Posted on 08/09/2012 5:40:19 PM PDT by Colofornian
WASHINGTON — Concerning Mormons and Republicans, history offers a large helping of irony. In 1843, an Army officer named John C. Fremont led a geographical expedition of 39 men more than 1,700 miles to the shores of the Great Salt Lake. His report on the journey inspired hounded Mormons to mount their wagons and resettle in the Great Basin.
Thirteen years later in Philadelphia, Fremont became the first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, which adopted a platform opposing the "twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery." The slogan, and the anti-Mormon sentiment behind it, caught on. A Republican rally in Indianapolis, reportedly attended by 60,000 people, included an ox-drawn parade wagon depicting Brigham Young along with six wives dressed in hoop skirts, each with a little Brigham in her arms.
...In the typology of sociologists Robert Putnam and David Campbell, Mormons remain a rejected "out-group," unlike accepted "in-groups" such as Catholics and Jews. Large majorities of Americans perceive Mormonism as "very different" from their own religious beliefs.
But in this case, the counsel of religious reticence is wrong. Romney should not be afraid to highlight his faith.
SNIP
Questions remain about the role of Mormonism in depressing evangelical political enthusiasm. Some religious conservatives are concerned that a Romney presidency would provide theological legitimacy for a rival, proselytizing faith. But it is unclear how silence from Romney on religion would mitigate this fear. And a portion of the evangelical enthusiasm gap is explainable for another reason entirely: the suspicions of social conservatives about the authenticity of Romney's social conservatism.
SNIP
This does not mean Romney should quote from the Book of Jarom in his convention speech...
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
It is amazing what you garnered from my post of which none of you diatribe was in it.
Thin skinned are you, and yes, conservatives won’t be able to count on you to keep Romney from straying.
It will be easy to hold you accountable though on FR.
Or, when he does stray, you’ll disappear.
Nope. He lied in his negative ads on Santorum and Gingrich and the others he was vying against. However, I tend to believe him against Obama though. I thought Gingrich had the better delivery and facts. Romney to me is like McCain in his delivery. I caught the debates down here.
“And the “legitimacy” question is a real one that Evangelicals & other Christians need to weigh carefully”
I don’t want Mormon missionaries to go overseas and use “President Romney” as an evangelism tool. Just say NO to the Mormon Romney. The “only” thing he could say about Mormonism that might get my attention in a favorable way would be for him to denounce it as a false belief as it is. Then to publically turn his back on Mormonism. Of course, that just isn’t going to happen.
I have the entire thread saved as PDF screenshots. If you want it freepmail with an email address.
Spamming by definition is unsolicited email.
This thread is a discussion site about Mormonism and Romney.
Sorry, providing information is not spam.
As Paul indicated, there had already been many Antichrist's.
But, there will be one final one.
Remember, he will initially stand up for Israel, and negotiate a 7 year peace agreement.
It will last but half of that.
Romney is not he.
FLOODING THE BOARD then, Posting the same large things over and over and over again so that any opposing views are buried. Don’t school me on internet forums. On most forums flooding like colofornians would be met with a stern warning and deleted.
So you apparently do not like what is being posted, got it.
Would you be willing to point out what you think is incorrect, or does it matter to you that the information is accurate, and it’s just annoying you.
Amen.
And that's what I advocate: Say "no" to both Romney and Obama.
If you're a FREEPER and you don't live in a genuine swing state, you have no business voting for Romney.
Romney will lose ALL the liberal blue states, anyway;
And if you subtracted ALL FREEPERs (100%) from the red states -- and gave those votes to either Virgil Goode or Tom Hoefling -- Romney would still win those states.
So no Obama "risk" there.
What that really means is that the people pushing Romney in the 41 states or so (beyond the 9 swing states) are NOT doing conservativism any favors. They are pushing a statist big govt socialist healthcare pioneer pro-abort liberal not only on us, but they are permanently RINOizing the GoP.
(There won't be any place left to go for a conservative "home"...and you can thank the Romneyautomatons for that)
Let's keep it honest. Where is your proof that romney loves this country?
Did you forget Bloody Thursday on Drudge and FLORIDA ads through print, radio and TV 24/7 - ALL AGAINST NEWT ONLY - as he was his ONLY opponent.
I thought Gingrich had the better delivery and facts.
Better delivery, MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE, BETTER credentials, and a PROVEN conservative PATRIOT.
I was very confused why they would want to delete their own thread, they seemed very proud of their posts. I wish it was still up so that people could get a full history of members' activity and know what they are dealing with.
And nope, I think I can still see a bit of that thick skin. I've been admiring your steadfastness and even temperment :-)
Sorry, but no. I’m down here in Aussie-land so unless someone from home tells me what’s going on ... I do read Drudge but missed what happened or forgot.
Did he really? Well here are three quotes for you. You tell me where you find the RINO big tent in Reagan's words:
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” ~ Ronald Reagan, 1975
"I don't know about you, but I'm impatient with those Republicans who, after the last election, rushed into print saying we must broaden the base of our party, when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents." ~ Ronald Reagan, 1975
"Don't give up your ideals, don't compromise, don't turn to expediency – and don't, for heaven's sake, having seen the inner workings of the watch – don't get cynical." ~ Ronald Reagan, 1976
Every single time Romney's people start spouting something about Reagan, you would think they were talking about someone else. They forget that we lived during Reagan's time so they can't fool us with their deceitful words. Reagan had principles Romney will never have.
Reagan wanted the party to include everyone who agreed with the conservative principles of the party, not change our values to accept any old idea just to get more people on board. He did not advocate becoming democrats in order to get more democrats to vote for the GOP nor did he believe in becoming socialists to get socialists to vote for the party.
Remember, Reagan left the democrats because that party left him. He warned us of socialized medicine and allowing their ideas to take over the party. There was no hypocrisy, no becoming all things to all people, no 'all ideas inclusive' big tent on Reagan's part as you suggest. But, the dems, Romney and his RINO friends love to twist history to deceive people.
Read this article by Thomas Sowell if you want a reasoned look at what you have been deceived about.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/republicans-229738-democrats-reagan.html
Your idea of a "big tent" and Reagan's idea of a "big tent" may be two different things.
If it is distracting you, then you choose to be distracted.
Who are the ones not addressing the important things? Is Romney going gang buster - we know he isn’t! He wants to waltz into the nomination process while HE EARNED NOTHING!!
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.