Posted on 08/11/2012 10:06:41 AM PDT by Colofornian
...Romney keeps his focus simple: fix the economy. But others are fixated on something else: his faith.
SNIP
Some call it a cult...
Yet Mormons call themselves Christians, which raises eyebrows, especially within evangelical circles.
Shawn McCraney is a former Mormon who now hosts a show called, 'Heart of the Matter," where he witnesses to Mormons in Salt Lake City.
"...I didn't know the Lord and that led me to an internal angst."
"What happened was I came to realize that there was nothing I could do to get myself right before God -- where with Mormonism...it's you have to do it," he explained. "He gives you the opportunity, but it's up to you to perform, and I couldn't perform."
...any controversy over a Mormon president may...center on...whether Romney would put loyalty to the Mormon Church ahead of anything else.
Former Mormon and author Michael Moody has written the book, Mitt, Set Our People Free...
"When I was a little boy, the Mormon prophet was a more important man than the president of the United States," Moody told CBN News.
"Mitt Romney has knelt in the Mormon temples," he noted. "He has taken an oath of consecration. He has taken an oath of sacrifice. He has said that he will sacrifice everything that he is, and give all of his talents, and everything that he has and is to the Mormon Church."
...Moody said a Romney victory would be a big deal for the Mormon Church.
"If Mitt Romney gets in the White House, it's going to be a sign to all of the Mormon people that they're on the right path, that this is the truth, and it's going to help perpetuate their missionary program. It's going to put the Mormon Church in a more powerful position..."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
“(You mean like my freedom to religiously express my convictions...or do you draw careful lines around “freedom of religion” — and seek to appoint yourself as some “policeman” of that?)”
No...I did nothing of the sort. You are the one that made the case for excluding someone from office based on their religious belief against the established principles of our beloved Constitution. I disagreed with your aggressive and vitriolic attack. In other words, you wanted to “arrest” the progress of “the offender” while I was simply pointing out they had a right to their belief.
Seriously, if you see yourself as a victim, you have a serious problem and should consider seeking help.
It doesn’t matter what we want... the truth is that at the end of this election cycle the man elected will not be one who worships the one true God. Through out history mankind has lived under more leaders than not who worship false gods. That is not what is the foundation of my faith.
In some ways unless you plan on living in a theocracy ( notorious throughout history for killing those who do not follow THEIR understanding of God) the question is silly on its face
A true communist could NOT believe i the one true God. Communism is the anti-religion and its purpose at founding was to get rid of religion and grow the state. Communism by its writings and practices places man’s reliance on man and not God. It is human centric and not faith based.
so you would prefer the godless communist who is currently there? How is that better for leading the nation on peril times? Wishful thinking does us NO good. There are facts on the ground. One fact Obama is currently the president. Fact two O is running for reelection. Fact three the GOP is running Mitt romney. Now none of these things make me happy. In fact they really turn my stomach. But there is a fourth fact that each must consider.....Fact four one of these two men will be president come January 2013
You must not have lived in the mid west or the south. Catholics were considered members of that PAPIST group centered in ROME. They were sure that Kennedy would sell out US interests to the interests of Rome. This was written about and talked about rather routinely. Protestants and Roman Catholics have a history of...ahem....disagreeing on theology. Trust me it was not pretty
FYI...
By the intolerance of my religious expressions I see on FR to those I have pinged above -- in a case or two, rather venemous zealous intolerance, if I took all the "bigotry" comments and applied the worldview behind them evenly to parallel scenarios...
I'd have to conclude...
...anybody's who was opposed to the "kiss in" @ Chick-Fil-A (like me & most FREEPERs) are "bigoted" toward homosexuals...
Why do I draw such a conclusion?...Well, according to the homosexual playbook, which you posters above seemed to have learned quite well by emulating homosexual activists...if you oppose homosexual marriage, you are not able to properly separate the agenda from the homosexual person...you thus -- in this conviction you ALL are expressing... are "bigots" vs. homosexuals themselves...
...Or, since you all -- like me -- oppose the Democratic agenda for this nation...that means by such "simpleton" logic being exercised here -- you all are "bigoted" toward all Democrats...and you all thereby "hate" and are intolerant of Democrats who are family members, neighbors, co-workers, and those you are involved with recreationally...
Be consistent...
You are preaching to us all that nobody can distinguish between MormonISM and Mormons. Well, by this new 3:16 message you're preaching, that would mean...
...that if ANY of you are EVER in a hiring position...
...you should declare yourself a Republican...
...so that the Democrats who are interviewed...
...could know right off the bat that they don't stand a chance of being hired...
Why??? Because...we've seen your disdain on this site for the Democrat agenda...and that makes you "intolerant" and "bigoted" toward ALL Democrats in EVERY situation in life!!! (According to your worldviews & convictions projected onto others, none of us are supposedly EVER able to distinguish between intolerance of agendas & worldviews -- vs. the people who embrace them)
Welcome, to the multi-cultural post-modern world...(Y'all can thank your secular educators & MSM "profs" for "properly" imbedding this in you) means you are so intolerant
“But these are posts intended for a political purpose: to attack a candidate for political office because of his religious beliefs, when there is no evidence that his religion has interfered in the past or would interfere in the future with his carrying out of the duties of political office. “
Let me repeat what you said...oh I just did.
EXACTLY! there is no evidence that his religion has interfered in the past or would interfere in the future with his carrying out of the duties of political office. “
So NOW you are trying to redefine Article VI of the Constitution...and tell voters (look @ the % breakdown of voters in post #1)...that they can't consider...
...the jihadist views of a POTUS candidate???
...or the atheistic or Satanic views of a POTUS candidate?
Are you trying to impose a new Constitution on voters?
Do you realize that Article VI applies to candidates -- and the government -- not to voters?
Elsewise, voters could NEVER consider their faith-based perspectives on even a candidate's character!
Wow!
Here...this "primer" below on Article VI of the Constitution is for you and others who flunk reading it...
*********************************
Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: You don't, FSO, really want to join Lds "apostles" in their confusion by emphasizing words similar to "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with words like "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution)...do you?
I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely...
...nothing...
....nada...
...zero...
...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...
Nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
(Even 94-95% of Mormons -- most voting upon the fellow personal "qualities" of a candidate like Romney -- can tell you that!)
Btw, jess, why aren't you lecturing Lds voters if anywhere from 88% to 95% of Mormons will only vote for a Mormon?
(For some reason, the "Article 6 Religious Test" lecture tour never seems to hit Utah, Nevada and other Western states)
(as if the Mormon "prophet" would gain considerable "favors" by imposing anything thru the exec in the Bay State...vs. THE leader of the FREE World...and all that offers)
You are an embarrassment to Christianity, you biggoted ass. You also seem to be very confused and illogical, like all bigots.
Why? What promises did Kennedy ever make that comes even close to the chart in post #3...last row...column on the right? ... THE vow that Romney has promised to the Mormon church)
Thank you.
I am not fighting with you over what particular religions believe. I am telling you what I personally know was said and written whenKennedy was running for the presidency.
Many Christian sects are more cultish than Mormons, so this is a non-issue except for cultist Christians. Have at it.
Thank you!!!
You are a rare FREEPER!
Now, let's as FREEPERs come up with several of these indicators ... there's some others in the links I posted this Spring -- and I'll make a thread out it as long as we enough "meat"... It qualifies as a good post; we need "more" for a meaty thread...
Ramadan closes on Aug. 19...that would be a good date to post such a thread...
(Your 4 years late...that applied to '08...'bama's not been back there...)
Besides...AnotherUnixGeek assured us (post #36): "The presidency is a job to which one is elected. Religion is no part of that job...The religion of a president is irrelevant - I want to know if the man can and will do a good job."
Therefore, by anotherUnixGeek's standards, who, btw, represents a LOT of FREEPERs well beyond him/her...Rev. Jeremiah Wright's "stuff" should have been "out of bounds" for discussion in 2008 and its resurrection in 2012.
So...I've seen HUNDREDS of freepers tell us that Mormonism is "out of bounds"...
In four years years, I've only seen one FREEPER -- and it wasn't me -- who said that Obama's Wright connections or alleged closet Muslim ties were out of bounds. (You could say the same when Romney told the Christian Science Monitor in late '07 that he wouldn't have a Muslim on his Cabinet...I guess Romney, by these standards, should NOT have considered the "religion" of a potential Cabinet member)
Talk about religious hypocrisy... If people TRULY felt as strong as they've expressed it in defending Mormonism -- and applied that standard, that worldview, that conviction evenly across the board, they would have mentioned it on the Rev. Wright threads...the thousands of Obama-is-a-Muslim posts...
But...they hold a conviction that's applied quite conveniently in some situations, and quite conveniently withheld in other discussions...
Simply put: It's religious hypocrisy at play.
(That’s easier for me to do when you’re actually saying something...’cause then I have to listen — or read your comments...)
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.