Posted on 08/11/2011 4:29:28 AM PDT by Colofornian
...we pretty much know what kind of re-election campaign Barack Obama is going to wage: A relentlessly negative one, which...will focus almost exclusively on making the challenger seem unacceptable rather than defending the sitting president’s accomplishments. Thanks to Ben Smith at Politico, we also know roughly how the White House plans to “destroy Mitt Romney,”...By “attacking him as inauthentic, unprincipled and, in a word used repeatedly by Obama’s advisers in about a dozen interviews, ‘weird.’”
Weird how, you ask? Here’s Smith:
The character attacks on Romney will focus on what critics view as a makeover, both personal (skinny jeans) and political (abortion) … Democrats also plan to amplify what Obama strategists described as the “weirdness” quotient, the sum of awkward public encounters and famous off-kilter anecdotes, first among them the tale of Romney having strapped his dog to the roof of his car.
SNIP
...The crucial thing to understand here is that Romney’s Latter Day Saint affiliation isn’t just a potential liability among evangelical voters in Republican primaries. It’s a potential general election liability as well. In a recent Gallup poll, 18 percent of Republicans described themselves as unwilling to vote for a Mormon candidate — but that number actually climbed to 19 percent among Independents, and 27 percent among Democrats.
Who are these non-conservative Mormon skeptics?... theologically conservative/politically liberal Christians (mainly African American and Hispanic) who regard Mormonism as a dangerous heresy...secular liberals...who dislike L.D.S...positions...people who don’t have a particular theological or political ax to grind, who know Mormonism primarily through pop culture (from “Big Love” and “Sister Wives” to “South Park” and “The Book of Mormon”) and the occasional encounter with bicycling missionaries, and who have a vague sense of the L.D.S. church as little bit cultish, a little bit outside-the-mainstream, and a little bit, well, weird...
(Excerpt) Read more at douthat.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Wow! You assume I am not a Protestant because I did not check my facts. With that kind of attitude, you would be a terrible candidate for the Republicans in a heavily Catholic or Jewish district (think of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin).
As you describe yourself as an Evangelical Lutheran, you are part of the World Federation that joined in the 1999 Joint Declaration with the Catholics (you would say “Roman Catholics”), and, so, you are part of a body that has affirmed that Catholics are essentially correct (as they have affirmed that you are).
With this in mind, Luther’s famous dictum, “Here I stand, I can do other,” is seen as a valid position of a reasonable person when confronted with something that is unreasonable, namely, the corruption that had so thoroughly permeated the church in his day.
But, perhaps you don’t know that the so-called Confessional Lutherans declined from the Declaration. The following is from the particular Confessional Lutheran group to which Michele Bachmann formerly belonged:
http://www.wels.net/news-events/wels-view-scripture-alone-0
WELS does hold to the historic Lutheran position that the Roman Catholic papacy fits the biblical characteristics of the Antichrist. We do this without reservation and with no apologies. We believe that our doctrines cannot be tempered by political correctness or modified to align them with changing culture or public opinion.
Yeah, but i’m not against stamp collecting. I just choose not to participate. And while some peoples’ collections might seem weirder than others, my lack of participation does not constitute a form of stamp collecting behavior. It is the simple lack thereof.
And I will continue to point out the blatent FACTS of MORMON history, scripture and writings.
The l.urkers can decide for themselves what is presented straight forward and what is spun and 'explained'.
I'm seriously questioning whether or not you even read what I posted.
I clearly stated that I judge individuals based on their actions. In what alternatate bizarro world universe can this possibly be described as "guilt by association"?
You are correct, this has a lot to do with Vatican II.
The current Pope was very influential in that council, as were certain Americans. Both he and the Americans come from countries in which a large Catholic minority live among a majority that is Protestant.
With regard to whether anybody before Vatican II goes to hell for being a heretic, who wouldn’t go to hell after, there is cleverness bordering on genius. They say the new position is the old position properly understood.
This is what both the Catholics and the Lutherans did in joining into their declaration of 1999, they each said their condemnation of the other of a long time ago was merely being “clarified.”
As for non-Christians, I may be repeating myself a bit, but the Catholic position as expressed formally and informally by many recent Popes is that those who follow what is right as can be known by natural law can be part of the church in many ways. They have what is called baptism of desire. They desire to know and to do what is right, believing that there is such a thing as “right” and “wrong.” What we, in the church, have to offer them is Jesus and - through Jesus - the assurance of salvation. That God is a conscious and loving God, not merely the Deistic God who, having brought the universe into creation, is unaware or unconcerned.
My father had a very strong sense of right and wrong, but was almost cynical regarding church type stuff. I believe he was saved by his belief that there is right and wrong and by his sincere, although faulty effort to know and do what is right. I remember when my brother died, after a long illness which he contracted due to his own fault. I asked my father how did he look. He said he looked like the perfect baby boy that he held in his arms. I said that is how God sees us.
Since the thread is supposed to be about Mitt Romney’s possible political problem being a Mormon, I wonder, can the Mormons be so clever as were the Catholic and Lutherans? Or, can Mitt say that he has never taken those doctrines seriously, that what Mormonism means to him is the kind of family values and belief in free enterprise and private charity that is so strongly associated with Mormons?
This kind of rhetoric just smacks of the tone and content of Obama's....think about it!!
And yet in post #57 you judged two specific beliefs (transsubstantiation + young earth) + Mormon beliefs in general -- all as "wacky."
So here you make a claim that you only "judge" by actions; yet in post #57 you were judging beliefs. What are we to believe -- what you say is your preaching here? Or your actual practice according to post #57.
Furthermore, you've judged our beliefs -- not just actions -- throughout this thread. You've certainly issued moral assessments on them as "deranged," etc.
(You may want to try to clear up your self-contradictory behavior according to your prescribed personal religious worldviews/practices)
I already answered the question “Would you rather sit next to a devout Mormon or Muslim?”” up thread.
And I didn’t dodge the question at all. Mormonism, and the leaders who lie are flat out evil personified.
But to be clear, devout Mormons are not Christians they are pagans pretending to be Christians, they are of the devil and thus are evil just like any other lost soul.
They are also spiritually deceived.
It doesn't matter what you have supposedly "clearly stated" (that you supposedly stick to judging people by their actions) if you have already PROVED on this thread that you judge people by their beliefs.
(I suggest that you get in touch with your "other half" so you can find out what you wrote in post #57).
Thereby, having judged both groups of religious people and the adherents who hold them in your post #57, there is no "bizarro" leap to conclude that you've done so on other posts as well.
I have beloved family that have closely held religious beliefs that I think are wacky, but that's not passing judgement on them.
Tesla believed he was receiving signals from outer space and Newton believed in alchemy. Good, intelligent people sometimes believe wacky things.
I wouldn't classify derangement as a moral problem, more of a mental illness or a nurtured dislike; maybe something they grew up with. I'm not contradicting any religious worldview since I don't have one. I simply calling out people when they say ridiculous things.
I think the problem is that we disagree on what the word evil means.
Let's try the other claim that went along with evil, "bad for the country."
Do you believe all Mormons are bad for the country?
Let's also throw non-believers in. If someone doesn't share your religious views, are they also bad for the country, and are every single one of the evil?
It doesn't matter if you're against stamp collecting or not; and it doesn't matter if you're a stamp collector or not. If you've evaluated specific and group stamp collections, guess what? (That's called stamp collection commentary/rhetoric...It's not called birds&bees commentary...it's not called butterfly collection assessments...it's actually stamp collection evals).
An informal film critic may have no favorite actors, Hollywood film companies, or even movies in his lifetime. He may eschew everything Hollywood. He may be 100% free lance -- representing no media outlet. Yet once he specifically reviews online -- even briefly -- specific films or more broadly films made by a given producer...And he labels them "wacky"...Guess what? He's engaged in FILM criticism. He's not a sports car, roller derby, or "Big Time Wrestling" commentator -- fan or critic.
It's amazing the complete cartwheels you're going to either avoid the obvious conclusions you've made in post #57 -- all to avoid conceding your self-contradictory personal standards.
...while some peoples’ collections might seem weirder than others...
Hey, it's not like in post #57 that you made extremely generic statements:
* You id'd or implied three groups (Lds, Roman Catholic & those of various Christian identities which believe in a young earth).
* You mentioned two specific beliefs.
The difference that I recognize is...
...on the one hand...someone who internally thinks those beliefs are "wacky" -- we ALL do that to various degrees re: certain people...
...on the other hand...someone who externally exports those thoughts to the world...
Once you get to the "gossip," stage, you have engaged in obvious social communication -- and in your case -- it was done to stigmatize those beliefs (passing subjective judgment). Now obviously, some beliefs deserve to be stigmatized. But that's another issue.
The issue we're dealing with is the cartwheels you keep engaging in to avoid the implications of your inconsistent commentary.
Tesla believed he was receiving signals from outer space and Newton believed in alchemy. Good, intelligent people sometimes believe wacky things.
I suppose for your next "trick," you're going to try telling us (like you tried telling us in post #136), that you're not really judging either Tesla's or Newton's specific "beliefs"...You'll tell us that you were merely thinking about Tesla's actions and Newton's actions...but you weren't really covering their beliefs at all -- nor passing judgment on them.
I wouldn't classify derangement as a moral problem, more of a mental illness or a nurtured dislike; maybe something they grew up with. I'm not contradicting any religious worldview since I don't have one. I simply calling out people when they say ridiculous things.
Yeah, that's "typical" of people who tend to set aside either morality and immorality. In their "amoral" worldview, there's fewer options left to explain behavior. (That's why in our secular court system, you don't see pleas of guilty-by-reason-of-evil...just innocense-by-reason-of-insanity)
Do you believe all Mormons are bad for the country?
- - - - -
I believe all Mormons IN OFFICE are bad for the country.
And I don’t believe a Non-Christian can save this country from what it has become. We as a nation, need to turn back to God, the real God, not the pagan God of Mormonism.
Do you disagree with Jesus that all in those crowds Jesus spoke to in the Sermon of the Mount were "evil" per Matthew 7:11?
If you've felt "comfortable" assigning "hate" status and "derangement" status to CAWW for linking evil with people groups, then what's your problem (sense of discomfort) assigning the same status to Jesus for linking evil with people groups?
If you've asked Reaganaut to go on record opposing what CAWW said, why are you so averse to answering direct very similar questions re: you going record regarding what Jesus has said about people groups?
They have a term for it in Israel called 'Jerusalem Syndrome', where seemingly normal people are driven mad by religion. I'm more interested in them getting the help they need rather than passing judgment on them.
Anyone who believes that every other person on Earth who doesn't share the same religious belief is evil and bad for their country is suffering from something similar. I'm just making the observation.
Are you really putting forth all of this effort to defend someone who called all Mormons and all Muslims evil? Do you believe in that statement so much that you're willing to spend your time believing something so asinine?
Strawman.
#1, if the end of the world really was underway, you're conclusion that he was deranged would be a bit "off-kilter."
#2, You're introducing facts not in evidence. You've introduced characteristics not in parallel with the comments on this thread. I haven't seen obvious conclusive psychological analyses that any poster on this thread -- including you -- indicative of "derangement." Yet, you've freely shown your ability to try to psychoanalyze complete strangers by a Web diagnosis. (Congrats!)
But go ahead. Come up with additional scenarios that describe obvious mentally disturbed people...and then tell us conclusively, "Of course, they are crazy!"
Marvelous conclusive psychoanalyses! Just marvelous!
No skin off my back.
Yeah, nice try. You won't answer direct questions with direct answers to my relevant questions on posts #155 & #61. You only want to ask direct questions; you apparently don't want to answer them.
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.