"As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our BORDERS, our constitution and our national sovereignty."
Nothing about it being a Christian only forum.
There are many Jewish and non-religious (-non not -anti) conservative posters here.
I don't recall talking with any Mormons (if we are gonna call them "non-Christian") but there must be some. I'd like to hear from them.
I think it just plays into Romney's hands when people go after Mormonism. I mean it's one thing to say that theologically you don't think it's Christian, that's fine, that's an opinion, I haven't really formed one on the subject, they say they are so whatever. But comments like "Moromonism is illuminist freemasonry and that's a good reason you shouldn't vote for him". I mean come on, WTH?
His denomination does not matter. Most Mormons are good pro-life conservatives, too bad he's not one of them. His policies and lousy record are what's important and THAT's why you shouldn't vote for Romney.
Well this is a fair post. It is reasonable to have honest disagreements about a persons record and policies without attacking religion, creed, or race. So thanks there is some descent people still here on site still.
As I mentioned, we obviously have numerous Jewish freepers. I wouldn't be surprised if other non-Christian faiths are on here as well. I'd be fine with a conservative Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh (I actually know a conservative Republican Sikh), or any other type of faith posting on here. There's some really bizarre cults out there that are even stranger than Mormonism. For example, I suppose we could have a conservative Republican scientologist out there. I think their "religious" beliefs (if you can call L. Rob Hubbard's books that) to be completely batty. But I wouldn't mind letting them post here about conservative issues, as long as their purpose isn't to troll and spam the message boards trying to convert people to Scientology.
FreeRepublic is an unabashedly "pro-God" conservative website. That doesn't make it exclusively a "Christian forum". All people are faith are welcome, and even nonreligious people who are tolerant of people of faith.
I have to agree with GoMonster and Impy, religious bigotry has no place on FR and certainly prominent conservative speakers like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin would condemn it. (Glenn Beck would too -- heck, he's a Mormon!) Katherine Harris was wrong when she said people should only vote for Christian candidates and freepers who made similar statements are also wrong. There are plenty of "Christians" out whose personal lives and beliefs are completely repugnant to what Christianity teaches, and plenty of non-Christians who are model citizens and great examples of faith and morality. The example I typically use on FR if you had an election between the non-Christian Benjamin Netayahu or the "Christian" Nancy Pelosi. I'd crawl over broken glass to vote for Netanyahu if those were the choices. If any of the freepers who say they would "never vote for a non-Christian" HONESTLY feel they would skip that election and allow Pelosi to win rather than elect a non-Christian who agrees with you on 95% of the issues, then I feel sorry for you. Your voting habits are actually very unChristian and I think Jesus would be appalled that you reject people simply because of their faith. Any "bible belivin'" Evangelical protestant who feels that way should re-read the parts of the Bible about the Good Samaritan because you clearly didn't get the message.
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say most of the people playing right into the media's hands and the Romney camp by saying they reject Romney because of his religion are just looking for an ADDITIONAL reason to stigmatize him from conservative voters. It's similar to the people who kept ranting that they would vote against Mark Kirk because they believed he was a closet homosexual. In both cases, the fact Romney and Kirk's record has been extremely hostile to conservatism is enough for me, I don't need additional excuses to put him on my "do not vote for" list. In spite of what the mainstream media is saying about Mormon "bigotry", I strongly suspect if the Mormon candidate was a staunch conservative that everyone liked -- such as Jason Chaffetz -- you wouldn't see these discussions if he was running for higher office in a largely non-Mormon voting area. In fact, if someone came on a thread about the election and "Screw Chaffetz, I'm voting for Obama just because we can't let a Mormon win", you'd probably get banned on a forum a like this.
As another freeper noted, on social issues Romney is completely at odds with mainstream Mormonism. The problem isn't that he's Mormon -- if anything he's not Mormon enough. One evangelical voter said it best -- most Mormons may not accept the traditional Jesus but they tend to be the most moral, pro-life, and pro-traditional family people you'll meet. Sadly, Romney is an exception to that rule.
Finally, I think all this hype from the mainstream media about how the "Evangelicals" will stay home in droves because of anti-Mormon "bigotry" is just pre-emptive B.S. to claim Romney lost to Obama because Republicans are "bigots", rather than fact Romney was a bad candidate who didn't connect with conservatives. I have little doubt the states with the biggest share of evangelicals will go GOP as they always have... can't picture any scenario where the election night returns show "In a shocking upset, it appears both Alabama and South Carolina will go to Barack Obama tonight, as exit polls show a massive exodus of white evangelicals" It's similar to the oft-repeated story about how Al Smith lost in 1928 because of anti-Catholic bigotry and that the KKK delivered the Protestant states to Hoover. Unfortunately for this version of history, if you look at the 1928 election results, the MOST protestant-heavy states and the ones with an active KKK presence were in the "south solid" and the RATs won handily there like they always had before. Hoover won a couple of border and swing states like Florida and Tennessee, but that was because the economy was great after 8 years of Harding/Coolidge and the electorate was very happy with the Republicans in power. The constant media talk about how Romney is in trouble in the south because "Evangelicals don't believe Mormons are Christian" makes no sense since all the mainline protestants, Orthodox, and Catholic denominations "don't believe Mormons are Christian", either (if you can find any Catholic Church in America that believes Mormons are "fellow Christians", let me know). In this case, I would have to agree with southern freepers that the media just seems to want to beat up on the south and portray them all as narrow-minded bigots.
The only two scenarios where I can see a candidate's religious background REALLY hurting him or her in a general election is if a Presidential nominee was an outspoken atheist or a Muslim. Then it wouldn't matter how strongly conservative the candidate is or how impressive their resume is, there would be a ton of voters would simply could not bring themselves to vote for that person. As for Mormons, studies have shown the only group where large numbers of voters won't support them is liberal Democrats. For Romney that's a non-factor, they'll vote RAT whether or not he's the nominee. Basically the only way it could kill a candidate's chances is if the RAT party nominated a centrist Mormon for a major office in a non-Mormon area (let's say a swing state like Ohio). There's a good chance the Republican would win because liberal RATs would refuse to support a pro-life, pro-family Mormon RAT.
I'm going to go with my gut and say a Mormon/Catholic ticket -- or a Catholic/Catholic ticket -- would have little trouble in the Bible belt and win those states over Obama easily. I've personally endorsed Rick Santorum/Susana Martinez as my ideal scenario, and that's a Catholic/Catholic ticket. Having a protestant on the ticket with Santorum would make more sense from a practical standpoint of reaching out to more types of voters, but the problem is there's just not a lot of prominent protestant Republicans who would be an asset to the ticket. Besides, we had a Protestant/Protestant ticket for almost 2 centuries in this country, having a Catholic/Catholic ticket makes up for that. ;-)
I think a Gingrich/Santorum or Santorum/Gingrich ticket would fare poorly in a general election -- not because there's both Catholics but because voters don't like Newt and he has endless skeletons in his closet. (Rick Perry/Katherine Harris would give similar baggage to an all-protestant ticket) The entire GOP presidential field this time around is weak, it makes little sense to get another weak candidate as your running mate when you can pick a strong running mate from outside the field of also-rans that brings many more positives to a ticket. Romney may indeed prove to be a weak and inspiring candidate in the general election who struggles to bring GOP voters to the polls, but again -- that' due to Romney's non-conservative record, NOT due to his religion.