Vote Romney/Ryan
Posted on 11/02/2012 1:48:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Remember the good ol' days when folks in the media were fond of telling us that conservative evangelical Christians would exhibit anti-Mormon bigotry and fail to vote for Mitt Romney simply because of his religion?
Well now that conservative evangelical Christians seem by-and-large on board with the Romney/Ryan ticket liberal CNN Belief Blog contributor Stephen Prothero has turned the tables and criticized conservative evangelical leaders with, essentially, denying their faith by being pro-Romney. From his November 1 post, "My Take: Billy Graham and Ralph Reed are putting politics before God" (emphases mine):
Why are evangelicals like Billy Graham and Ralph Reed stumping for Mitt Romney? And why are roughly three-quarters of white evangelicals inclined to vote for him?
Because politics matters more to them than religion.
[...]
Until quite recently, many evangelicals saw Mormonism as a dangerous cult spreading false theology and dooming its followers to hell. In fact, only after Romney showed up for a meet and greet with Billy Graham in North Carolina earlier this month did the website of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association erase a reference to Mormonism as a “cult."
Did Mormons all of a sudden change their theology? Did Graham change his definition of a “cult”? Of course not. It just became politically expedient for Graham to declassify Mormonism, given the fact that Romney, a Mormon, was the presidential nominee of his beloved GOP.
Ralph Reed, too, is forsaking his theology for his politics, mobilizing his Atlanta-based Faith and Freedom Coalition to place voter guides in Ohio churches in the run-up to election day.
I am old enough to remember when the main purpose of Reed’s Christian Coalition and other groups on the religious right was to put born-again Christians in the Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. And for decades those who were running those groups saw Mormons as non-Christians.
And don't get me started on Mike Huckabee, who in a recent ad says that a vote for Obama is a vote for your own damnation.
Have LDS Church members repudiated the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ” or their view that the Bible is the word of God only “as far as it is correctly translated”? Have they accepted the Trinity? Rejected their teaching that there are many gods?
As Ben Witherington, Albert Mohler, and many other evangelical thinkers continue to insist: no, no, and no.
I used to believe that the purpose of the religious right was to infuse American politics with Christian politicians and Christian politics. I no longer believe that. The purpose of the religious right is to use the Christian God for political purposes. Why any Christian, conservative or liberal, can say "Amen" to that is beyond me.
I am perfectly happy to see Reed stump for Romney in Ohio and Graham plump for Romney in an ad in The Wall Street Journal. Just don’t tell me they are doing so as Christians. They are doing so as shills for the GOP.
First off, the Huckabee ad, as I explained yesterday, has nothing to do with damnation or hell. But to Prothero's larger point, plenty of evangelical Christians still have strong disagreements with Mormon teaching, but they recognize that secular politics is not about selecting a national pastor but electing a president, a civil officer, not an ecclesiastic one. Secondly, Ralph Reed has long been disassociated with the Christian Coalition and a thoroughly partisan Republican activist for years, so it's ludicrous for Prothero to hit Reed for partisanship.
You'll notice that Prothero insisted that the Christian Coalition was founded "to put born-again Christians" in all three branches of the federal government. While that doubtless was and probably remains a desire of many folks within the Christian Coalition, it appears nowhere in the group's mission statement, available online and excerpted here (emphases mine):
The Coalition is a political organization, made up of pro-family Americans who care deeply about ensuring that government serves to strengthen and preserve, rather than threaten, our families and our values. To that end, we work continuously to identify, educate and mobilize Christians for effective political action.
Our Mission:
•Represent the pro-family point of view before local councils, school boards, state legislatures and Congress
•Speak out in the public arena and in the media
•Train leaders for effective social and political action
•Inform pro-family voters about timely issues and legislation
•Protest anti-Christian bigotry and defend the rights of people of faith
What's more, a review of the Christian Coalitions site finds no explicit "vote for" pitches for candidates for federal office, although it's clear the organization is friendly to Romney and conservatives and highly critical of liberal Democrats and President Obama. The Coalition does have a 2012 legislative agenda, which, among other things, wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and repeal ObamaCare.
Prothero has a right to his opinion, but the Boston University religion scholar really needs to tighten up his argument with facts, rather than misleading innuendo.
If you have a problem with Romney’s religion, just vote for the Conservative Catholic Paul Ryan.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2953497/posts
And I decided to make my anti-Obama vote count in the only way it might actually do some good. I marked my absentee ballot for Romney-Ryan and voted straight Republican down ticket and no on every ballot issue that would raise taxes, spend money or aid big government or help greedy, thieving socialist workers unions.
To hell with Obama! To hell with Governor Moonbeam’s taxes and trains! To hell with gun-grabbing Feinstein! To hell with the godless Democrats and their big spending socialist plans for us, their tax payer funded high speed trains to nowhere, their planned societies, their greedy socialist worker unions, their abortionist/homosexualist agendas, their class and race warfare and their foodstamp and “free” birth control socialist utopia!
And to hell with the Democrats’ ridiculous wars against gas, oil, coal, industry, farming, mining, logging, capitalism, Christianity, morality, and against freedom itself!
And I urge all conservatives to do the same regardless of where they live and no matter how blue their state or district. Every vote counts!!
Obama and his corrupt socialist Democrats must be sent packing by the widest margins possible, even in the bluest of blue states.
Vote the corrupt constitution trampling socialist bastards OUT!!
1 posted on Thursday, November 01, 2012 6:52:21 PM by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse]
The main problem with posters like you is that you don't allow context to define your words...like the word "support" in this case...
If you really want to have a clue about alleged conservatives "supporting" an out-and-out liberal, all you have to do is read this article: Reid Gets Warm Reception at BYU ...
But, of course, D-fendr, even though this article has been referenced numerous times on FR threads in the past five years, you haven't seem to care about this exact instance of "conservative" support of liberals...
Hmm...Now why would BYU invite Harry Reid to an all-student, all-prof guest speaker forum???
#1 Perhaps it was so Reid could tell BYU students: "I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it."
#2 Perhaps it was because BYU officials knew that the BYU audience present on campus on that day (Oct. 9, 2007) would appreciate Harry Reid's open critique of Christians: "They [Evangelical Christians] are the most anti-Christian people I can imagine, the people from the Christian far right."
Hmmm...So the Mormon leadership that Mitt Romney bows down to was giving Harry Reid an open venue to slime Evangelical Christians, eh?
And did you, D-fendr, ever defend Christians against this onslaught from Harry Reid and BYU and the Mormon leadership? Or do you "support" Harry Reid's critique of Evangelical Christians?
Oh, and btw, just so we know how the BYU "faithful" received Harry Reid's message...From the above linked article, written by the Lds church owned Deseret News: At the end of his speech, Reid earned a standing ovation from a small percentage of the crowd and applause from the rest.
There...a perfect context for the word "support"...in the way you meant it, D-fendr...
OK, since I spent the last post providing a better contextual example of how you meant to use the word "support," let's look at the CNN blogger's main point: I used to believe that the purpose of the religious right was to infuse American politics with Christian politicians and Christian politics. I no longer believe that. The purpose of the religious right is to use the Christian God for political purposes.
Do I "support" this belief of Prothero? (No)
But has the Christian right left itself vulnerable to critiques from the left as well as the right along these lines? (Yes)
And I said that in my first post on this thread...post #17: Reality: The Billy Graham Evangelistic Asso. left itself wide open to this attack from all sides by politically -- expedience-wise -- removing all cult references from its Web site immediately after Romney's visit to Billy Graham.
That's not "supporting" a given blogger; it's recognizing that Evangelical leaders have left themselves vulnerable!
Even a good coach of his own team will measure up his "weaknesses" vs. upcoming opponents!
In post #37, I pursued this line again: I don't see most of the Christian groups or individuals openly endorsing Romney giving any qualifications or caveats re: his Mormonism, do you? (So what else do they leave others to conclude?)
I was stating this on FR before ever hearing of this blogger...
So, rather than liberal-like, simply engaging in slime-by-association spamming, D-fendr, why don't you suggest how Evangelical Christian leaders should handle Prothero's questions...questions like:
* Did Mormons all of a sudden change their theology?
* Did Graham change his definition of a “cult”?
* Have LDS Church members repudiated the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ” or their view that the Bible is the word of God only “as far as it is correctly translated”?
* Have they accepted the Trinity?
* Rejected their teaching that there are many gods?
[Verum ago, perhaps you could also suggest how Evangelical Christian leaders should handle the above questions...because whether you have a CNN blogger, or some pew-sitter in Midwestville, somebody is going to continue to ask these & other similar Qs...& you can't just pull out D-fendr's handy-dandy slime-by-association FAQ response]
(Sorry, voted for Virgil Goode)
Well, being Catholic myself, the idea is total B.S. How many years has it been since JFK, who was a jerk and overhyped anyways, sure went a long way to convert us all to Roman Catholicism, RIGHT?!!! Or how about Bush as a born-again Christian, or George Washington as an Episcopalian, and active, honorable member of the Episcopal Vestry, yes, we have really converted to any of those religions.
In fact, if there’s anything I have to say, think about it, did Romney pass Prohibition of Booze in Massachusetts as governor? Did he demand that everyone believe his marriage to Ann goes on in the afterlife, as Mormons believe. No he didn’t, and there’s plenty more besides.
Anyways, the big story is, I would rather have some guy, even if he happens to be Mormon, who has a record of leaving me and my religion well enough alone versus a guy who is a narcissist and demands we all pretty much worship him, and who has no demonstrateable concern for one of his own appointees being neglected like a little pet left out in the rain and torn apart by vicious wild dogs. I pray and hate to think of the bad example that Obama also sets for his daughters and kids all over the U.S. with his wretched behavior.
Not sure why you post this to me. Because I am opposed to Mormonism does not equate to being for the commie Obama. I doubt that there is anybody more anti-Obama than myself. I ALWAYS vote Republican down the line...at least so far. The Democrat party is the godless party, their national convention in NC proved that beyond all doubt.
I’m not opposed to Romney on a personal level, what I opposed to is the mainlining of Mormonism. I’ve never seen such a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” election.
We are not voting for a pastor, rabbi or priest..We are voting for a president.
“What kind of “leadership” is it when a nation forgoes the ONE AND ONLY TRUE God as its Ultimate Leader?”
That’s not even a question, because Obama pretty much demands everyone worship and adore him already. So I don’t have a single clue where you’ve been since 2008, or 2009, if all you wish to count as Obama’s presidency is his innauguration time onward. Obama demands blatantly that we pretty much regard him like he is God, it’s called NARCISSISM!
1) You make no sense about endorsing Mormonism, and in fact, you never did. So I voted for Bush I and II, you offered so little meaning as to how that equals endorsing the Episcopal Church (The English Crown), or Endorsing born again Christianity, and I so far, remain neither religion. I don’t have to convert to Mormonism to vote for a Mormon. I don’t have to convert or endorse Episcopalians to vote for an Episcopalian, so right here, you lack any proof whatsoever of some sort of equivalence that voting someone of a religion counts as endorsing or converting to that individual’s religion.
“A Biblical commentator notes in 1 Samuel that the writer of 1 Samuel’s narrative “show[s] the people’s and God’s initial approval of him. Saul is presented as Israel’s deliverer, remarkably similar to the judges. While all Israel cowered at the threat of the Ammonites, Saul rallied the tribes and defeated the enemy. Just as during the time of the judges, the Spirit of God came upon him and he had victory in the battle. At the conclusion of the story, we see again that Saul’s mighty deeds were known and acknowledged by the people. It is in light of these narratives that the subsequent failure of Saul is explained. A valiant and mighty leader is not necessarily a godly one...Saul failed as king because he did not provide the spiritual leadership for the nation.” (NIV Compact Bible Commentary, p. 225) “
How about reading about Cyrus the Great, a Gentile (Zoroastrian) King who was the First “Messiah” or annointed King of the Jews, second, we don’t have kings in America, so your reasoning is out of bounds of this discussion.
“What kind of “leadership” is it when a nation forgoes the ONE AND ONLY TRUE God as its Ultimate Leader?”
That point is irrelevant, as the pluralistic interpretation of “God” already leaves uncertainty as to what the true God is? The True God of Judaism? The God as according to Catholicism? The God according to Greek Orthodoxy? The True God according to Deists? Which one, because people of all these beliefs exist here in America, plus more.
“And, just as Saul failed to provide spiritual leadership, so will Romney, whose beliefs are closer to polytheistic paganism than to Christianity.”
And what if the Christians are hypocrites, again, you’ve never answered the fact that a Zoroastrian like Cyrus can save God’s covenant people, and give them a decree permitting them to return to Jerusalem. God could allow a Zoroastrian (polytheist) to be his chosen ruler, so I honestly don’t have a clue what you are trying to say. Go back to the Bible, and read more, because I find you grossly, and hillariously in error.
Don’t forget the fact that Barack Obama is more blatantly narcissistic than Romney, and frankly demands that we pretty much worship him. Romney, I could care less about what he thinks his afterlife is like, so long as he can show the proper courtesy to me and others, which Obama has failed to do.
In case, my post before wasn’t clear: Your anti-Mormonism is clear after the hundredth post. Give it a rest.
Because I don't give a damn about their theological questions in relation to this election.
I'm Catholic and I'm joining with fellow Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists and whoever else sees the critical importance of removing the current regime from power.
That is what is best for ALL religious people.
As for other's incessant problem with it, I suggest prayer asking for God's peace.
Why the assumption of "decency?"
Imagine you had a good friend who's a "devout Mormon."
That friend's been offered cozy occasional directorship position for a local theater for $25,000 per year.
You then find out that the theater shows family-rated fair. But there's a "back entrance" for their XXX showings. You also find out they give $ to Planned Parenthood.
Would you, as that friend of an alleged "devout Mormon," advise him to take the position knowing that a portion of that salary comes from their porn industry intake?
What would you feel about your friend's "career move" knowing that this theater's $ goes to the largest child-killing organization in the world (Planned Parenthood)?
Would you consider him contributing to the "decency" of the community thru an industry that's exploiting women & others thru filmed prostitution and abortions?
Well, that's Mitt Romney for you. He's done the exact equivalent of the above!!!
* Per David Rosen at ix.netcom.com, "Romney received an annual fee of $25,000 and stock options while serving on the Marriott board. He also received a campaign contribution of $80,000 arranged by J.W. Marriott.
* Per this DesNews article, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,680197653,00.html, even the Mormon church owned Deseret News frowned upon how porn tainted Romney in that July 10, 2007 editorial vs. Romney's open linkage to the porn industry, saying: Romney caught a bit of flack last week because he spent nearly 10 years on the Marriott board and yet never tried to reverse the company's policy of providing pornography on demand, something J.W. "Bill" Marriott Jr., defended in a 2000 letter as being economically important. The corporation controls only a few of the hotels with its name on them. For a presidential candidate who has railed against pornography, this is not entirely insignificant. Even if the subject never came up at a board meeting, one can argue that at least part of the $25,000 plus stock he was paid annually for his board membership came from the money some hotel guests paid for access to the films.
* Oh...and Mitt's additional tie-in to ensuring Planned Parenthood has been funded? Well, look who's boycotted Marriott due to $ gifts to Planned Parenthood:
Source: Life Decisions International...Web site: www.fightpp.org
Christians recognize that the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the One who sent His Son, who is worshipped by Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestants alike.
So, since YOU have made distinctions here, show us proof from those among Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants that depict them as worshiping distinct gods.
...Obama pretty much demands everyone worship and adore him already. So I don’t have a single clue where you’ve been since 2008, or 2009, if all you wish to count as Obama’s presidency is his innauguration time onward. Obama demands blatantly that we pretty much regard him like he is God, it’s called NARCISSISM! [Post #51]
You know, Morph, there's been THOUSANDS of FR posts going back to '07 that links Obama with all kinds of Muslim ties.
THE most basic belief of Islam is bare monotheism...that God is Solo...no Trinity...no other "gods"...ESPECIALLY no human "gods!"
So, here, thousands of FREEPER posters have absolutely INSISTED upon some Obama Islamic linkage -- that he gives obeisance to the Muslim god -- and then you come along on just the OPPOSITE trail and claim that Obama is polytheistic in practice and deems himself a god.
Which is it?
Who's right? (You alone, or the thousands of FREEPERs who have insisted he's Muslim?)
He is no Muslim if he deems himself "divine"...
Question: Have YOU EVER on any FR thread highlighted Obama's Muslim ties? (And if so, haven't you just contradicted that?)
Let's say we had one representative GoP FREEPER voter from all 51 contests (50 states + D.C.) in the room with us.
Then let's say we asked the obvious swing-state reps to leave the room...Ohio, PA, WI, IA, NH, -- and we'll even include CO and MI -- tho the "experts" are telling us even now that Romney is up 3-4 pct pts in CO while Romney still trails in MI...
So, now we're down to 44 reps...and while you might quibble about a few more reps of other states...we'd probably agree upon a number in the low 40s if we realize how many states are solid (enough) blue -- or red.
So, let's say I then get up on the platform before these 40-odd reps, and I told them the following, incorporating some of your language from above (your phrasing is italicized below):
"'We live in a practical world.' In your SOLID blue and red states, 'There' is 'only' one viable candidate in your given state who will take ALL of the electoral votes for that state 'for the office of President of the United States of America this year. One is a Mormon' who will be the obvious winner of the red states; one is the current POTUS who will win the blue states. Your vote will NOT effect the difference one iota of those electoral votes in 40-plus states. Therefore, even IF the GENUINE swing-state voters feel pressured to act upon the pragmatic utilitarian political relativistic 'ethic' of voting anti-Obama, guess what? You are hereby released from that pressure. That pragmatic utilitarian political relativism applies -- at best -- to a mere handful of states. Don't let the political "bullies" pressure you into doing the wrong thing by voting for a pro-abort 'god in embryo.' Thank you for your time...
A caller to the Levin show today started the “Mormons not Christians” routine, and Mark told him “get out of here, you moron.” I agree with Levin.
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.