Soren Dayton has the details:
So, I read three things today that made a thunderclap in my head about the support of the Christian right in the 2008 GOP presidential nomination fight.
First, Focus on the Family ran a segment entitled, “Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, an outspoken critic of pornography, is called to task for his ties to Marriott hotels; a chain that makes money by providing porn to guests.” In other words and in reality, James Dobson signed off on an attack on Mitt Romney, something that had not been done earlier. This story had been previously reported by CBN?s David Brody and had been covered by a lot of mainstream press. This is, however, the first time, other than CBN, that it made it into the Christian press. And you can?t beat the Christian radio networks for targeting devoted listeners.
Second, Hugh Hewitt pointed out that the new site Blogs for Fred was founded by Joe Carter, who writes Evangelical Outpost. Joe also works at the Family Research Council where his title is director of Web Communications. Now, I am sure that this is not on behalf of FRC, but?.
Third, Dr. Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Seminary and an evangelical leader beyond the 30+ million Southern Baptists begins an online debate taking the position that “Mormonism is not Christianity.”
My reading? Christian right leaders have found their man in Fred Thompson, after a long, but ultimately unsuccessful courtship with Mitt Romney. This reminds me of the 2003 and 2004 buttons and bumper stickers “Dated Dean, Married Kerry.”
If more attacks from the right emerge against Romney, I think that it will be fair to say that this is a push for Thompson.
Update: Since writing this, Glen Johnson at the AP has written on the whole Romney/porn story. He quoted Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council. At the very least, this puts an exclamation point on my second point below. Clearly the Focus/FRC operation has engaged for Thompson and against Romney. A very, very bad day for Mitt Romney. And a very, very good one for Fred Thompson.
I have warned our Romney-supporting readers to be careful with their rhetoric (re: Mitt vs. Rudy on the social issues) because I have known for quite some time that certain Evangelical groups were going to come out against Mitt eventually (although I thought it would begin a little later.)
So now we have indications that it has begun as two of the “Big Boys” of the Evangelical Movement, Dr. Dobsen of FotF and perhaps Al Mohler, have come out against Mitt (for those unfamiliar with the Evangelical movement Dobsen and Mohler would equate to the A-Rod and Manny Ramirez level if they were baseball players), while Tony Perkins is apparently outright in the Thompson camp against Romney.
Add to this the opposition of certain influential Evangelical leaders on the state level such as Gary Glenn and Jerry Zandstra in Michigan.
My point in publishing this story is simply to back up my (much ridiculed by Romney supporters) contention that Mitt and Rudy will be in the same boat together with the Social Right of the Republican Party when the voting starts. This will be due to the opposition of prominent Evangelical leaders and the attack ads which will bring the YouTube videos we have all seen to the dinner tables of Republican primary and caucus voters watching their 6 o’clock news in the lead up to the primaries. The vast majority of these voters will simply not make the distinction between Mitt and Rudy after seeing the videos and hearing the opposition of Evangelical leaders that people like our beloved longtime reader Murphy can.
I really hate to say, “I told you so”, but…
July 6th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Dated Mitt, married Fred… Woke up with Rudy?
July 6th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
This is precisely why Mitt’s pursuing a state by state strategy!
These events hurt him nationally but he has already insulated himself from it in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Mitt’s throwing money at these states so that attacks later won’t bring him down in these states because
these leaders’ influences are greatly diminished.
With wins in these states then he rides the wave to February 5th and he can’t be stopped regardless
what national leaders say.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
How is he insulated, polling at just 1/4 of the primary vote with a single digit lead, having to spend millions in ads when no one else was running any? And having to switch to self-funding his campaign? That is weakness, not strength.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
regardless of who wins our nomination we all should agree on one thing..
that we all should support our party nominee. If we stick together we can
keep Clinton out of the White House, the polls prove it, Clinton can’t
get over 46% of the vote against any GOP candidate. We win if we stick
together
July 6th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Very bad news for Romney. If I’m Fred Thompson I barrel right into Iowa and knock out Romney there by courting the religious right.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Zandstra and Glenn are both in Michigan. A state Romney is winning. Zandstra is a Brownbacker- officially, and Glenn has been bugging Romney for years.
In Iowa he has most of the Christian Alliance behind him.
This may or may not be true evidence, but I wouldn’t count an article from Soren, Chief McCain shill as proof in the pudding.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
The religious right will have so much egg on their face as the stories of Freds fornicating and promiscuity come to the surface. Who will they blame?
July 6th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Some in the protestant religious right have apparently come to the conclusion
that if Romney wins, this is the end of their domination of the moral
high ground in the Republican party and a loss of their power. I think it
is also appropriate that they have chosen “lazy Fred” to represent them
in this campaign as opposed to “hardworking Mitt”. This will help to
solve the age-old question originally debated by the apostles Paul and
James as to whether we are saved by grace or by works.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Sean P.,
You do realize the irony of your statement right?
July 6th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
David B, How many times do you have to mention that Romney only has only 1/4 of the vote in IA and NH which he bought with his millions?
July 6th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Ryan, as long as Rombots keep referring to his lead there as an unbeatable firewall.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
If you guys would simply say, “If Romney can hold his lead as his opponents begin advertising…” and then add whatever forward-looking statement you please, I would be just fine with that.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
On the topic of this thread, I think Keven J makes a good point. Also, secular Republicans such as myself are far more comfortable having Evangelical Protestants controlling the SoCon wing of the party rather than Mormons.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Maybe you guys shouldn’t have been (unbelievably) suggesting Romney would help unite American religiouns into a NEW DEMONINATION.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
David B,
Who said anything about a New Denomination?
I think Romney can win Iowa while 5%-7% behind first place in Iowa polls.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
FDT is coming on strong but I think that Governor Romney is still in the driver’s, his bulwark in Iowa and New Hampshire still intact. However, I think that with the entry of Senator Thompson into the race and the possiblility of a Speaker Gingrich entry, Gov. Romney may need to reiterate and rearticulate some of his stances to not lose Social conservatives and Christian and family values conservatives to Fred and Newt. Romney needs to move to the right of FDT and Gingrich on abortion, torture and contraception for the primaries, then he can still pivot slightly and moderate on some of those issues for the general to attract more independents and moderate Republicans.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Jason, see #9 here:
http://race42008.com/2007/06/13/romney-announces-faith-and-values-steering-committee/
July 6th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Move to the right on CONTRACEPTION? Did I just wake up in a time warp?
Are we going to win the White House in 2008 by appealing to the middle by running against CONTRACEPTION?
Are you out of your mind?
July 6th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Christian right = do anything to do stay in power
this is coming from an evangelical
July 6th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
DaveB
So what your saying Romney is going pay for JApruce making an oddball comment on some old post on Race42008. Makes sense.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I think there is a group between “seculars” and “evangelicals”
there are some of us who are regular church goers who maybe Catholics
or non evangelical Protestants. Let’s say “moderate church-goers” we
are a potent force within the party but disunited. Some focused on
the economy or terrorism but we are the force not talked about
July 6th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
**sorry poor grammar, take out the last do**
July 6th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
David,
Now it is more clear to me why you are anti-Romney. You don’t want a Mormon controlling the SoCon wing of the party. At least you admitted as much in #13. What’s your beef? And why does religion have to be such a decisive factor? Why is religious affiliation more important than competence? Does fear drive you to this decision or general anger with the Mormon religion?
Sincerely,
-Ryan
July 6th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Jason: No Romney supporter spare Matt took issue with the establishment of a national religion based on Mormon influence.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
DAveB,
#24 ????
July 6th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
“If Romney can hold his lead as his opponents begin advertising…â€
Ok there’s the qualifier.
Here is the qualifiers:
A fragmented field. The longer Rudy, McCain, and in it with Fred running the better it is for Mitt.
Because all of these guys are running national campaigns. If Newt jumps in this fragmentation and
unpredictibality is increased. Early state strategy becomes stronger. If McCain and Rudy get out (not likely)
and if Newt stays out then Mitt is easily diminished and national leaders’ influence will hurt Mitt badly.
The only way national leaders can hurt Mitt in my opinion in such a crowded field is fundraising, but
they have not been giving money anyway. Also the money is split four ways. And Mitt can also self
fund a national Feb5th blitz so it is not fatal to his campaign.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Ryan, well, this post is a good example of why. Evangelicals live in the real world 6-3/4 days per week and know what is appropriate. Mormons blithely speak about using Mormonism to create a national religion (!!!) or campaign against contraception, as if that is perfectly acceptable position. And many other examples. They are so out of touch they don’t realize when they are brown-shirting.
Moreover, Mormons controlling a wing of the GOP would cause a severe electability problem for the GOP.
Moreover, during this campaign I have come to realize Mormonism is a cult, breaking apart families should someone wish to leave, and it is all documented at exMormon.org, and should we have a Presidential nominee who is Mormon, many of those 1000’s of exMormons will be on national TV explaining how the church uses cultlike methods and splits up families. It’s a humanitarian tragedy.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Jason, re #24, in the thread I originally linked to. Nobody thought that was a ridiculous position except Matt.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Weird? People actually think we are going to have a national religion when we elect a president.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
nowandlater, that’s that ROMNEY supporters hoped for in the thread I linked to.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
David B,
Where did you get this new denomination thing?? Man….you are really sounding wacko!!. Your anti-Mormon mind is just about as nuts as it can be. You are spending way too much time on exMormon.org. Why don’t you contact the church. Mormon.org. Why does a group of some make the whole church wrong?? I’ve about had enough of the anti- Mormon bigotry. Deprogramming, etc. It’s all ridiculous.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I am glad we all didn’t become Deists with Jefferson or we all didn’t practice Seances with Lincoln
and believe other heresies of Lincoln.
In the words of Lincoln’s friend Jesse Fell the president “seldom communicated to anyone his views” on religion, and he went on to suggest that those views were not orthodox: “on the innate depravity of man, the character and office of the great head of the Church, the Atonement, the infallibility of the written revelation, the performance of miracles, the nature and design of . . . future rewards and punishments . . . and many other subjects, he held opinions utterly at variance with what are usually taught in the church.”
By some standards Arbraham Lincoln would have been a second choice if a true believing Christian was available to vote for.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
m.t., did you read the thread I linked to? Only me and TLG and Matt took issue with those calling for President Romney to help establish a new national religion.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Wow, I’m liking Lincoln better and better!
I think America is about man as hero, not man as innately depraved.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
In the words of John Leland, the Baptist preacher instrumental adding the 1st ammendment to the Constitution, “The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks [Muslims], Pagans and Christians. Test oaths and established creeds should be avoided as the worst of evils.”
According to John Leland, those against Mitt Romney solely because of his father are advocating “the worst of evils” in our
constitutional democracy.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
nowandlater, wait, doesn’t that quote from John Leland say we should be praising Lincoln? Yet you made a contradictory quote in #32.
It seems you were unable to go for 2 minutes (2:17 to 2:19) without making a contradiction.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Bottomline, no religous test for office, only a VALUES test!
A President can only influences VALUES not religion!
July 6th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
What kind of values are involved with a cult uses the pressure of splitting up families, to keep people from leaving? See exMormon.org.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
DAvidB,
Juts read over that post.
Now I remember it. That was the one where you decided to start throwing expletives that are pretty offensive to people.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
DavidB,
The LDS church doesn’t do that sorry.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I have no idea what you are talking about David B. My points are clear!
Lincoln had heretical beliefs opposed to most of the teachings of Christianity.
Leland, said no religous tests but religious freedom. No contradictions. Show me otherwise.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
#39 does not deny the thrust of the thread. By omission, you just granted what I said was true.
I am a proud American. When supporters of a major Presidential candidate openly talk about establishing a NATIONAL RELIGION, then expletives are in order, to reject such a destruction of America’s founding values. Even firearms, if it came to it.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
#41: You can’t see the glaring contradiction in the 2 sentiments you just named?
July 6th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
#40: Thousands of exMormons disagree with you.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
My sister dated a Mormon and yeah we got to see her everyday and she
didn’t come home brainwashed or chanting in an odd tongue so yeah not
really David
July 6th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Jonathan, that’s not an example of someone wishing to leave the church.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Can you provide some proof beyond a website that is full of people with an ax to grind? how about an official policy or teaching that says if a family member wants to leave the church you are supposed to make them outcasts?
When you do let me know. You can post those with all those statistics of Gay mormon youth doing heroin in SoCal you are trying to save.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Jason, why do so many exMormons HAVE an ax to grind? There are a lot of other similar websites, too.
Why don’t all the millions of people who leave mainstream churches have websites with 1000’s of stories about how they lost their families?
July 6th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Grassroots Evangelicals will look at Governor Romney’s record and find a leader who clearly defended traditional marriage and vetoed every pro-abortion bill sent to him by the Mass. Legislature.
They’ll also find a man with a personal life that is the very definition of family values.
Predicting a mass exodus of Evangelicals from the Romney camp due to this absurd hotel porn story is just wishful thinking by those opposing Mitt. He’s doing just fine with Evangelicals and he’s winning more and more support as voters become increasingly familiar with his conservative record of accomplishment.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
DAve,
They left the church because they have an ax to grind. Why else would you. Please I know plenty of people who left other Church’s that aren’t happy with them. Not too mention all the people who have left their churhc for the LDS faith, all the people who are happy LDS people and all the people who aren’t active, but when I asked them if they want there names off the records they get mad at me for even suggesting it.
Google ex-catholic, ex-protestant, ex-whatever you’ll find people, who have decided to focus on an otherwise good group to bring it down because they are unhappy people.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
“They left the church because they have an ax to grind. Why else would you.”
Do you realize that is CLASSIC cult thinking? No room for individual conscience. Must be an “ax to grind.”
July 6th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Didn’t Sinead O’Connor denounce the Pope and tore up his picture on SNL?
I mean that PROVES that there is something wrong!!!! NOT!
How utterly silly.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
David,
Your statements in paragraph #1 are a bit shocking. Having studied “Mormon beliefs” I know of no “Mormon” goal to create a national religion or outlaw contraception.
Your second paragraph assumes soft religious bigotry of the electorate. While it may be true that at least a third of people polled would not support a Mormon President doesn’t it seem to contradict article 6 of the Constitution and don’t you think that it is a little short sided to shun a candidate based on religious affiliation. Isn’t that why we left England, to escape religious persecution??? Even though in mainstream America, if soft religious bigotry is still acceptable, it still doesn’t make it right.
We must study how the religious beliefs of a candidate influence their values. I don’t think any SoCon would disagree with the values of Mitt Romney, in fact I think they would be in alignment. More importantly we must elect whom we judge to be the most competent most experienced candidate.
In your paragraph #3, don’t you think that other mainstream religions have the same problem within families ties when one of theirs leaves the flock? Religious beliefs are deeply held within families, no matter what the brand of religious beliefs. So are you against others faiths who’s families disown them when they leave? This problem has more to do with the religious adherents not living the tenets of their faith (e.g. forgiveness, love) than it has to do with the religion itself.
In summary David, I think you would be wise to be a little more tolerant in your opinion of the Mormon religion. Yes it has it’s quarks. I don’t know of too many mainstream religions that don’t. But even if you disagree with it’s religious tenets, it’s culture, it’s quirkiness, could you at least agree that it is just not right, based on the principles of which the America was founded, to bias your political preferences on the basis of religious affiliation?
Sincerely,
-Ryan
July 6th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
David:
There are thousands of websites by former Catholics just ripping our
religion does that make us a cult? In many societies (Ireland, Latin America
, Italy,etc.) leaving the Church can lead to social ostracizement not
out of cult-like fanatasicm but because of the culutral impact the Church
has played on their lives.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Comment #53 is in regards to comment #27 — I’m just a slow typer/writer!
July 6th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
To answer your last question, I disagree. When a religion is dangerous and/or its adherents wish to insert its ideology into politics and policies, then we have a duty to oppose it. How would you feel about a fundamentalist Islamic candidate for President?
July 6th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Again,
VALUES test! Not a Religious test!
If there is a value you find disagreeable with Mitt Romney then proclaim it loud and clear to the
electorate!
July 6th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
All faiths have their particularitites. No other religon (except Eastern
Orthodoxism) has a head Pontiff or venerates (not worships but venerates)
Saints or has the office of the inquisition (under a much more PC name)
but the peculularities are what make the faiths unique. Mormonism is no
exception
July 6th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
An Islamist has a value to kill people! That is a test to disqualify that candidate.
A Mormon? I know of no value which would disqualify him! Show me where Mormons have bad values!
July 6th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
nowandlater, I am. More importantly, in a general election the Mormon problems would become a huge issue.
Most Republicans are not going to allow such a fiasco to sabotage holding on to the White House.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
nowandlater: I’ve already referred to exMormon.org several times as the preeminent website exposing Mormon’s bad values. Interested readers can go there. No need to get into it here.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
maybe if this election had taken place in 1908 not 2008.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
David B,
You haven’t articulated any negative value originating from the Mormon faith.
The only values you are demonstrating are bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
David B.
Yes discussing them here! Because values are relevant! Please exclude doctrines and those
who fall under the “Sinead O’Connor” category and we can get at it!
Otherwise, you are just spewing hate or doctrinal nitpicking.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Show us the examples! If you don’t then you are not doing your job! And your discussion of the
topic is empty!
July 6th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
This isn’t the appropriate place to go into detail. I’ve linked to a good Website. 1,000 people more qualified than I tell their stories there. I know you wish it didn’t exist. I also know that Website, appearing in the top 10 of Google for “Mormon” has caused severe problems with new converts to the church. The internet and open information is not a friend of repressive regimes.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Regards to #59 — than most republicans are short sided and will get what they ask for, a candidate who isn’t the most competent or doesn’t have the most experience to get things done.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I’ll leave it at that– gotta run.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
If you can’t show it here, then it is not an issue. That only proves my point resoundly!
Bye Bye scaredy cat!
July 6th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Jason (#9):
Yes, but the whole “Dated Dean, Married Kerry” thing was pretty ironic as well, since Kerry wasn’t exactly a tower of charisma or electability.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Yes, but the whole “Dated Dean, Married Kerry†thing was pretty ironic as well, since Kerry wasn’t exactly a tower of charisma or electability.
True true
July 6th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Do you realize that is CLASSIC cult thinking? No room for individual conscience. Must be an “ax to grind.â€
Can you provide a source on that Dave?
Doubt it.
Add it to the list.
1. A source for how I fit classic cultish thinking
2. A source of proof of the LDS church encourages breaking families apart
3. a Source of proof of all the gay mormon youth doing druge who you hang out with.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Kavon,
Boy I wish I had time to read this right now. Maybe in a little while. To sum it up, your contention is that:
1. Romney had business ties to a hotel chain that offers porn on TV for its customers.
2. Romney used to be pro-Roe.
3. Points #1 and #2 will land him in the same category as Rudy, who currently supports legalized abortion.
4. Pro-life evangelicals will flock to Fred, who, from the sounds of it, also currently supports legalized abortion as long as it is in the first trimester.
Give me a break.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Huh…40-something posts in, and I guess I didn’t miss much after all.
We started out with a potentially interesting (though IMO hyped-up) topic, and it turned into DavidB spreading outright lies and slander about mormons wishing to institute a national religion, with some of the usual cult references and whatnot.
Real great use of a thread. This is what keeps this website at the top of my list.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Murphy:
Before you dismiss what I will call “Porn at the Watergate Gate”, you should remember that a very similar situation with Phil Gramm in 1996 earned him the emnity of the evangelical community and derailed his campaign against Bob Dole.
As far as Fred Thompson’s pro choice comments, Thompson never went so far as to say that there was no difference between his views on abortion and his opponent — and Fred Thompson never ran against Ted Kennedy.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
“Are we going to win the White House in 2008 by appealing to the middle by running against CONTRACEPTION?
Are you out of your mind?”
Romney would be ridiculous to run against contraception. Bain Capital owned Warner Chilcott under Romney,
Warner Chilcott makes morning after pills.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Sean P,
I think you’ve got your quotes mixed up. Against Kennedy, Romney got attacked for being pro-Roe and refusing to be an abortion advocate. He refused to call himself pro-choice, as that carried with it an implied endorsement of abortion, and for that he got labelled “multiple-choice”.
During Romney’s run in 2002, he said there was no difference between him and O’Brien, EXCEPT that he was against liberalizing the abortion laws, and she was in favor of lowering the age of consent and other legislation.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Here is a list of companies making money off of the sale of pornography:
AT&T
MCI
Time-Warner
Comcast
Echo Star Communications
GM’s DirecTV
Hilton
Sheraton
Radisson
VISA
MasterCard
American Express
Frankly, these companies selling porn is not right. But the claim that anyone who has dealt with the companies is now a pornographer as some are insinuating is a joke. I am pretty positive if you went through any of the candidates portfolio’s you would find stocks in at least one of these companies.
This doesn’t count corporate PR firms that also represent the porn industry and other industries that make money off the porn industry such as accountant firms, consulting firms, etc.
The problem isn’t that Romney had a position on the board of advisors of a company that made money off of porn. The problem is that we have a group people that are working to out the one candidate who will actually address the issue.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
David B., I find it interesting that you seem to think you are such a logical person and yet apperently you believe whatever you hear on the internet. Your bigotry is really no different than bigotry against Catholics in the 1960s, but I suppose you religous bigot think that you got it wrong that time, but you’re going to get it right this time.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
If GOP primary voters base their votes on the availability of adult movies at Marriots, then the GOP deserves to lose no matter whom it nominates.
If Dobson et. al. want to sabotage Romney because he’s a member of the LDS church, they should just say so.
Countries usually get the governments they deserve.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
John,
Good point.
DaveB,
It’s really how funny it was ok to be biggoted towards catholics now it’s not. Today it’s ok to be biggoted towards mormons, soon it won’t. It’s funny how people who are biggoted always think they are right but all the biggots before them got it wrong.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Now I understand those who say “a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan”.
They think Hillary Clinton is Satan. But they are wrong. Hillary Clinton
is not Satan. There are many other things they are wrong about.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
David B,
I have some excellent resources for investigating conservative ideals:
http://dailykos.com
http://thinkprogress.org
http://mediamatters.org
These are obviously the best resources finding out about Republicans. They are not ‘one-sided’, have ‘hidden agendas’ and have no ‘bias’ whatsoever! I mean, if exmormon.org is the only resource you suggest for looking into Mormonism, then surely only the best of information can be gleaned from the disaffected and bitter enemies of any organisation.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I did some research and found that there is a website for ex gays called exodusinternational. There are also groups of ex baptists that meet. Ex catholics too. Yet we are too believe David B that the because a thousand or so exmormons left the church for, in many cases, doing things that went against the church, that the mormon church is creating a humanitarian crisis.
Kevon, this is crap. why do you continue to allow the anti mormon crap by David B.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
David B #27- many of those 1000’s of exMormons will be on national TV explaining how the church uses cultlike methods and splits up families. IT’S A HUMANITARIAN TRAGEDY!
fact:
The mormon church believes in that monday should be family night where parents and children gather for fun and togetherness.
the mormon church donates millions and millions of dollars in relief to disasters, droughts, and places like Asia (post sunami), and post Katrina gulf area
July 6th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
the mormon church volunteered thousands and thousands of men during crisis too. In fact people from my home in Dallas went 500 miles or more to help for days following Katrina.
missionaries do 4 hours of community service a week on their missions. I worked for make a wish foundation, in kindergarden classrooms, and at the VA hospital. I did so without proselyting.
the mormon church believes in the shared values as other faiths that stand up to pornography, drugs, and other issues of today.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
If many of David B’s gay mormon friends did something that went against the teachings of the LDS and every other Christian church, that is there business. My sister hasnt attended church for more than a decade. She hasnt been banished from the family, and we love her just the same. We dont send the brownshirts, as David would call them, after her, and she hasnt sought therapy to be deprogrammed. She doesnt want to be mormon and thats her choice, I love her just the same.
It isnt just mormons who shunned there gay children. Its other Christians and non christians alike, and I dont think its right. I wouldnt take the opinions of ex mormons as gospel about the faith. Get to know a mormon, visit there family, or stop in there church and you will see that we are just like everyone else. If it isnt for you, thats fine too. But David B has an agenda, and he isnt being called on it.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
If he doesnt like Romney because he is pouring his own money in it, or he has changed his position on the issues, or whatever, thats fine. If he doesnt like his being mormon than thats his business too. But I dont take his word as some authority on what my faith is or what it stands for. It is not a Humanitarian tragedy.
I think it is more productive if he would just say, “I like Rudy because…”
But to inject his anti mormon agenda just makes him look silly and takes us off what the real issue is. Politics.
I promise you that christians want mormon support because there are many of us, and we are active in politics. I dont think its healthy to alienate us by demanizing us.
Kevon, why do you continue to allow it to happen?
July 6th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Sorry, Husky, I really have been getting better at trying to depersonalize this, and bringing it up only with religion is the subject matter.
The fact is, it’s an electability issue. And it’s being talked about in the GOP in whispers. I feel that SOMEONE needs to be addressing these issues in a public forum, so, on the small chance we end up with Romney as our nominee, Republicans are not surprised when they hear everything that will be told by exMormons, and how that will jeopardize the GOP.
Sorry if it offends.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
David B. is doing a service to those of who don’t like Rudy, by making it like Rudy suporters are anti – religious paranoid bigots who think that anything they see on the internet is gospel truth.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
David B. not everybody considers a website of ex – members of a church to be a logical place to find information, and that is all that you cite. I know you think that you are mister rational but rational people require more than websites. The definition of someone who believe any nagative thing that comes up on the internet about a religion is: religous bigot.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
A few things to think about if anti-Mormon ads spring up during the general election.
1) Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, will be obliged to denounce those who are making the ads.
2) According to focus groups, Mitt Romney is most popular when defending himself from attacks against his faith.
3) This would be the perfect excuse for the LDS church to run ads defending their faith thus promoting Romney’s values. With the money the LDS church takes in, they could probably run ads at the ratio of 10 to 1 anti-Mormon ad.
4) Most anti-Mormon groups are revenue streams, they won’t likely invest millions of their own money into politics unless they believe they will get more money in return.
Anti-Mormon ads aren’t a real threat to Mitt Romney.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
David B,
I don’t think we need the Democrats to bring up the anti-Mormon bigotry….you are doing just fine. Dittos Husky. My brother has been out of the church for 40 years. We continue to love him, his wife and kids. They are great. No deprogramming here.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Didos bjalder 26, Harry Reid would denounce anti mormon groups from the left since he is the highest ranking democrat in washington (except Pelosi), and he is a mormon.
I also agree that this rehtoric makes rudy supports look silly because there man is better than Mitt because Mitt is mormon. Huh?
Rudy has skeletons too and they are many. Three marriages, his family, etc. That will be made an issue just as much in the general. I like Mitt, and if others dont than thats fine, Im okay with that. But if we let this primary process to be dictated by attacks on religion as a way to disguish the candidates, than right wingers look like the religious bigots that the MSM always said we were. I’d like to think that we arent that way.
July 6th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
(#33) And me, if you go all the way to bottom. Why do I almost always ended up being the one to post last? Sure is hard to keep up with you guys!
July 6th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Dave (#48), you claim that there are tens of thousands. Have you personally verified the stories on exMormons.org with those suffered persons. As is often the case, it is easy to spin things out of control on Internet. You can create stories without end. Now, I am not denying that some of those stories may be true. I did point out on a couple of occassions here that none of us, whether we are LDS members or not, is perfect. We do have some less than ideal bishops and stake presidents. Some of them have done something hurtful to those gay members. That instance I won’t deny. But it does not represent the church as a whole. For your information, I am a very active members, and I do have a few gay friends who are members, too. We have an understanding that I could not approve of their actions, and that I also could not judge them (there is only one man who most capable of doing it, and that is not me). We still interact with respect and care as good friends would for each other.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Dave B, I dont really by that you continue with the anti-mormon stuff just
because it would be an in issue for the GOP as Mitt is unelectable. I think
you post as an anti-mormon and not pro-rudy. This posting is basically
a back and forth between Dave B and anyone else who cares to post. Few people
share Dave B’s view on the mormon issue.
Kavon, Do we need to continue to have this anti-mormon bigotry on this site?
Does it really assist in selecting the republican nominee?
July 7th, 2007 at 12:31 am
“Dated Mitt, married Fred… Woke up with Rudy?”
I hate it when that happens.
“The religious right will have so much egg on their face as the stories of Freds fornicating and promiscuity come to the surface.”
If I wasn’t already for Rudy, I would start the group, “Fornicators For Fred.” The group would spend every Tuesday night campaigning for Fred Thompson and then having dinner at the local Hooters. Or having dinner at the local Hooters and campaigning for Fred Thompson. Either way, we’re ending up at Hooters. You know, because of their delectable wings. Or something.
July 7th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Kavon-
I have not had time to read all 98 comments, so apologies if this was already discussed.
But what does Al Mohler’s post about LDS not being considered Orthodox Christianity have to do w/ Evangelicals not voting for Mitt? Richard Land – the visible public policy head of the Southern Baptists has long said he would have no problem voting for an LDS candidate. Heck – I’m sure Hugh Hewitt does not think LDS is orthodox historical Christianity – but we all know he’s a big Romney guy. I think this is a red herring, unless I’m missing something (which is possible).
But yes – I think a lot of evangelicals will end up behind Fred.
DaveG- I talked about this issue with some evangelical friends, and they said they are much less bothered by fornicating than someone breaking their marriage committment (newt, rudy).
July 7th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Can this thread break 100?
July 7th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Jason, sure we can break 100, as I just did
July 7th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
This 100+ thread supposes Fred will be around come January.
Fred is still exploring a primary run. He could not reach
his $5M target. He has difficulty reassuring his conservative
base that he has always been with them. Most likely as
soon as Fred completes his first debate he will follow the
course of John McCain. There are a gang of other republican
candidates ready to measure themselves against Fred in the
public eye. Fred has nothing to compare to the conservative
Senate records of Hunter or Brownback. Fred does not have
the executive credentials of Romney, Giuliani or Huckabee.
When compared to the other candidates, Fred will probably fold
like the 8-track when compared to the CD.
mood-stone fads.
July 7th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
DavidB, you have completely mischaracterized the Mormons. How about trying to see what the Mormon Church is like from the perspective of a faithful Mormon family rather than a small vocal minority of anti-Mormons? How about citing a source of Mormon scripture or a Mormon leader or anything where they say anything even remotely cultish instead of quoting anti-Mormons or referring people to an anti-Mormon site. There is 180 years of Mormon history you have to search through. Go ahead. Try attending a Church meeting or spending some time with actual faithful Mormons, or visiting websites of the Church (lds.org or mormon.org). I think you’ll find that your perception of the Mormons is quite the antithesis of what the reality is.
Cheers.