feds never won the hearts of the people.
Tensions eased somewhat when the Civil War broke out and most of the federal troops were withdrawn leaving Utah in Mormon control for a short time. Eventually a regiment of Army troops from California arrived where they established Fort Douglas in 1862. The stated purpose of the fort was to protect the overland mail routes and telegraph lines from Indian attacks. The unstated motivation was to keep the Mormons in line. Fort Douglas is located on the eastern slopes of the valley and is the only fort ever built in the country where the cannon emplacements pointed directly at the city center.
Utah women were given the right to vote in 1870 (second only to Wyoming in 1869). Outsiders believed that the women in Utah would vote polygamy out. When this didn't happen the government passed laws allowing for the imprisonment of polygamists (mostly men but one woman who refused to testify against her husband). The federal government then moved to take the vote away from women in Utah because they hadn't voted the way Washington wanted them to.
In March of 1886 several thousand women held a protest rally in Salt Lake (smaller rallies were held throughout the territory). They were sick and tired of having outsiders imprisoning their husbands, threatening their voting rights, and generally trying to run their lives.
Congress did eventually disenfranchise Utah women. The situation came to a head when the temple in Salt Lake was completed. The saints had spent 40 years lovingly putting their sweat into it's construction and the federal government was going to seize it along with all other church properties. Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto and opened the temple to non Mormon visitors prior to it's dedication. Many government officials took advantage of this and were satisfied that the temple was indeed a house of worship (all LDS temples ever since have been open to the public in the weeks leading up to their dedication).
Tensions began to ease but it took several years before the acrimony between the government and the church completely subsided. During all of this time though, Mormons remained fiercely patriotic and remain so till this day. Personal relationships between church members and their non Mormon neighbors suffered and the residual tension on both sides still manifests itself on occasion.
I'm not trying to give an excuse for anybody who may have treated you in an un Christian manner. I'm only giving you my perspective as to what some of the dynamics were in interfaith relationships in Utah when I lived there. There were a lot of Mormons that I knew at that time who would have benefited by leaving the state for awhile to see what life was like outside of Zion.
Several years ago the church leadership made a concerted effort to finally put these feelings to bed. They encouraged members to open their hearts to their non Mormon neighbors. Not in an effort to convert, but in an effort to show true Christian love. I was very pleased to see this emphasis coming from our leadership. As I stated earlier, I haven't lived in Utah for some time but I hope that relationships have improved in the last few decades since I left. Perhaps those who live in Utah now will provide some feedback.
You are right there is NO Mormon Church mention because there never was a Mormon Church.
That is a tag give to the LDS from the media and folks who can bring themselves to call the Church by it right name!
The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
If you ever investigate the Church on your own like you do the Bible you would be pleasantly surprised.
The young men of the rescue party (accounts mention George W. Grant, C. Allen Huntington, David P. Kimball, and Stephen W. Taylor) spent much of the day pulling the carts and carrying many of the emigrants across the river. Andrew Jensen later stated that some of the young rescuers died from the effects of the exposure.It has been said of those four young rescuers
They saw a need and they responded immediately, even at the risk of physical injury to themselves. They weren't perfect - they were rough-and-tumble Utah boys, and they were strong. ... It affected them but they did it.It mentions in all the research that I have done that these four young men carried most of the survivors over the Sweetwater river. The four young men suffered from the exposure, and it led to their deaths in later years.
Elsie that is form 1820 grow up!
Article of Faith
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
Sound is not good
Governor Mitt Romney on Stem Cell Veto
Osage Orange could have made it easier for you by just giving you the link!
I guess if was too much effort for him!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1872180/replies?c=193
Talk all you want it is in the Lord hand who will be president, and what we as a people should deserve ,after all we had B Clinton for two years why not HELLery for two more years pal!:)
I actually got a close up look at this plane when they were doing some of the early flight test work at Lockheeds facility in Palmdale California. I was amazed as I watched it fly by my position at about 10 mph only 20 or so feet off of the ground. It has a radically new design (British Aerospace) for vectoring it's thrust. It gives the JSF far better stability than the Harrier had in this role. Lockheed and it's partners bet the farm on this new unproven technology and pulled it off. Kudo's to them for their innovation. Not all versions of the JSF will have this capability. This is another strong point in the design. The end customer can buy a jet that fits their needs. I don't think the Boeing version of the jet ever demonstrated this crucial ability. If you ever saw a picture of the Boeing jet you'd think their idea was to make our enemies die laughing looking at it. Gosh it was ugly.
The JSF's function is to replace the venerable F-16 fighter that is used by so many of the air forces in the world. I think it has a good chance of filling the bill. As for the Navy signing on, maybe hell will freeze. They have always been successful in getting the funds to build something tailored exclusively to their mission.
I think the Lord is leaving that decision up to us. We need to do our part to keep our nation safe from those who wish to destroy it.
“What ‘way’ is that??”
Shorthand notes with no punctuation taken under conditions where nothing was done to ensure they were well placed to hear clearly, transcribed back to English and puctuated by someone else who wasn’t there, final copy not checked by the speaker for accuracy, you know, all the stuff that’s been told to you several times already by now.
“you can’t be sure the quote is IN-accurate; either.”
Point is the source is questionable, if you can’t find a better source, you shouldn’t assert it as a fact that he said it. Even if he did say it, I already covered how scientific ideas of that era were very weird in light of what we know today and a statement like that then would not raise eyebrows then like it does now and really isn’t relevant to our claims.
“But THESE folks were sure worried about having THEIR church attached!”
That should have been attacked, not attached. Sorry for the typo. Freedom of religion is very important to Mormons, Democrats hostility towards religion is well known.
“I thought JS was 14 when he had a vision (or two).”
That isn’t what or who we were talking about.
~”And are cracking me up here...with your holier than thou methods.”~
What methods might those be? It’s my faith that is consistently impugned, not yours; that’s not superiority or victimology. It’s objective fact. Mormons are called cultists and non-Christians by others. Mormons generally do not return the favor. They are too busy refuting the lies and falsehoods that these self-proclaimed Christians use to try and tear them down.
~”Let’s keep to the post that you originally responded to....I defended HSM’s post..never once was she rude in her post, nor crass.”~
No, HSM’s been quite polite and straightforward; she’s a remarkably nice lady, and I rather like her. I’m disappointed that she can’t rise above what I find to be a parochial view of religion; but, hey, nobody’s perfect.
Now, what I was referring to in my post are those who attack us by calling us cultists and non-Christian. I did not mention HSM specifically; the extent to which she, or you, fit this category is between her/you and God.
But the fact remains that I follow and worship Jesus Christ. I dedicate my life to trying to follow His example. He is my cornerstone and my bedrock.
But, because I have a different interpretation as to His nature than the bulk of Orthodox Christianity, I am called a cultist. My faith, which has taught me the same cherished values as theirs has taught them, is called a cult. And, because I don’t meet a given Christian’s narrow view of how Christ should be perceived, I am called a non-Christian.
This is rhetoric aimed squarely at the soul. Is it any surprise that its target’s natural response is to take offense? When it is combined with the opinion that my views are a disqualifier for one who shares them to be a president of the United States, that is religious bigotry. It is intolerance. It is ecclesiastical parochialism. It is based on irrational fear and misunderstanding. It is the same thing that Kennedy faced in the 60’s. It is the same thing that Christ faced before the Sanhedrin. It is the force that Satan used to instigate His crucification.
Embracing it is a character flaw.
Do you do this? I can’t answer that; only God knows the heart. But if you do, then you are harboring in your soul the seed of something very dark, and which is the antithesis of everything that Christ taught.
Can I stop you, if you do? Of course not. You’ve got every bit as much right to be deceived and wrongheaded as I do.
Does tolerance mean you have to accept my faith, or even stop trying to persuade me that it is the wrong path? Of course not. But to attribute personality characteristics to a given candidate based solely on such a clouded religious judgment is -NOT- what Christ taught. It -IS- bigotry. It -IS- crass. It is exactly the same as me saying I could never support you for President because you’re a Lutheran, or Catholic, or Baptist, or a star-bellied Sneetch, or whatever. By applying it to Romney, it is personally offensive to me, as a member of his faith; and I will call an individual out on it.
Such an individual is a bigot. Such an individual is intolerant. Such an individual is bashing. And such an individual is not following Christ’s example in that aspect of his or her life.
Fortunately, such individuals, while nerve-rackingly vocal, are also pretty rare.
Putting aside my doubts about the validity of you vague complaints, freedom of religion is something Mormons are obligated to strongly support. If you were mistreated as you say, it is in spite of what the church teaches, not because of it. You might find this verse useful to remind them of how they should act:
D&C 134:4
We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
Where there is a large religious majority, it is not uncommon for the concerns of religious minorities to get overlooked or not be well understood. As a Mormon living in Canada I am as much a minority here as you are there, perhaps even more so. You can look for something to be offended about, or you can look for ways to build bridges of understanding.
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.