Matt Lewis points to a Huckabee motive. David Brody has a headache over this thing. But I see another motif at play here.
Am I blowing smoke about the hidden anti-Mormon agenda of many of the signatories who signed onto the God Not Government post?
Well, let’s review. Granted, these excerpts don’t come anywhere close to equating Mormonism to Homosexuality, but even I was a bit shocked by some of these quotes.
My main point is this: if you want your egregious arguments to hold any water at all… don’t include anti-Mormons on your list of adherents.
- Matt Barber, Policy Director, Concerned Women for America quoted here as helping a reformed homosexual who converted to Mormonism find “scripturally-sound” evangelical churches to attend.
- Ted Baehr, Author of Culture Wise Family, on the September 11th film: “What [the character of] Brigham Young does in the movie is talk about…that you have to have blood atonement… This is going to be an issue [for Romney]. “
- Janet Folger, President Faith2Action, See here: “Romney, as a Mormon, doesn’t believe Jesus was God’s only Son (Lucifer, they claim, was his ‘brother’). Nor does he believe in the virgin birth. Instead, Mormons believe God the Father had physical sex with Mary. The word blasphemy comes to mind. A bit more than a mere ‘denominational difference,’ don’t you think?”
- Gary Glenn, President AFA, Michigan, played the “religion card” in his GOTV efforts for Huckabee
- James Hartline, Founder and Publisher, California Christian News: “San Diego Republican Party Hits New Low – Invites Cult Member As Christmas Party Guest Of Honor” – “Mormon politics is more about promoting the economic interests of the Mormon Church and its wealthy members rather than any pseudo Biblical beliefs.”
- Linda Harvey, President Mission America: “He used his Republican and Mormon identity to push through radical policies on gay marriage, abortion and pro-homosexual school programs that Ted Kennedy always dreamed about.” – link
- Gregg Jackson: Writes here in an article entitled: “Is this the end of Evangelicalism in America?”: “A cornerstone of the Mormon Church, Grudem writes, is the classic heresy of Saint Paul’s day – angel worship. In his book, Grudem insists that an orthodox Christian must practice the theology he reads. So why would he step forward to become part of the Mitt Romney propaganda blitz trying to mislead evangelicals into doing what would shock most evangelicals in American history: elect a Mormon for president? “
- Peter LaBarbera: “The sponsor of a homosexual-inclusive “hate crimes” bill in Utah is hailing the support of two Mormon-owned media organs, signaling the neutrality of the powerful and socially conservative church on an issue that is seen by many family advocates as the first step in the wider ‘gay’ agenda.”
And I’m only half way through the list. In my mind, many of these people are hiding behind silly political pot-shots because they have theological angst against the Mormon church.
Am I wrong here?
April 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Waaaaaaa! Those mean people don’t like Mormonism.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I agree that some Huck supporters are concerned about the potential for diminishing influence within the party for evangelical Christians, and I acknowledge that some are willing to play dirty politics.
But I really, REALLY would hate to see this site turn back into a Huck vs Mitt site. I’d prefer a VP candidate who already hasn’t been rejected anyways.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Even if Romney were a Southern Baptist, social conservatives wouldn’t go for him.
Just look at his record and rhetoric. It’s simple, buddy.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“Waaaaaaa! Those mean people don’t like Mormonism.”
Which is perfectly fine, unless that dislike carries over into religious intolerance on a cultural and political level. Most Americans don’t discriminate against individuals on account of their religious faith, and it’s important that those who do are shown for what they are.
“…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Why should a minority be allowed the freedom to interpret the Constitution anyway they like and hide it under a guise of political discourse?
April 4th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
WiseGuy-
Then how do you explain this attack on Romney and not other veep hopefuls? Where’s the ad against Powell, Rice, Ridge, Giuliani, etc.? What makes Romney so special to merit their attention if not his faith? I think the provenance is clear.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
What is wrong with all of you??? I don’t like Mitt Romney. I don’t care what his religion is!!! I will do anything legitimate that I can to dissuade politicians from placing him on a ticket, or letting him back onto the national political scene. Why, because he is a phony. I am not an evangelical, I have family members who are Mormons. This country is beginning to sound like McCarthyism is alive and well on the internet!! I don’t care what color Obama is. I don’t like him because he is too liberal. Why can’t you just accept that people may not like Mitt. And frankly, I don’t care where the people on that site stand on Mitt’s religion. They have a right to their opinion. Now knock it off and get serious about the issues.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
i dont think mitt ran a great campaign, and i dont think he helps the ticket a ton. but, mormon haters are the lamest bunch out there. there are so many bigger issues to worry about. like the islamist that want to destroy western civilization for one. how bout we worry about them first, then maybe we can split hairs about doctrine.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Can we please talk about someone or something other than Mitt? Mitt dropped out of the race long ago. Mitt has less than a ten percent chance of being chosen as McCain’t number two. Yet it seems like every other post has to do with Mitt. Enough with Mitt.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Suyapa,
Romney and Huckabee are the two names most frequently mentioned by Republican voters as VPs that they would like to see. Plus, Romney has been way too eager to make himself available for the VP slot. Thus, there is increased attention on Romney.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
“They have a right to their opinion.”
Just as I have a right to expose their prejudice and motive. And does the above ad look like they are “serious about the issues” to you?
April 4th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
8, Mitts the only person that gets comments on this site. Like it or not most non Mitt posts are pretty much dead.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
WiseGuy-
How do you know that “Romney and Huckabee are the two names most frequently mentioned by Republican voters as VPs?” I haven’t seen any polling- have I missed something? Or are you drawing this conclusion from a limited number of political blogs that you visit? Some background on that claim, please.
And even if one accepts your claim that Romney is “way too eager” to be on the ticket, why would that warrant an attack ad? I doubt this group thinks the spot is going to go to he/she who begs the most.
I’ve seen nothing that indicates that Romney is even up for consideration, much less any kind of significant push for him to be included. And so the question remains, why target Romney at all?
April 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
I think it’s possible for someone to think Mormonism is a false religion and oppose Romney as VP for other reasons.
For many of those people, Romney’s Mormonism doesn’t help. I suspect there are other things about him that motivate this.
In 2000, I don’t remember seeing any anti-Mormonism against Orrin Hatch. If there’s this seething current of anti-Mormonism on the right, you’d expect at least one attack against an also-ran like Hatch in 2000.
I remember in 2000, my mother and I support Orrin Hatch for a while after he slammed Bush in a debate.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Adam,
Have you not noticed that this site is over-run with Romneybots (myself included). The Romneybots have been a huge part of Race42008.com and we are still thriving. If Mitt was not in a good position to take the VP spot then there probably wouldn’t be as many here. Obviously we support John McCain, but we still don’t mind checking about our man Mitt from time to time.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
#6 – “get serious about the issues” – If this campaign was only about the issues, then Romney was the strongest candidate. He was the only candidate who represented the broad base of conservative issues that “used” to define the republican party.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Hi Suyapa,
See the Gallop poll: http://www.redstate.com/stories/archived/no_consensus_favorite_for_vp
April 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Tell you what, since the republican primary election ended, this site has become extremely BORING.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
#15 – revision – Fred Thompson was also “right” on the issues.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
There are definitely religious politics involved in this. Mormonism is different from other religions in that its church members actively knock on doors and try to convert Protestant Christians to Mormonism, which many Christians regard as a dangerous heresy. Having a Mormon President or Vice-President would, in many ways, “legitimize” the Mormon faith, which many Christians would like to prevent.
This is also why Romney got 94% of the vote from Mormons in the Nevada primary. They also recognize that a Mormon President or Vice-President would “legitimize” their faith to the rest of the country.
This situation should not be surprising.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I can tell you right now with 95 % confidence that Romney’s not going to be picked. It just won’t happen. He is a net negative and McCain and his advisers know it.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
#17 – there is no excitement among the republicans – but there is a huge excitement among the democrats – McCain should pick a candidate that well help him excite the base or he will just be another footnote in history.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
WiseGuy-
I stand corrected- I hadn’t seen those numbers. Although it still doesn’t explain the ad since the poll was just released today.
And still, there’s nothing more than anecdotal evidence that Romney is a likely contender– nothing that calls for a full page attack ad.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Wise Guy,
Read Glenn Beck’s book— “AN INCONVINENT BOOK” and he will explain why polls are garbage, no matter how respectable the pollster is.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Love this Weyrich quote from the Nation Journal a few weeks ago. Referring to McCain:
“If he selects somebody bad from our point of view, it’s going to be very difficult,” he told the magazine. “It will reinforce prejudice against him. If he selects somebody pretty good, it’ll be moderately helpful…. It would help if he selected Mitt Romney, but he won’t.”
April 4th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Hatch never really stood a chance so i’m guessing he never faced the scrutiny that Romney has. Romney really was the first LDS candidate with a legitimate shot at the presidency.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
#10 – let me make sure I understand this – you agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion – and you intend to judge everyone who disagrees with you as being anti-Mormon. You sure sound like Senator McCarthy to me. Disagree fine, don’t judge!!! you aren’t qualified to do that.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
“Mitt has less than a ten percent chance of being chosen as McCain’t number two.”
Who’s ass did you pull that number out of? I would say that Romney had at least a 15% chance, and that no one has a significantly better shot.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
#15 How can you say Romney was the strongest candidate? He wasn’t sure where he stood on abortion, or a lot of other issues. Every candidate has a right to change their mind on issue, but not to change their position to get votes. That is what I always felt Mr. Romney was doing. There were many stronger candidates – actually the strongest one is going to get the nomination.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
These posts sure rack up the comments, but I can’t believe these folks represent much of a constituency in the Rep. party in the first place, so this is all pretty much just a hobby for folks like us.
Seriously, I would like to know what percentage of socon voters appreciate being commandeered like this without their even having been forewarned, and what (much greater, I’d wager) percentage are sick of the kind of politics that favors blackmail to compromise.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Personal anecdotes:
1)I’ve met anti-Mitt people who are anti-Mitt on a strictly religious basis. They feel having a Mormon with a high-profile position lends credibility to a cult. Their preacher tells them he’s bad news.
2)I’ve met anti-Mitt people who are anti-Mitt because he isn’t as staunchly pro-life as they want. I know a couple of Mormons in this category.
3)I don’t want Mitt as VP because I don’t like McCain, and I think Mitt totally sold out by endorsing McCain. Yes, I understand that’s how politics go, but I find it completely spineless and anti-productive to put the success of a rotten and backwards-falling party ahead of one’s own ideas and aspirations about what this country truly needs. People want change? Politics as usual ain’t change.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Intrade GOP VP nomination:
Romney 18
T-Paw 16.2
Rice-6.0
Hutchinson-5.0
Guiliani-4.6
Huck-4.0
Field-46.5
April 4th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Not a Racist, not a hater said: “let me make sure I understand this – you agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion – and you intend to judge everyone who disagrees with you as being anti-Mormon. You sure sound like Senator McCarthy to me.”
If the facts and the provenance lead me to the conclusion that it is religious prejudice, then yes, I will make that judgement. You’re just beating up the strawman when you start with the McCarthyism. There’s evidence to boot that this attack is motivated by bias and fear. I haven’t seen any other credible explanation.
“Disagree fine, don’t judge!!! you aren’t qualified to do that.”
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say there. Do you?
April 4th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
#29. Exactly.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
ACT,
10 % -15 % whatever. So you think there’s an 85 % chance it won’t be Mitt.
You can’t seriously tell me you think McCain wants Mitt on the ticket.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I’m an evangelical who backed Romney because I thought he would be better on the issues in play right now than anyone else. I don’t know whether he would be a good VP choice though. Personally, I don’t think any of Mitt, Huck, Fred, or Rudy will get the nod because all of them have quite a bit of baggage that outweighs their strengths. Frankly I don’t think anyone knows at this point who would be a good VP until the dem nomination plays itself out and we have a clue how much blood has been drawn and where. Mac should just sit tight, compile his big list of 20, and not even worry about a short list for a few months, IMO. There’s no need to rush this thing to any one person.
BTW, There is a very easy way to know whether these people are anti-Romney or anti-LDS. Let the Huntsman for VP gossip gather some steam and watch their reactions.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
We could do worse than Huntsman. He has more foreign policy cred and he doewsn’t have Mitt’s baggage. The LDS thing won’t help in the South but as long as he doesn’t go knocking door to door to convert Evangelicals to Mormonism it shouldn’t be a problem.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
“Most Americans don’t discriminate against individuals on account of their religious faith, and it’s important that those who do are shown for what they are.”
I hate to break it to you, but there are millions of Americans who vote for a candidate because they either share their faith, or are not a part of their faith. It has absolutely nothing to do with them being bigoted. They simply won’t vote for a candidate because he/she doesn’t share their values. News Flash: That’s okay. Folks are going to vote for whoever they want in the end.
This site is also getting a little ridiculous. The RomneyBots here still can’t quite get over the fact that he lost. Every time someone attacks Mitt Romney, that doesn’t automatically make them a religious bigot. It may just mean that, gasp!, they disagree with Mitt Romney. They also are so foamy at the mouth for his 2nd round at a self-financed campaign in 2012, that they have delusional dreams of him making the ticket.
Mitt Romney brings nothing to the table. Period. Social Conservatives won’t vote for him (as proved in the primaries) because of his flip flopping and his Mormonism. Moderates can’t stand him because of his hard (and politically expedient) run to the right. And the man is universally hated in the Northeast. The man can’t deliver one voting block or even deliver his own state.
Can we please move on from this pointless debate and talk about people who ACTUALLY have a chance at framing the future of our party.
1. Pawlenty
2. Barbour
3. Rice
4. Sanford
5. Huckabee
And folks keep throwing two-bit Congressman like Fmr. OMB Director Porter. While I’m sure these men are nice fellows, Sen. McCain needs 1. Executive experience and 2. A Southerner or someone seen by the base as a “true” conservative.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Justin, it’s hard to know or to decipher the motives of these people, but I think I can tell you that it has less to do with Mormonism or Mitt being LDS than it has to do with their own agenda. I know some of these folks and others in their inner circle. They are fanatics, theocrats of sorts, and no politician of any stature can ever do quite enough or ever be pure enough to satisfy them. [Btw, the older ones in this circle did not support Reagan in 1980 (as they now try to claim) in part because of his opposition to the Briggs Initiative in California in 1978 and because he was 'too libertarian'. I know because I was involved in the Reagan campaigns in both '76 and '80; it's also a matter of record for anyone willing to dig it out]. But enough about the distant past. What is probably happening here is some kind of internal feud within the higher circles of religious right leadership, and/or possibly the beginnings of a crack-up. Groups and “opinion-leaders” such as these folks tend to become increasingly shrill when they see their influence waning. More fundamentally, I think the smarter among them realize that the audience (rank and file GOP conservatives and conservative Independents) in this culture-war drama is simply getting up and leaving the auditorium. This is most likely causing a lot of internal recrimination.
By cow-towing to these folks, candidates and party leaders do damage to the Republican conservative brand.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
“So you think there’s an 85 % chance it won’t be Mitt.”
I guess you could say that, but I also believe that there isn’t a candidate more likely to become VP.
—
“You can’t seriously tell me you think McCain wants Mitt on the ticket.”
I don’t know. The recent actions and words of the two seem to indicate that the primary animosity was seriously overstated, and I think McCain will do what is needed to win and get the support of the base, and in many people’s minds, that is to select Romney as VP.
—
“Mitt Romney brings nothing to the table.”
Only economic experience, executive experience, one of the most accomplished records in the private sector, conservative principles, electoral pull in the west and midwest (including swing states), a candidate who is already tested in a national race, and a strong network of fundraisers and supporters.
—
Geoff, you lose your credibility the moment you oppose Mitt because of social issues, but float Rice instead.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
“Only economic experience, executive experience, one of the most accomplished records in the private sector, conservative principles, electoral pull in the west and midwest (including swing states), a candidate who is already tested in a national race, and a strong network of fundraisers and supporters.â€
Ah yes, race4Mitt2008.com is back.
“Only economic experienceâ€
We could all go round and round like we did before the primaries, but the fact is that while Mitt balanced the budget in Massachusetts, he did so by raising taxes/fees, while the rest of Massachusetts economic projections severely lagged behind national averages.
“Conservative Principlesâ€
Again, I think the results in Iowa/South Carolina prove what GOP voters think about Mitt’s “conservative principles.â€
“electoral pull in the west and midwest (including swing states)â€
I’m sorry, I must live in a different United States of America then you do. By West do you mean Arizona, California, Nevada and New Mexico? Yeah, because a moderate, pro 2nd Amendment Senator from ARIZONA has no pull there. And by Midwest you mean Michigan, Ohio, Missouri where Mitt had to basically promise factory workers he would keep them all employed?
The simple fact is, the toughest part of John McCain’s campaign will be in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. These states have been economically depressed for quite sometime. Never mind the causes. We all know them and they are, for all intensive purposes, apparent. But they want to hear how the next President will save them and their families from rising health care costs and rising unemployment. Meanwhile, it probably wouldn’t look to good to have an International Banker as your “economic expert.†Seeing as how half this recession was induced by Wall Street and half by folks who make $30k a year but take out $500K mortgages.
Why don’t we just ask Bear Stearns to come on as VP!
“strong network of fundraisers and supporters.â€
Again, if by strong network of fundraisers and supporters you are referring to his bank account, then I couldn’t agree more.
“Geoff, you lose your credibility the moment you oppose Mitt because of social issues, but float Rice instead.â€
I don’t oppose Mitt because of social issues. And I simply stated the political fact that Secretary Rice is on McCain’s shortlist. She is 1. a southerner and 2. has extensive Executive experience.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Geoff #37: “This site is also getting a little ridiculous. The RomneyBots here still can’t quite get over the fact that he lost. Every time someone attacks Mitt Romney, that doesn’t automatically make them a religious bigot. It may just mean that, gasp!, they disagree with Mitt Romney.”
Yes and no. Most of the Rombots are sensible people who supported Romney, are disappointed at his defeat, but are dealing with it maturely.
There are only a few people here who are crazed on the subject of Romney. I refer to them as “Mitt-Worshipers” to differentiate them from the normal Romney supporters, and because their devotion is so extreme as to be close to actual worship.
You’re right about the claims of anti-Mormonism — it’s annoying, and the Mitt-Worshipers engage in this sometimes. But I just ignore that — I’ve been accused of being racist because I’m opposed to affirmative action and nativist because I support border enforcement. So I guess I can deal with Mitt-Worshipers saying I’m anti-Mormon.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
The MittCultists(tm) will never give their religious fervor.
The sooner we get our VP and Willard is a distant bad memory, the better.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
The group who signed the post are indeed fanatics. From the beginning, there were a lot of people who held greater antipathy toward Mitt than reason or sense would accommodate. There are a number of them who regularly contribute to this site, and 2 or 3 who frankly require professional help. Mitt has made it clear that he does not expect to receive the nod, and is guilty only of being more honest than most is saying that he would be honored if asked. For this, he receives abuse. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
I think this ad could have been really effective in scaring McCain away from picking Romney if it had been signed by the RNC, Karl Rove, McCain’s top advisor, Talk Radio collectively & maybe Romney himself, but to me it’s no more infulential than Cindy Sheehan running ad anti war ad in the New York Times calling for the removal of any Democrat who authorized the war. The left has their fringe, we have ours. Nothing more.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
How bizarre and unprofessional that Huckabee and Weyrich and such have thrown in with known Mormon haters. Well, Huckabee has kinda been a known Mormon hater for some time now, which I believe makes him unfit for the presidency. Since there are Mormon Americans that would be affected by his prejudice. Just like the Wright-Obama attitude makes Obama unfit, in my mind, to lead a country made up of white, Jewish, and Italian descendants. Does it work out if you hate the people that pay you to lead them? Not very smart to elect a hater at any rate. McCain despises conservatives, I don’t know that he HATES them, but he hasn’t shown a lot of respect towards them. But that’s in a different league than the religious and race haters. Let’s get it all out! The good, bad and ugly. A few posters on this site have already signed on to the infamous anti-Mormon list for the world to take note.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
1. Pawlenty(adds maybe MN)
2. Barbour(adds nothing electorally)
3. Rice(adds nothing electorally) (pro-choice)
4. Sanford(same as Barbour)
5. Huckabee (same as Barbour and Sanford) and McCain could kiss my vote bye bye if Huck is on the ticket
April 4th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
The Anti-Romney people are at it again. I really don’t understand this opposition to Mitt Romney as VP.
In the end, I think this just might embolden McCain to choose Mitt. McCain, for all his faults, stands up to tyranny and coersion of this sort. The apparent audacity of the letter to McCain is also manifest in their overestimation of their own power to cause McCain to lose. Mormons probably really want Romney elected VP/President someday to help remove the stigma that they face, and they vote overwhealmingly in favor of that objective; but at least Mormons understand that they can’t accomplish anything without working in harmony with other religious groups.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Golly,
Get over your religious persecution schtick. It is soooo tiresome. This is a political website not a website about religious persecution.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
To be clear, I would be just as uncomfortable with Mr. Romney if he were Catholic, Protestant or anything else for that mater. It is starting to get old to suggest that those of us who voted for somebody other than Mr. Romney are anti-Mormon. Furthermore, I would have no trouble with Mr. Huntsman or Mr. Hatch. Social Conservatives like me would have a hard time supporting me; at the same time, for what ever reason, Independents and Conservative Democrats (whom we need in the general) do not appear to like him. I thus hope and pray that this man does not get on the ticket.
However, if by chance he does make the ticket, I will probably hold my nose and vote for the ticket anyways. Despite the fact that I for one his disagreement with him, I believe that he is basically a good and honest man and qualified for the job. While I admit that a few Catholics and Protestants have trashed Mormonism, some Mormons have done the same to our religions. This is unfortunate, but probably due to emotions. Again, I have only met a few Mormons in my entire life, so do not know much about them. However, from what little I have read about them, they generally appear to be great citizen and share many Pro-Family values as the rest of us, so let’s seek some common ground.
Mr. Romney does not help us win states like Ohio, but we have to try and win anyways. There are too many Conservatives down the ballot to let down. I thus ask other who do not support Mr. Romney, to consider him anyways in the scenario where he ends up on the ticket. I am not looking forward to a MM ticket, but it is at the end of the day better than an Obama / Richardson ticket and no, I am not racist either, I just do not like their liberal policies. Although maybe difficult, it would be easier to make a Conservative out of Mr. Romney than somebody like Mr. Obama.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Thats because Romney is already a conservative, how many CPACs does he have to win? How many speeches does he have to give?
April 4th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
“Mitt has made it clear that he does not expect to receive the nod”
lol. If you’re talking about him saying that he “doesn’t expect a call”, I don’t think he had much choice. What’s he supposed to do? Jump up and down and proclaim with confidence that he will deffinately get the position?
April 4th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Thanks to OHIO JOE for some common sense. I am a Romney supporter. Romney lost. I very much doubt he’ll be the VP pick, but if he were to be asked, and he accepted, I’d be very excited. I think there are quite a few Rudy and Huckabee supporters who could say the same thing.
I think most “social conservatives” who have an issue with Romney do so over one thing… abortion. He says he’s repented of his views of six years ago. Some people aren’t so sure. I can understand them feeling that way.
What I don’t understand is these viscious and personal attacks against Romney. When evangelicals said they might walk if Rudy were the nominee, they cited reasons like the fact he is pro-choice, and the fact he is pro civil unions for gays. These are known facts.
The “known facts” cited in the ad are lies and half-truths. Why would anyone of character sign their name to this? Just to cite one example, the homosexual marriage argument. If Log Cabin Republicans were so happy with Romney for “keeping his campaign promise to them”, why’d they run ads against him in Iowa??? It just doesn’t make sense… Not one bit of the ad does.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
OHIO – I am guilty of calling it like I see it regarding religious bigotry. You are in a category along with a few others on here that makes you someone I would not label as a bigot. You apparently are a 3 legged stool conservative, but still hold on to a distrust of Mitt in terms of him being as staunch a conservative as you would like. I disagree with you on that, but I personally have not thought of you nor labeled you as one I consider to be a bigot. Neither do I consider those who are not in the same political spectrum of the party to be bigoted in their not wanting Mitt to be the VP. Although I strongly disagree with people like ‘Adam’ for example, I think his rational for not wanting Mitt on the ticket stems from the fact that he would much rather try to win it without as staunch conservative as he believes Mitt to be. On the other hand, people like Charles, and more recently ‘not a racist, not a hater’ expose themselves of being bigots. All you have to do is read a few of their posts to conclude that is exactly where they are coming from. They are anti-Mormon, and try to act as if Mitt was much more liberal than he ever was, and that he only pretends to have changed the positions they claim he once had, for the sake of being the candidate. What a bunch of CRAP! You have to realize most of us LDS people have been reading anti-Mormon trash for umpteen dozen years, and it doesn’t take long to recognize it when we see it. Many of them have relatives who were beaten, tarred and feathered, raped, starved, raped and murdered for their beliefs, so its only natural for them to be a little touchy on the subject.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Illinoisguy:
I did not realize that Mormons were treated that poorly in history, I now see why there is some tension.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I’m not LDS and I was a big supporter of Romney. I donated money, spent hours upon hours on Facebook trying to get more young voters to support him. I’ve witnessed the religious bigotry towards my candidate first hand with nay sayers claiming “They could never vote for a Mormon” I don’t put up with that kind of crap and I will call you out on it. Why i’d even guess some evangelicals believe that Catholics are not Christians as well(sounds strange I know).
April 4th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Yes I know there are still some Protestants who think Catholics are not Christian and vice versa, but it has been my experience that relations are not that bad, but I might be naive.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
“I’ve witnessed the religious bigotry towards my candidate first hand with nay sayers claiming “They could never vote for a Mormon†I don’t put up with that kind of crap and I will call you out on it.â€
Please, somebody get me a violin. Are there folks who claim they won’t vote for a candidate because he’s pro-choice? Yup. Are there folks who claim they won’t vote for a candidate because they’re against gay marriage? Yup. Are there folks out there who won’t vote for a candidate because they’re a Yankee? (If you’re a Southerner, you’ve meet them before). Yup. And, are there also people who won’t vote for a candidate because they are a member of a different religion? Absolutely.
There are Jews who won’t vote for Protestant candidates. There are Christians who would never vote for a Muslim candidate. Why? Not because they are bigots. But because they genuinely feel that the candidate in question does not share their values. It’s a simple as that. How many people on this site are going to use the hollow argument of religious bigotry as a crutch?
From #46:
1. Pawlenty(adds maybe MN)
2. Barbour(adds nothing electorally)
3. Rice(adds nothing electorally) (pro-choice)
4. Sanford(same as Barbour)
5. Huckabee (same as Barbour and Sanford) and McCain could kiss my vote bye bye if Huck is on the ticket
-Seriously, we must be living on two different planets. Gov. Pawlenty is one of a very few Republicans to survive the great purge of 2006. He did this in a state so purple it makes Prince’s outfits look faded. He has been a fantastic Governor for the people of Minnesota and is almost universally known throughout Minnesota, Michigan & Wisconsin. All Swing States.
- Barbour is a Southerner and can walk around the South for 6 months firming up the only real base the GOP has. If you don’t consider any Southern states to be electorally significant, then I can’t help you. Furthermore, Gov. Barbour was universally praised, from both sides of the aisle, for his action during Hurricane Katrina. (Think of it as the Big Dig, without all the blatant waste and corruption).
-The historical & electoral significance of Sen. Rice at the bottom of the ticket goes without saying. And yes, she’s pro-choice. But, then again, I believe Mr. Romney knows a thing or two about being pro-choice.
-Sanford, not as popular or particularly special as a Governor. But he is a Southerner.
- And I know RomneyBots hate the Huck on this site, heck, I would to if I out spent him a million to one and he kicked my butt all over my “core constituency.†Nevertheless, he is a Southerner, former Baptist preacher, with 10 years of Executive experience.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
McCain is going to win the South regardless so adding a southern governor really does nothing for the ticket.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
#58
Unfortunately, that’s just not the case. Against Obama, McCain has to fight hard and will potentially lose Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina & Virginia. South Carolina has the largest population of blacks in the nation. And Arkansas will be a dog fight regardless of the Dem nominee, but I would ceede it to Sen. Clinton.
Writing off the South in 2008 as “in the bank” only makes a struggle that is almost certainly in vain, that much harder.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
For the kneejerk slanderers here who are simply unable to resist resorting to the religion card in response to any and all criticism of Romney’s actions on public policy matters, please note that the “No Mitt” ad’s only reference to his religion casts his faith in a positive light (as juxtaposed against his public policy record on abortion and the homosexual issues):
The ad states:
“Romney’s actions as governor flatly contradict both the VALUES WIDELY ASSOCIATED WITH HIS FAITH as well as his pro-life and pro-traditional marriage campaign rhetoric.”
In other words, the signers of the ad make clear that they SHARE and are DEFENDING the pro-family values widely associated with Mitt’s church, since they’re specifically criticizing him for actions that contradict those values.
Members of Romney’s church have been elected to high public office, not just in the West but in the evangelical South: former U.S. Senator Paula Hawkins of Florida, Congressman Istook of Oklahoma, a secretary of state or some such in North Carolina.
I guarantee you those candidates weren’t successful because their supporters CONSTANTLY drew attention to their church affiliation each and every time the candidate was criticized by opposing camps on some matter of public policy.
There’ll be a Mormon president some day, but take a big hint, Rombots, it won’t be a candidate whose reactionary paper thin-skinned supporters’ first and immediate response to any and all public policy criticism is to accuse the critics — including those who never even mention religion — of being religious bigots.
Not once have I heard McCain or his supporters, when criticized for some public policy position, respond by accusing the critic of being anti-Episcopalian-turned-Baptist.
Rudy and his supporters never responded to his critics by accusing them of being anti-Catholic bigots.
Why is it ONLY Romney supporters who despicably always — either immediately or inevitably — resort to the religious victimhood and bigotry card?
It’s obvious why: the Romney camp — knowing their guy was vulnerable on his ridiculous attempt to paint himself as a conservative after passionately promoting abortion and the homosexual agenda in Massachusetts — made a conscious decision that their only hope of silencing those who’d tell the truth about his liberal record on social issues was to deploy the Left’s typical tactic of accusing them all of being…gasp!…hateful religious bigots.
How’d that tactic work out for ya this time, Mittsters? Run the same religion-baiting game in 2012, you’ll get the same result.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Or could it be that, far too frequently, those critics are on record as having often violently anti-Mormon prejudices? That is the point of the original post after all… Explain the Folger, Hartline, and Jackson quotes please. If a documented, verifiable, and open racist claimed to oppose a black candidate for simple policy disagreements, should you believe him?
April 4th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
And your “Mormon’s elected in the South” argument doesn’t hold much water either. If I were to take the time, I could find plenty of quotes saying such positions don’t matter nearly as much as the Presidency for these people.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
You have a point with SOME of the individuals cited, pngrata. Which doesn’t make what’s in the ad any less factual as a matter of documented record. And the ad doesn’t even mention the other dozen or more occasions or issues on which Romney promoted abortion on demand and the homosexual agenda…which is the broadest reason social conservatives don’t trust Romney. Including at least half a dozen Mormons I know. One Mormon I know who’s been very active in Scouting is digusted most of all by Romney’s past and current opposition to the Boy Scout policy banning boys and men involved in the homosexual lifestyle. The ad doesn’t mention that, of course, but if it did, it’d be just one more example of a public policy position on which Romney is at odds with his own church.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Let’s sum things up for everyone.
Romneys the MAN!!!!!;)
April 5th, 2008 at 12:48 am
I guess many of you missed that study done by Vanderbilt which showed that many detractors of Mitt who threw the “flip flop” label at him only did so because deep down they were intolerant of his religion. Now how do I know that some of you are not the same way? If Romney was a Catholic or Baptist would you guys be saying “flip flopper” or “Oh he’s one of us now that he is pro-life”.The conservative movement doesn’t get any bigger by pushing aside those who may have become conservative in their later years. If anything Romney has gotten more conservative as he’s gotten older, I can’t really say the same for Mr. McCain.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:25 am
>”I guess many of you missed that study done by Vanderbilt”
You’re right. I missed that study. I would like to see a link to it, because I’d love to know how they determined what people’s “deep down” motivations are.
Look, nobody denies that there are bigots of various types. The objection many of us have is that some of the Romney people throw the term around as loosely as Obama’s and Hillary’s supporters.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:47 am
More bad news for Romney…
52 Girls Removed From Texas Compound
This just drives the stereotype of Mormons as weird cultists – legitimate or not – and diminished the chances of a Romney pick for VP.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Charles: That’s the FLDS, not the LDS.
I looked up that Vanderbilt “study”. It’s based on an Internet survey — LOL.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:52 am
As a throwback to the Huckabee-Romney fight, notice how the authorities are using busses from the Baptist Church to rescue the children from the Fundamentalist LDS cult compound.
I’m sure the Romneybots will see an anti-Mormon conspiracy.
April 5th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Charles,
Give it a rest. Your real opposition to Mormons is primarily based on the fact that we keep baptizing Baptists. The tension is generated by the fact that there are now nearly a million Mormons in the states of the Old Confederacy. Back when we didn’t exist down there, there was a lot less anti-Mormon propaganda being printed and a lot fewer anti-Mormon sermons being given. The dramatic growth of the Lord’s work is a trend that is unstoppable, and one that has nothing to do with Mitt’s candidacy, so stop making him the fall-guy for your proselytizing failures.
April 5th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Gee Dave, I’m sorry you can’t take a joke.
But, thanks for exposing the Mormon strategy for proselytizing the south.
1. So, it is the “Lord’s work” that Baptists are being converted to Mormonism.
2. But, it’s “anti-Mormon propaganda” that Baptists say Mormons are not Christians.
3. Hmmm.
4. And, having a Mormon as the most powerful man in the world does nothing for your “Lord’s work”?
Thank for lifting the veil on just why so many Mormons are so militant in their support of Romney.
April 5th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
And Dave…
It looks like at least one polygamist, child abuser that was hitherto “unstoppable” in his “Lord’s work” has been stopped from “proselytizing” 52 young girls in the “Old Confederacy”.
April 5th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Charles-
If you had bothered to read the article about the Warren Jeff’s old compound and the 52 girls that were removed you would have realized that it is not the mormon church at all. It’s some sect called FLDS.
Mormons want to convert Baptists. Baptists want to convert mormons. Is this a surprise to anyone?
April 5th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
FreedomFighter #63
HAhahaha, every single claim in this article is false, a blatant distortion of law and the facts. Get that through your head – this missive from these people is full of LIES, known, provable falsehoods, that have been repudiated time and time again by dozens of highly reputable, impeccably conservative sources. The people promulgating this MADE THINGS UP. Made up things that fly in the face of history and the rule of law. But thousands of people like you have bought it hook, line, and sinker. I could go on about why you bought it, but that wouldn’t be very constructive at this point.
April 5th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Suyapa:
Hey, I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of all the Mormons and Romney supporters with their weepy “they are bigots” rhetoric.
It is no surprise to me everyone wants to convert everyone else.
The Mormons should stop pretending (as Dave let out of the bag) that Romney’s religion is unimportant to them. Most want to elect Romney just because he is a Mormon… you might call that bigotry too, but it is just human nature.
Yes, there is rightly no religious test for office. But, it is not an abomination to the Constitution that a Baptist would not vote for a Mormon, just like it is not an abomination that like 90% of Mormons have voted for Romney.
Mormons will overwhelmingly vote for Romney.
Blacks will overwhelmingly vote for Obama.
Everyone else will vote for whoever they want, for whatever reasons. To call it bigotry is stupid. It’s called the democratic process, which is central to our republican form of government.
April 5th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
bigotry: “intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.”
Charles-
I hate to play semantics, and bigotry is a word so often associated with racism that its meaning is easily confused. You can call anti-mormonism whatever you like, but I think we all know WHAT it is even if we disagree on what to call it.
Is it “an abomination to the Constitution?” Yes, in my view. Mormons shouldn’t be voting for mormons just because of religion, just as christian evangelicals shouldn’t be voting against mormons because of religion. It’s unamerican.
But I simply disagree with you- it is NOT human nature. Prejudice is a cultural artifact that unfortunately many subscribe to, and one that I would hope we would all be willing to work against. Especially when it takes form in such a loud and public manner as the above “ad.”
April 5th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
1. If you do a small amount of research you would discover that FLDS has no ties with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), that Warren Jeffs was never a member of the LDS church, and that FLDS is in no way similar to LDS church doctrine.
2. Mormons have, in the past, voted 90+ percent for candidates who were evangelical/born again. Why? Because they were the candidate who most closely represented their values.
3. Even though Fred Thompson came close, Mitt Romney was the candidate who most closely represented Mormon values. Being the same religion was a bonus. I am sure there were many who voted for him without even knowing his record, just as they do for other candidates based on identity.
4. IMO Mitt Romney got a good portion of the evangelical\born again vote because he does represent their values. Huckabee has the social stance they want, but his record shows many positions/actions that did not represent their values.
April 5th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Charles,
We don’t have a strategy of proselytizing the South, we have a strategy of proselytizing, period. At a time when the church numbered in the thousands and not the tens of millions, Joseph Smith proclaimed the following:
“The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.”
The Sociologist Rodney Stark, who is not a member of the church, but who IS one the world’s leading authorities on religious trends, has projected that the church will have 280 million members by the end of this century. So far, we’re on track. Romney’s political future is irrelevant to this process, and so are your rants. Your hands are about as “unhallowed” as hands can get, so I say again: give it up.
April 5th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Dave:
I am happy that you have a plan for Mormonism dominating the world.
I am also sure you are an objective supporter of a one term liberal Massachusetts governor without regard to his faith.
April 5th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinky_and_the_Brain
April 5th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Pinky: “Gee Brain, what do you want to do tonight?”
The Brain: “The same thing we do every night, Pinky – try to take over the world.”
April 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Hey Dave… according to Rodney Stark’s theories, if your church gains the seat of political power, it may actually weaken the Mormon faith with a free rider problem. Such is your dilemma, the Rise and Fall of the Mormon Empire.
April 5th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
The track records and quotes seem to be pretty convincing to me.
April 5th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Charles,
To your way of thinking, we’re trying to dominate the world, but to ours, we’re simply in the business of saving wayward souls, one at a time. We’re preparing the world for the second coming of Christ by sweeping by the wayside the spiritual perversions of Protestantism and other well-intentioned forms of religion that are still a part of the great apostasy.
My politics have always been right-wing. I have always been anti-statist, pro-capitalism, and pro-freedom. We are actually allies in the culture war, and Mitt is dedicated to a pro-life, pro-family, anti-perversion agenda, as is our church….there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between my politics and Mitt’s. The reason I supported him very early on is that he has the most demonstrated competence of any man at that political level to clean up government and intelligently reduce its size. If somebody else ever comes along like that, I will support him or her regardless of their religion.
April 5th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
The “Mormon” church is the Church of Jesus Christ. What happens to it is in his hands. The church does not have the goal to dominate the world. It has the goal to “preach the gospel to every creature”- to give everyone a chance to hear it and make up their own mind.
April 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Dave says:
Keep it up Dave… this is a far cry from the Romney supporters that were saying that “Mormons are just like all other Christians” when he was trying to get the nomination.
If your religious fervor was Muslim and you were supporting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for President, do you think anyone would take you seriously? Why should anyone take you seriously about Romney?
The more Dave talks the more my suspicions are validated. Come on, there must be another Mormon embarrassed by this exchange…?!?
April 5th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Charles is silly. Charles, obviously you need to attend the LDS church for yourself the anti-mormon literature that you have been reading is dimenting your mind.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
grandma… read carefully, I’m only quoting Mormon Dave’s posts. He seems knowledgeable enough. I am just wondering if his “bigoted” talk represents all Mormons.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Wow this thing has exploded, I think Dave and Charles need to both go to the “timeout corner”.
To Dave-Spiritual perversions of protestantism? What in the world does that mean? I don’t know where you live but i’m sure you have had the privilege of meeting many protestants who are strong in their faith.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Grandma T: I find Dave’s references to my religion as “spiritual perversion” and “the great apostasy” extremely offensive.
I wonder if you consider it okay for a Mormon to use language of that type toward other religions? Where are the Mormons who have complained of bigotry so often on this forum? Why are they not telling Dave he is a bigot?
Or is that a one-way street?
April 5th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Charles, in the original article you linked to with the exclamation “More Bad News for Romney” it says this…
“The congregation, known as FLDS, has been led by Jeffs since his father’s death in 2002. It is one of several groups that split from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, based in Salt Lake City, decades after it renounced polygamy in 1890.”
You’re the one who linked this travesty to Romney, when in fact, it has nothing to do with Romney or the church he attends. I think a brief apology would go a long way towards those you’ve ruffled the feathers of.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
BobH.
I find Dave’s comments somewhat disquieting. Yes, I am LDS.
You will find people of all different kinds in the LDS Church. Some will hit you head on with what they believe, like Dave appears to be doing. Many will be more nuanced and attempt to find common ground rather than be “in your face.” Bottom line is, I think the LDS church is “right.” You think your church doctrines are “right.” I don’t begrudge you that, nor do I expect you to begrudge me my beliefs.
Obviously, politics are supposed to be the game here, not religion, so I think Dave needs to chill out. Romney, I think, was a good example of how to behave in a world full of different ideas, beliefs, and cultures. Respect others, but also respect yourself.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
>”Bottom line is, I think the LDS church is “right.†You think your church doctrines are “right.†I don’t begrudge you that, nor do I expect you to begrudge me my beliefs.”
And I certainly don’t. The point is however that Dave’s comments are grossly bigoted, and call for forthright condemnation by those who have condemned bigotry directed against them.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Sean,
Sorry. I meant no disrespect to good people trying to live good lives as best they can. The Protestant Reformation was based on 3 rallying cries: Sola Fe, Sola Scriptura, and Sola Gratia. All 3 are misconceptions, which I would be glad to explicate in a different forum. This is the wrong venue. We do believe in the universal doctrine of love, as made explicit in Christ’s 2nd great commandment. Something Charles said earlier in the thread just really ticked me off.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Ogrepete:
I linked it to Romney because he is the first Mormon to be a serious contender for the Presidency (and perhaps Vice Presidency). Willard is the most identifiable Mormon in the country right now, anything bad Mormon wise is bad for him.
Valid or not, Mormonism is looked upon with suspicion by a large portion of the voting public. Saying that it’s only a fundamentalist sect of Mormonism and not actually the LDS church is fine, but for that big white temple and the name… it’s like saying that it’s a fundamentalist sect of Islam, Bubba thinks they are all terrorists.
But, all politics aside, let’s hope these children get free without this turning into another Waco.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080406/D8VS2LQ80.html
April 5th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Charles, you belong to a fundamentalist sect of Catholicism don’t you?
April 5th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Bob H I find ALL language degrading ANY church unAmerican. I do find some individuals that preach hate or lies in any fashion offensive. I believe in political freedom to vote your conscience and I am sorry that religion has become a reason to vote for or against any worthy candidate. Of course everyone has the right to decide for themselves what a worthy candidate is. I have always voted for the candidate not the religion. I supported Romney because he shared my beliefs on immigration, life, marriage, family, national security, and the economy and for the first time he also shared my religion.
I find this political season rather depressing and find it offensive that people (such as those who wrote the NO MITT ad)sad and confusing. If they want to promote Huckabee, then talk about Huckabee not Mitt.
How can a party this divided at the core win?
April 5th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Wow Dave…
I did not realize that Mormonism completely repudiates the Protestant Reformation. Do you have a link to some source material?
April 5th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Charles,
We believe that James, the brother of Jesus, got it right when he wrote that “Faith without works is dead.” (James 2:17). Mormons are not Protestants (and obviously not Catholics or Orthodox). We are, technically speaking, Restorationists. After the death of the Apostles, and thousands of martyrdoms that decimated the leadership of the primitive church, the organization established by Jesus and his Apostles was lost, and with it, much of the doctrine. The apostasy was foretold in both the Old and the New Testaments. The truth had to be restored, and Heavenly Father and Jesus did that through Joseph Smith. There is a prophet of God alive on the planet today, and a church restored by Him that operates on the basis of continuing revelation. Go to LDS.ORG, which will provide source material, and if you do that, I will provide much more.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
In my opinion what should matter (1) Is the candidate a patriot and LOVE America?
(2) Does a candidate have the judgement, intelligence, and integrity to lead the country?
(3) Does a candidate have the excutive experience to direct the budget?
(4) Does the candidate believe in freedom, small government, life, liberty and the pursue of happiness.
NOT the religious differences in a belief in Christ.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
executive
April 5th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Catholics and Mormons have their own arguement to fight-both believe they are the original church that was set up by Christ.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
While I enjoy good intellectual discussion this is not a religious forum it is political.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Grandma T: Thank you — your comment was the sort of forthright condemnation of bigotry that is called for, regardless of the source, regardless of the target. And I also agree that the forum would be better off with less discussion of religion.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Charles,
I think you’re purposely not getting it. While in Argentina on a mission, the riots in LA happened after the Rodney King beating was televised. So after the tape of the beating of Rodney King by white policemen has run, I was approached a few times by people on the street who wanted to ask me if I was from the United States. When I told these people that I was, and that I was from California, they told me I was racist. I was shocked to my core that someone would see a white person from the US and associate it with policemen beating a black man and thus infer that I was racist.
This type of “misassociation” is what you are doing when you link the FLDS church to Mitt Romney, or to me. And if you think what you wrote in #95 was an apology, I sure didn’t see it. The FLDS church that exists down on the border between Utah and Arizona (and apparently in Texas, also) has NOTHING to do with the “Mormon” church. You may as well point out some Evangelical Pastor who’s done some misdeed and smear Rudy with it, who is Catholic. After all, at some point back in the chain, both Evangelical Christian and Catholic churches had a common origin…
As I’ve typed before, Charles, you obviously know how to think. Why are you using your intelligence to tear down rather than build up?
April 6th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Well, here’s my two cents. As a Mormon,I have always learned that we are never to disparage other religions, rather we are to do our best to respect, help and love each other. We are encouraged to work in our communities, shoulder to shoulder with our brothers and sisters of other faiths. We are all children of God, and we need each other in these troubled times. In the 11th Article of Faith regarding what we believe it reads:
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same priviledge; let them worship how, where, and what they may.
I really do think that the hurt that comes out in some of our members stem from what has already been mentioned here before. We were driven and killed. Our women were raped and killed, our men were tarred and feathered and murdered, and our children were killed without mercy. Our homes were burned and our livestock killed. So much has been written about us that has been inaccurate, and some of it outright lies. Otherwise,good people believe what they have read and pass these inaccuracies on not knowing the damage they do to good people. Please let’s respect each other. We are all Americans who love our country, and we are fortunate to live in a country where we can discuss our candidates, the issues that face our country today, and where we can vote without fear.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:22 am
BobH, I agree with you. I just didn’t want people of other good faiths to think Mormons are unkind and close-minded. Back to politics, ok?
April 6th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Back to politics, indeed.
April 6th, 2008 at 4:24 am
It sounds like Robin from Indiana has a good point. It is one thing to recognize that Mormons have different beliefs than many of the rest of us, but they are both human beings made from GOD and they are our fellow citizens and we should not persecute them. There are at least a few bad apples in my religion and I do not wish to be persecuted for them. All faiths have at least some bad apples, but that does not make us all bad people. I still think that most of us who are not Mormons are tolerant people, but there appears to be a few people who extreme. It is a serious charge to accuse a religion of trying to sabotage our country. Throughout history, many religions have received this charge.
While I understand how some people may be offended by what a few Mormons say or do, I ask my fellow non Mormons to be careful before making serious charges. Just because they are different does not make them bad. Again, I have hardly met any of them, but from what little I have read about them, they seem in general to be good people.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:58 am
I’ve read the above discussion with much interest and appreciate the comments made by many, including what OHIO has just provided. One thing I would like to insert that I would prefer not go unchallenged is the concept that we Rombots were voting for Romney because he is LDS, and pointing to 90% of LDS voting for him. Guess what, 90% of LDS voted for President Bush, and other conservative Republicans. That’s just the way we vote. Are there a few who may have voted for him that otherwise may not have? Probably! Are there a few evangelicals, or a few Catholics that would vote for Huckabee, or Giuliani because they were a certain religion? Probably, almost certainly.
BobH – Although what Dave said regarding a forthright declaration of some distinctions in our beliefs versus others, I don’t think he was being bigoted. I think he was being very honest, just as leaders of other churches have made similarly strong declarations in stating how and why they believe their church is right, and others wrong, on doctrine. You wouldn’t declare them bigots I don’t think. Charles purposely agitated the situation, by insinuating that somehow that idiot branch in Texas was somehow linked to the Mormon church. With what LDS members have gone through as Robin pointed out, that just doesn’t fly with us, and some of us will always react and not take that kind of crap.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Thanks to all for the theology lesson…
I guess I have been naive about Mormonism. I actually believed (or gave the benefit of the doubt) the many Mormon missionaries knocking at my door throughout the years and the Romney supporters of late who proclaimed that “we believe the Bible tooâ€. But now I can see why the LDS church had so many problems early on and is still repudiated by most Christians today: Mormons repudiate Christians.
And you should more forthrightly if that’s what you believe.
I do see a bit of historical irony in all of the “we love America†talk from Mormons. Without the Protestant Reformation you lose American liberty… no rights of Englishmen (other than nobility)… no John Locke… no founding fathers…
And, I do see an inherent conflict between human liberty and Joseph Smith’s (as John Locke would put it) “monstrous presumption… of dominion over men’s consciencesâ€.
So you see, I cannot but suspect the motivations of any Romney supporter who is also a Mormon, despite all your impassioned pleading to the contrary. (Perhaps it is not just, but I do recall more than a few Mormons here saying the same of Baptists supporting Huckabee. Hypocrisy is a sin in most any religion.)
April 6th, 2008 at 11:47 am
When it’s time to drop an argument, there are always a couple idiots who feel they must get off a few more parting volleys. Charles and Illinoisguy fit the bill perfectly.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
BobH – I have just listened to our semi-annual general conference, and I want to apologize to anyone I may have offended. I’ve never been called an idiot before in my defense of the church. I truly am sorry for apparently doing it wrongly. I just reread my posting, and I don’t see why it was so offensive. I was only saying that what Dave said in my opinion was not something that should have been labeled a bigot. He said much less than church leaders of many denominations have said for years, and much less than some of your candidates have said publicly on their web sites in recent months, and I didn’t see you label them as a bigot.
One more thing: We do see the reformation as a positive movement, so Charles, you misread that portion of what Dave was saying earlier. Once again, I’m sorry.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Illinoisguy I had a friend that I shared a ride to work several days a week. We shared many private and sensitive feelings and I loved her as a friend. One day religion became the topic and she was a different religion than I was, but we both believed in the bible and in Christ. The next time we shared a ride we also continued a respectful discussion of religion. The third time we shared a ride and the topic turned to religion out came the bashing of my religion. I was shocked and quickly tried to change the subject because we were such good friends almost like mother/daughter. However, she continued and finally I had to end the conversation abruptly because what she was saying about my religion was incorrect and very hurtful. I later found out that some religions dedicate reading rooms with books, movies, pamplets about other religions (especially LDS) and why they are wrong. Up until that time I always assumed that everyone felt religion was a deeply personal subject that was not something to attack. The damage that one conversation had on our friendship was devestating. She never apologized and the level of friendship was never the same.
I hope we can avoid discussion and bashing of religion on this site in the furture for we do have issues in common even if we do not share a religion. United we stand divided we fall.
April 6th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Illinoisguy:
I do not believe that you have to apologize, you are just as entitled to your views as the rest of us.
Grandma T:
You have a good point that despite our differences, we have many commons goals.
April 6th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Where are the Mormon-bashers getting their information? And why can’t people see that it is twisted facts and blatant lies?
Mormons mix politics and religion less than any other American church I’ve ever seen. I attended an inner-city Mormon church in Atlanta, and I can guarantee you they aren’t voting for Mitt Romney.
Why are people against Romney because of Mormonism?
April 6th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
According to Drudge Condi Rice wants the VP slot: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/dan-senor-condo.html
April 6th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
McCain is also meeting with Fred Thompson this week. Could this be a VP look?
April 6th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Mr. Thompson would be a good ideological choice.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I hear Thompson is going back to acting. My guess is he’s done with politics. He was not the conservative answer many had hoped for.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Perhaps McCain was meeting with Fred to ask his opinion regarding VP choices.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Curious that Romney backers claim that Romney was not trusted because he is a Mormon. No, the real reason is that Romney was a POLITICIAN. Politicians routinely deceive people, and even the ones that are honest initially frequently change positions when it politically conveniences them in order to retain power and influence. So, you had a guy saying that he supported gay rights, abortion rights, and gun control when he was running for an office where it is impossible to get elected to unless you hold those positions (governor of Massachusetts) and then less than 4 years later he was against gay rights, abortion rights, and gun control when he was running for an office where it is impossible to get elected by holding those positions (Republican nominee for president).
Americans have been lied to by far too many politicians to take them at their word. That is why people look at RECORDS, and Mitt Romney’s RECORD was FOUR YEARS LONG. Now his record contains some positive things, yes, but it contained a lot of negative things too. You folks are making the ridiculous claim that not taking Romney at his word and refusing to ignore the negative things in his record means rejecting him because of his faith. Obviously the Romney backers have been in some victimization training program run by NOW, the NAACP, the ACLU, and CAIR.
Romney’s main mistakes were A) making his son Tagg his campaign manager, and Tagg performed in that role the way unqualified nepotist legacies typically do … an unmitigated disaster and B) trying to court religious right voters in the first place. It was also a horrible electoral climate to be running as the “investment banker CEO run government like a business” type when a lot of conservatives have labored long and hard to support conservative economic principles for the past 20 years only to see these same CEOs move their jobs overseas and loot their pension funds and pay each other $100 million dollar bonuses while they are running companies in the ground. Had Romney come up with a plan to help workers and preserve jobs, he would have had a shot. As it is, people weren’t going to line up to vote for one of the guys that has been sending their jobs to China, India, and Mexico for the past 10 years.
The truth is that George W. Bush probably wouldn’t get elected in this current electoral climate. Then again, when you consider things like the prescription drugs bill, the pork barrel spending, and all the missteps in managing the war, Bush created many of the problems that Romney experienced. No one wants to elect another Bush, not even Republicans, and to a lot of people Romney was too close to Bush for comfort. norcrossgaman@aol.com
April 8th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Pngrata 74…
What the ad says is in fact demonstrably true. The state of Massachusetts website lists the $50 co-pay for abortions under the Romney healthcare plan. And it was Associated Press that reported that Romney issued an executive order to justices of the peace, ordering them to perform homosexua’ “marriage” ceremonies or resign. Both are as true as the sun coming up in the morning. Yell at the sun all you want. It’s still coming up. And no matter how many times you yell “liar,” the contents of the “No Mitt” ad are documentably the truth.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
“Obviously the Romney backers have been in some victimization training program run by NOW, the NAACP, the ACLU, and CAIR.”
Ain’t that the truth.
But you forgot to mention the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, which specializes in labeling anyone who dares criticize their political agenda (much of it endorsed by Romney) as “hateful”…”religious”…”bigots.”
And after Robin’s litany of persecution of early- to mid-19th century Mormons — who taught that ALL OTHER churches were “abominations” in God’s eyes, a doctrine guaranteed not to win friends and influence people (at least positively) in frontier America — it’s almost surprising that Robin didn’t finish off by demanding reparations.