Tuesday, December 18, 2007
|
|
Does Opposition to Mitt Amount to Bigotry?
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
2:56 AM
|
|
Does failure to support Mitt Romney’s presidential bid qualify an individual as an anti-Mormon bigot?
That’s the annoying message subliminally conveyed by the Romney campaign and expressed far less subtly by some of the governor’s increasingly desperate supporters. At a loss to explain the under-funded Mike Huckabee’s polling leads in Iowa, South Carolina, Florida and elsewhere, Romney loyalists assume that the Arkansan’s startling electoral rise depends entirely on prejudice against the LDS church. According to this theory, Evangelical Christians are too suspicious of Mormons even to consider supporting one of them for President, so instead they turn to an unqualified, unimpressive, unknown country bumpkin.
For the record, let me say that I for one would be honored and proud to vote for a Mormon for president. As I’ve made clear on my show many times, members of the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints are good citizens and great people – hard-working, generous, morally serious, patriotic, and pro-family. All Christians and Jews can learn a great deal from the spectacular success and refreshing wholesomeness of this vigorous religious community.
But the fact that I’d be glad to vote for a Mormon, doesn’t mean that I want to vote for this Mormon ---and.Governor Romney looks less and less like a viable candidate to me. Part of the problem is the arrogance behind the current posture of the Romney camp. His backers suggest that their guy is so obviously qualified and brilliant and charismatic and wonderful that the only possible reason anyone could fail to endorse him must have something to do with his religious faith.
There’s an odd sort of jujitsu employed in some of the public arguments: the only way you can prove, definitively, that you’re not an anti-Mormon bigot is to support Mitt. That line of reasoning parallels the notion that you can’t show you’re not a woman-hater unless you endorse Hillary, or that you won’t demonstrate that you’ve conquered racism without backing Barack.
Come on, guys – there’s plenty of reason to oppose any or all of these candidates without imputing racism or sexism or religious bigotry to your opponents.
It’s troubling that it was Mitt Romney, not Mike Huckabee, who gave the campaign’s biggest address on religion and politics, and it’s the Romney rooters, not the Huck-a-Nuts, who seem most eager for every opportunity to discuss the role of faith in the campaign.
In response to this manipulation, we need a clear assertion that refusal to join the Romney bandwagon doesn’t provide evidence of religious bigotry. It may, however, indicate a need for the former Massachusetts Governor to upgrade his campaign with a more positive focus, a clearer issues message, fewer attacks on rivals, and a less defensive edge.
|
|
Mike Huckabee spoke at a Southern Baptist Convention held in SLC in 1998. As Governor, he propagated and distributed Sandra Tanner's anti-mormon book during this same conference. That's a fine thing for an elected public official to do! You know, actions do speak louder than words here.
Hmmmm so a man who wants to run as 'the Christian Leader'
also knows nothing much about the LDS faith, has been President of the Southern Baptist Convention which still considers the LDS church a cult, though Huckabee recently said he believed the LDS church was not a cult. This goes against what he preached all those years as a Baptist minister.
Just what are you missing here MM? Huckabee's rise in Iowa occurred at the same time anti-mormon calls were made out of SLC - Sandra Tanner's possible payback to Huckabee for sponsorship of her anti-mormon book?
Romney is definite POTUS material. He is eloquent, and handled Tim Russett's interview with aplomb.
Romney gave the speech because had been hounded for quite some time by Townhall and the MSM. It's not those
who stand up for the LDS faith in these blogs that show intolerance and ignorance.
How many times has Townhall and the MSM written articles stating that..."....evangelical Christians think the LDS faith is a cult..and that Mitt Romney must answer to the 'reservations' of those (who have been schooled in anti-mormon thought via their church officials).
Mitt Romney is a class act. Those who have publically given their support for him did so because they are able to see past the smokescreen that Huckabee is hiding behind. And you're right - these people aren't religious bigots though they may disagree with LDS theology.
Romney's address to the nation was simply wonderful. He knows the importance of placing values first - values that he lives by. He is THE man who can bring people together to work for the common good.
|
|
If you have gotten that impression from Mitt Romney supporters than they are not representing him very well.
I will call people out when they are being bigots, towards any religion, gender or race. However when they make an argument based on flip floping, or simply that they don't like a specific possition, I respond to those charges, not to any form of religious leaning.
The campaign that Mitt is running is right where it should be. He is calling people on their records, and showing how his record compares to others.
There are people who at the moment are making their choice for President based on bigotry. While your article correctly presents that there are people who oppose him for valid reasons, such as policies, or even the perceived flip flopl charge, it fails to recognize that there are also bigots.
Please correct the ommission so that your article will be more balanced, and depict a more accurate picture of the current campaign environment. |
|
paradigm voter wants an evangelical type from the south. That's who they feel comfortable with. That's what giving Huck his advantage. Romney is from the northest and generally Republican voters don't think they are conservative enough. The religious aspect of this is just symptomatic of the regional differences.
The other thing is people in this country want someone that"feels their pain" rather than someone that can do the most effective job.Obama and Huck appeal to the emotions where Romney appeals to the mind. I support Romney because I want this damn bloated ineffective government fixed. In Huck's case I don't want the government and taxpayers to be used for forced charity work.This is why we're already trillions of dollars in debt.All the illegal immigration welcome mats need to be blown up.
Finally,the country needs to be shown that every problem doesn't have to be addressed by raising taxes and throwing more money at them. More money doesn't fix flaws but this is what liberals believe.They then use the extra tax money to self reward themselves and their cronies and the problems get worse. |
|
|
Just couple days ago, or a week ago, Huckabee went on the record questioning Mormons whether jesus and satan are brothers...hey he is the Christian leader right. so Medved, why dont you ask your Christian leader whether it is bigotry or not? |
|
If Mitt were Jewish and Huckabee had asked "Didn't Jews kill Christ?" would you be so hesitant to acknowledge his religious smear?
On top of this, there are various pro-Huck sites that are very hostile to Mormonism. |
|
If Mitt were Jewish and Huckabee had asked "Didn't Jews kill Christ?" would you be so hesitant to acknowledge his religious smear?
On top of this, there are various pro-Huck sites that are very hostile to Mormonism. |
|
I had the opportunity, recently, to chat with MM after he gave a speech in a Philly-'burb regarding the Illegal Immigration issue.
MM claimed that it had the potential to destroy the GOP, particularly because these millions of people have "not broken any laws." WE (and I mean the dozen people around him) reminded him of such obvious ID-Frauds as SSN falsification, if nothing else, but he remaine adamantly in favor of providing a "pathway to citizenship" for those who had contributed (as a group) to enhancing the security-threat against America.
I start here because MM's essay is sympatomatic of a larger mind-set, one that would "kill the messenger" rather than CONFRONT REALITY.
Huck is a huckster, and it is SHOCKING that MM is silent on his "arrogant bunker mentality" anti-Bush diatribe that has swept the blogosphere (and talk radio, and non-MSM cable-TV, and personal political discourse).
I waited until his "spin" would emerge, and all he said was that he wanted to sculpt an independent foreign policy position that (in his way of thinking) was even more muscular than that of Bush. I wonder if he agrees the Surge is working....
[to be continued]
|
|
Specifically responding to the last two 'graphs of MM's essay, it has already been noted that Mitt delivered that speech reluctantly, but he did a masterful job once he saw he had to respond to the Fundamentalists in a language that they might optimally appreciate...while providing everyone else a history lesson.
Meanwhile, it is Huck who perpetuates the Christian Theme, as evidenced by his most recent TV-Ad (wishing everyone a Merry Christmas).
And anyone listening to Mitt (including his appearance on Meet the Press) would be hard-pressed to deny that he has maintained a strong issues-oriented campaign.
MM, cut to the chase, and recognize that Mitt's mien reveals the precise UNIFYING message that the GOP needs. He is firm/flexible, such as when he maintained his campaign promise that no abortion law would be weakened under his Mass. Administration, even after his stem-cell conversion to a pro-life posture (which was manifest only with regard to NEW legislation).
And, as I said to you this past September, remember that EVEN THOSE HISPANICS WHO CAME LEGALLY are OPPOSED to THOSE WHO COME ILLEGALLY, particularly when they are manifesting the ethical values that they brought with them!
[Perhaps I should call-up on "Disagreement Day," eh?]
|
|
[For some reason, the second half of my comments didn't get uploaded; perhaps it also exceeded the character-limit, but first I'll try to upload it again.]
Specifically responding to the last two 'graphs of MM's essay, it has already been noted that Mitt delivered that speech reluctantly, but he did a masterful job once he saw he had to respond to the Fundamentalists in a language that they might optimally appreciate...while providing everyone else a history lesson.
Meanwhile, it is Huck who perpetuates the Christian Theme, as evidenced by his most recent TV-Ad (wishing everyone a Merry Christmas).
And anyone listening to Mitt (including his appearance on Meet the Press) would be hard-pressed to deny that he has maintained a strong issues-oriented campaign.
MM, cut to the chase, and recognize that Mitt's mien reveals the precise UNIFYING message that the GOP needs. He is firm/flexible, such as when he maintained his campaign promise that no abortion law would be weakened under his Mass. Administration, even after his stem-cell conversion to a pro-life posture (which was manifest only with regard to NEW legislation).
And, as I said to you this past September, remember that EVEN THOSE HISPANICS WHO CAME LEGALLY are OPPOSED to THOSE WHO COME ILLEGALLY, particularly when they are manifesting the ethical values that they brought with them!
[Perhaps I should call-up on "Disagreement Day," eh?]
|
|
[Now that I know the other comments have been posted, I will address the core-problem.]
MM has excerpted a subset of Mitt's supporters for critique, and illogically generalizes his rejoinder. This is surprisingly transparent, particularly for a pop-culture ethicist. So, why did it transpire?
One would hope that it is a manifestation of "tough love," essentially serving as a wake-up call for Mitt's Campaign. If so, I would have thought that his having decimated the questions from Tim Russert would have prophylaxed these stated-concerns, despite the fact that the bulk of the initial queries were religion-focused. Mitt's Mormonism and his Faith-Speech did NOT invite vitriol, and MM should know better than to impugn his supporters by imparting to them (globally) the postures he senses are being exhibited by a few of them.
My fear, however, is that it is born of the identical forces that have propelled Huck to his (current) perch. The Evangelicals have felt disappointed during the past quarter-century of GOP support, despite efforts (such as generally-OK) appointments to the SCOTUS. But nominating a Bible-Thumpa’ ain’t gonna slice-the-mustard.
MM has had to dig-up a straw-dog posture that he then has attacked, perhaps a manifestation of a defense posture when his respected colleagues openly express wonderment that he hasn’t followed the NRO.
He’ll have to do better than that, to derail Mitt from “running the table.”
|
|
At the risk of "overstaying my welcome," I am going to succinctly summarize the salient features of the prior three installments of my commentary.
What does MM want of Mitt? "In response to this manipulation, we need a clear assertion that refusal to join the Romney bandwagon doesn’t provide evidence of religious bigotry. It may, however, indicate a need for the former Massachusetts Governor to upgrade his campaign with a more positive focus, a clearer issues message, fewer attacks on rivals, and a less defensive edge."
On the one hand, the premise (that there was manipulation) has been challenged. On the other hand, even when provided an opportunity to explain Huck’s rise in the polls, Mitt has maintained a sense of positivity regarding both of them (to the dismay, perhaps, of both Laura and Bill, yesterday, during their interviews).
Mitt’s ads (on immigration and on crime) have both started with recognition that he and Huck share key-values. Would MM silence Mitt from distilling differences THAT REFLECT DISTINCTIONS? As MM would say, “I sure hope not!”
Mitt is a product of—and wishes to “preserve, protect, and defend”—America, “this greatest nation on God’s Green Earth!”
MM, have these four mini-essays allayed your core-fears?
|
|
Check out the beliefs of the Mitt Romney cult...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5dscqcNOGM |
|
|
Runs overtly religious ads on Christmas. At the same time Mitt gets critizied for his religion even though he doesn't pronounce it.If Mitt ran an ad with a cross in it the liberal media would be mouth foaming to the point of seizures. Huck's been using religion as a wedge issue for months while ducking serious policy discussions.The evangelicals are trying to prove how relavant they still are in the Republican party but pushing it too far could put a lot of non religious people off.Nobody wants religion shoved down their throats even if they agree with the message. |
|
...But today's input on Townhall.com is indicative of the deluge of MITT-endorsements that HH triggered months ago...and that others (to whatever degree they can allow themselves to communicate their views) are emulating:
David Limbaugh: Huck: Playing to Our Inner Jimmy Carter
At the risk of incurring a roundhouse kick from the great Chuck Norris, I must confess that I'm even more troubled by Mike Huckabee's direction than I was last week.
Rich Lowry: The Rudy Fade
The National Intelligence Estimate arguing that Iran gave up its nuclear-weapons program back in 2003 went public two weeks ago, instantly lessening the urgency of the domestic debate over how to handle Iran.
Phil Gingrey: Mitt Romney: A Leader To Turn Off The Sanctuary Magnets
Our borders and ports of entry are hemorrhaging with illegal immigrants, and the American people are ready for a president that will have the courage to stand up and lead.
Michael Novak: Mitt Romney: The Man Who Turns Things Around
Mitt Romney came to national attention because of his skill in turning around failing enterprises. So I have been keeping my eye on Mitt Romney for the many long months of this electoral campaign. |
|
|
where Huck has chickened out on going on Meet the Press this Sunday. Instead they'll have Ron Paul.Romney and Guliani had to face the fierce interrorgation of Russert and Huck gets a pass. I guess he doesn't want to face the ghosts of his liberal past. Also the liberal media is giving his Jesus ad a tongue bath this moring. It just shows they're trying to keep him propped up to win Iowa. |
|
|
The Iowa and national papers have quoted several evangelical "Christians" saying that, without regard to his views on issues, they would never vote for e "non-Christian" such as Romney. That's their right. But this is bigotry and it is a fundamental rejection of basic American values. Yet not a Christian leader in the state can be heard to condemn them. When Al Qaida kills innocents and the the mullahs saty silent, they enable these folks to mask their terrorism as religion. When pastors remain silent in Iowa, they allow Neo-Christian bigots to wrap themsleves in the Cross while espousing views that Christ rejected. They may not be bigots, but they are entitled to my disrespect. |
|
|
This great nation will be so very fortunate if we are "lucky" enough to elect Romney as our next president. I say lucky because it doesn't appear we are smart enough to see and/or admit that he should be a slam-dunk except for his Mormon faith being used against him by the "evangelicals". Hucklebee is just a johnny- come-lately who the media and the other Mormon hating bigots have attached themselves to in order to sidetrack Romney. The dems and MSM sure don't want competition from Romney in the general election, so of course they are supporting, and not attacking, Hucklebee for all of his obvious flaws as a true conservative leader. |
|
What kind of "conservative" adopts a strategy from the homosexual's play book? We're all pretty familiar with how it works.
Either accept and approve (authenticate) who I am, i.e.my views/behaviors, or I'll label you a BIGOT! This is simply a form of intimidation and extortion!
It seems to have "worked" for the homosexuals, so why not the Mormons...or any other minority group which demand society's broad acceptance?
If you really want to understand what's happening here and how reprehensible it is, read THE NEW TOLERANCE, McDowell & Hostetler, 1998, Tyndale House.
Wake up! |
|
how these Hewitt parrots don't seem to be able to think. To say "Didn't Jews kill Christ" is not in anyway comparable to saying "Don't Mormon's BELIEVE X or Y." It would be more appropriate to compare it to, for example "Don't Jews BELIEVE that Jesus was just another second rate prophet." Which, by the way, is what Jews believe and they are perfectly entitled to believe it. By the way - people use the statement about Jews killing Christ to disparage Christians, not ot disparage Jews.
Funny how Hugh has never accused his sweetheart Chris Hitchens of being a bigot, and he says far nastier things all the time. |
|
Interesting comment.
You said:
"Either accept and approve (authenticate) who I am, i.e.my views/behaviors, or I'll label you a BIGOT! This is simply a form of intimidation and extortion!"
Such tactics are really offensive. It's just like when "conservatives" call people who oppose the war "traitors" or question their patriotism. Kind of makes your stomach turn, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Medved is not to be trusted as an analyst for a few reasons. Firstly, he has not recognize the brilliance of Romney. Secondly, I - the great Hugh Hewitt have already expressed my support for Romney. There is no reason for any other GOPer to go outside of my recommendation. Period. |
|
|
One does not have to support Huckabee to see that Mitt has been playing a dangerous game with regards to faith. From talking about how we need a "person of faith" as president, to creating a secular straw (bogey) man to attack in his speech "On Faith", to claiming he will not define his religion, but then saying he believes Jesus Christ is the son of God, Mitt has been trying to have it both ways: he wants to promote himself as a man of faith, but ask too many questions about the particulars, and you are an evil bigot, or worse, a secularist. It is not surprising that he apparently push-polled himself to drum up sympathy for his campaign. Just as he has shifted rightward on every issue at a time that just happens to coincide with his run for President, he has tried to carefully play the religion game, promoting himself as Christian "enough," but also playing the victim. I think it is a sham, and I commend you for seeing through it. |
|
No. That's not bigotry, but the reason for the opposition may amount to bigotry.
The fact is, as Medved knows, there has been a concerted effort among evangelicals to spread negative charges about Mormons. I've heard quite a few calls to Michael's show from callers saying that Mormons aren't Christians or that Mormonism is a cult. It's ironic that similar sophistry was used to discredit and raise hostility against the original Christians. They weren't willing to acknowledge the various religions in the Roman Empire as valid. They didn't worship Roman idols. They were a secret cult. They were sexually immoral. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Huckabee has been quite subtle in playing this card, but he doesn't have to be overt. All he had to do is remind his fellow Baptists the Romney is a Mormon and they take it from their. His "innocent" question about Mormon beliefs and his ads in which he says he was shaped by his religion (Who isn't?) and proclaiming him a "Christian Leader" were just signals to a group of activists primed to spread hostile rhetoric against Mormons.
I first liked Huckabee and thought he was a pleasant, intelligent fellow, but his willingness to capitalize on the smears Baptists have been practicing against Mormons for years has really turned me off. If he wins the nomination, he'll find himself on the other end of that stick, because Christian fundamentalists will become the victims of their own tactics, with no Mormons to focus on. They'll be marginalized and drive away a lot of independents and swing voters. |
|
|
Michael should no better than this in an article. It is a straw man arguement to say that Romney, the national review, Hugh Hewitt, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter and the like feel that if you dont support Romney your a Bigot. They have said nothing of the kind. What people of good mind are saying is that there is prejudice against mormons. Maybe Michael cannot see it up in washington. He did not see the immigration problem before either. I think he is spending to much time in the pugit sound and needs to get out. Michael would be the first to point out if Christian churches were passing out the Protocols of the elders of Zion to jews and non jews. Many Protestants and others have made carreers telling people that mormons are cults and pass out anti-mormon books full of lies. Michael did this straw man with the illegal immigration infering eveyone that didnt support his plan was a racist. |
|
Maybe Michael you should interview yourself for Conspiracy day!
1. You believe in Big foot
2. You believe that illegals will check in with the government under the bush immigration policy.
3. Your Blog above
4. your inference that Southern Baptists overwhelmingly accept Mormons
|
|
Would anyone hear have a problem if a billion Muslims in the world started calling themselves Mormons? I mean there really is no difference between Muslims and Mormons anyway is there, and they should get to define who they are themselves right?
My question for any LDS folks here is whether they recognize any difference between their beliefs and orthodox Christianity. Yes or No?
Also, for those of you LDS folks or even non-religious folks who claim that evangelicals do not know anything about the Mormon church, I would ask how much traditional Christian doctrine you have studied. Compare Wayne Grudem's (an evangelical Christian who supports Romney) "Christian Doctrine" to your own doctrinal books.
I suggest that there are differences, and they are to the level of making Mormonism another religion just like Judaism and Islam are other religions. Does pointing out the differences make me a bigot?
Stop calling yourselves Christians and acting like there is not difference, and I will stop calling you a cult. At that point I will simply call you another religion.
Ideas matter. Words mean things.
Having said that, I still may vote for Romney because his values do match most of mine and he seems to be a decent leader, but his acolytes may drive me away. |
|
C'mon Michael
Back in September you stated that " You did not like Romney, He was too slick by half and He was a Phony". You even mentioned that you had debated your Brother over Romney. Are we witnessing sibling rivalry here?
Over the past several weeks you have continued to demonstrate heartburn for his candidacy. This is your absolute right, but you must stop doing it under the guise of objectivity . You lost credibility on that long ago.
For weeks now, you have defended literally every single positon of Hucabee's, often times devoting one half and more of your show to do
so, and, you have been very short with anyone defending Romney.
Even yesterday, you stated that Romney had supported the McCain/Bush plan on immigration. Not true! When it was made very clear on Meet the Press that
Romney had never signed off on that plan but saw promise in all three plans being proposed at the time, including Sen Corbyn's.
You are perhaps the smartest guy on Radio, but on this subject, you are just an emotional basket case. Your love affair with the Huckster needs to stop, we want the old Michael back.
|
|
pg 2
And now you are telling the world that a comparative analysis, which lays out Romney's positions and contrasts them with Hucabee's, or anybody else's, is
playing dirty and below the belt.
Grow up Medved! This is the political
process we are in. We want to hear the record of achievements and failures of all the candidates. It's a little thing called "debate". Since when have you been
averse to that?
When the Huckster was asked yesterday to justify his 1233 COMMUTATIONS WHILE IN OFFICE, (THAT IS ONE EVERY FOUR DAYS), INCLUDING 12 MURDERERS,
his response was:
"Well, Romney has spent millions, and he's desperate, and he's behind, and bla bla bla"....
Hey Huckey, we're still waiting for your answer! Are you waiting for an answer Michael? Or is that, too below the belt? Boy, in the good old days, you would
have been all over Hucabee for that answer, Michael.
Personel attacks are one thing, but challenging ones record while in office is now also out of bounds? Why?
A simple ad pointing out Huck's record, in contrast to Romney's, is now evil and rotten and dirty, according to Medved?
And now, it is you, Michael, who has become the" Grand Contortionist", by labeling those who have challenged your journalistic ineptitude (on this issue,
mind you), as being hyper-sensitive about the anti-mormon issue. Paleeze! As an old friend used to say. Just be fair an equitable, that's all. Up to now your bias
toward Romney is clouding your great analytical mind.
We've always perceived you to be a Manly Man Michael, but this issue is rapidly turning you into a bonafide 1st class "Wussie".
Still the greatest Nation, we're anxiuosly awaiting the return of the Greatest Talk Show Host. If you see him, send him home.
good day
|
|
Is Romney saying if you don't support him you're a biggot?
Or are some of his supporters saying that?
Well, you can find supporters of Huck and practically everyone else that thinks the national will go to Hell if we elect Romney or that God would not listen to Romney's prayers (in direct contradiction with Biblical teaching of course).
Does that make you less likely to suppor the other guys?
It's plainly obvious that one candidate is attempting to use his religious commonality with potential supporters as a wedge between him and Romney. It's plainly obvious that Romney, when he focuses on religion, he spoke of the common ties that bond us and are important for us as a nation.
Which viewpoint do you want to prevail in the United States? We need someone who, instead of pointing out every difference and using it as a deal breaker to co-operation can look for common ground where we can agree and move forward.
I see no benefit to a fractured government in a time when our government MUST make difficult changes if the nation is to endure.
|
|
This whole thing sickens me. I hate when republicans become democrats during the primary season. They attack and sling mud and generally behave like children. I want someone who tells me why he is a good choice for president, not why the other guy sucks.
Frankly the Mitt and Mike campaigns need to stop all of this nonsense and get back to telling us what they stand for. Huck has tried to slight mormanism just as Mitt has tried to indicate that the Huck campaign is anti-Morman. Both of them need to start acting like adults. |
|
|
I enjoy your radio program Michael, but you have your head in the sand when it comes to evagelicals hatred of mormons. |
|
|
Romney said when blacks were finally allowed to join the LDS institution he cried. HE DID NOT SAY THAT THE RACIST POLICY WAS WRONG. This alone should make ALL AMERICANS very concerned about his leadership. Anyone who puts revelation knowledge ahead of social policy is not qualified to lead a nation of many religions, races and cultures. Romney should denounce the racist views of his religious institution before asking americans to trust him as a leader of this nation. |
|
|
When a presidential candidate makes a public speech addressing all americans and says he will remain "true to the faith of his fathers" and then refuses to denounce the racist views of that faith. ALL americans ought to say no to his leadership. In addition, Romney wants to kill embroys with private funding instead of government funding - this is not a culture that supports life and social conservatives ought to let him know by withholding their votes from him. Finally, he claims raising fees to fund mandatory healthcare is different from raising taxes because fees affect the few rich and taxes affect all people. This sounds like an Obama plan to tax the top 6% (households making 95K or more). Romney does not have any shared values with fiscal and social conservatives and Mitt's Money should not buy him the primaries as the "conservative candidate". IF REPUBLICANS NOMINATE ROMNEY, THEY WILL BE THE OFFICIAL RACIST PARTY AND DEMOCRATS OUGHT TO GET THE WHITEHOUSE FOR IT! |
|
|
to denounce the racist views of his religious institution and then stop pretending to be a conservative by owning up to the fact that he does support embroynic stem cell research and prefers that states handle abortion (just like Rudy says, its a states issue) and this is pro-choice. This would mean he still looses but keeps his respect. Also, we want Romney to stop lying that the faith of his fathers does not impact his decision making because it does! |
|
|
Saying "The Jews killed Christ" is most definitely a smear of Jewish people (see Passion of the Christ). The similarity here is that both are statements that have some truth but are taken out of context to become an attack. |
|
|
religion card, not Mitt Romney. It has taken me some time to admit it, but Huckabee is the one to keep religion at the forefront of this campaign, not Romney. I frankly was disappointed with Gov. Huckabee's latest overtly "vote for me, I'm a Christian" ad. I guess what bothers me about his ad, is that in a way, it really is pandering to those of us who are Christians. Even the subtle window/cross in the background was cheesy. We as Christians are intelligent voters. We don't need someone treating us like children. I feel like this is a critical time for voters to know where the candidates stand on important issues facing our country. I'm glad that Gov. Huckabee is a Christian, but so is my uncle (who also happens to be a minister). Just because my uncle is a fantastic God loving man of faith, doesn't necessarily qualify him to be President of the United States. |
|
|
I feel that if Gov. Huckabee had a strong record and platform, he wouldn't need to resort to the "warm, fuzzy" commercials based solely on emotion, as opposed to concrete information that is pertinent and relevant to show us why he is capable of running the most powerful nation in the world. Also, this ad just reinforces to others who don't wear the label "Christian" on their sleeves, that Huckabee is still just a Southern Baptist Minister with lots of folksy quotes and Chuck Norris glued to his elbow. I believe voters will have a very hard time seeing him as a representative for ALL Americans as our President. I really believe this ad will do him more harm than good. Especially on a national level. It just reinforces the whole "right-wing evangelical zealot" impression that even I, as a Christian, have begun to feel uncomfortable with. I'm glad Romney sticks to issues, points out differences in platforms (not faith), and doesn't just try to win a "guilt" vote from me because I am a Christian. Michael, I like you very much, but you're really wrong on this one. |
|
It seems your level of proof is much lower than most. The "Romney push-polled himself" theory is and was a internet conspiracy theory.
Mitt would be having it both ways if he proclaimed himself a "Christian Leader" and then refused to answer why this is relevant.
|
|
I've listened to your show for almost 9 years now. I love ya man, but you're unhinged over Huckabee.
HE.
IS.
NOT.
READY.
Huckabee is just an absolute lightweight on SO many issues it's just clear how abysmal his administration would be at this point. Ready his foreign policy speech. It's positively juvenile in it's worldview implications. I'm sorry - but it is.
Romney is simply - far and away - the best cantidate in the republican field. And yet massive amounts of evangelicals have flocked to Huckabee based on what??
His religion, that's what. Or rather - the fact that he's not Mormon.
Ask yourself this one question:
If Romney was Methodist, Presbyterian or any other kind of traditional protestant - can you HONESTLY, deep down in your heart say that he would not be leading the field easily in Iowa?
I think if your answer is anything other than, "Yes, I conceed that he would be." You're simply not being honest with us or yourself.
There is a lot of bigotry out there, and it's making a difference in this election unfortunately.
In defense of Romney himself, he's never even reproved anyone for not wanting to vote for him based on whatever reason they choose personally. He's just said that if people rule him out based solely on religion, they're not being very American in their criteria.
I agree with him.
All evangelicals are doing is handing a loaded gun to the MSM that will promptly be turned on ANY devoutly religious person who seeks office.
Catholics, Mormons, Jews. Even Evangelicals. |
|
|
Unless you come up with a new meaning for bigot, I am not a bigot. I won't vote for him (and others) because he is a R-I-N-O-! |
|
I could care less about his Mormonism, but his flip-flopping record and the arrogance with which he claims to have changed his views is so bloody transparent it makes me nauseous.
It's this duplicity that derailed John Kerry's campaign, and has Democrats salivating over a Romney nomination in '08.
Social conservatives should hop on the Huckabee bandwagon or rally behind McCain or Thompson rather than backing this shyster, Romney.
|
|
|
is the price for stopping this lying republican then its well worth it! Does anyone care to defend why Romney made up an NRA endorsement. Even Hugh conceded that it was a mistake. Also, does anyone care to explain the difference between killing embroys with private funding and not government funding - in terms of a social conservative who wants a culture of life to be promoted at the federal level. Also, saying states ought to decide about abortion is a pro-choice position so Romney is pro-choice. He is a lying racist. Nominating this guy will officially make republicans the official racist party and I will immediately become an independent! What a shame!!!! |
|
|
comparing him to Romney. At least Kerry had one flip flop and he took responsibility for insulting soldiers. Romney has blamed everybody else for all the poor decisions he has made - from the contractor who he paid to use illegal aliens on his lawn to his dead relative who he blames for wanting abortion to be "safe and legal" and of course my favorite - LDS racist policies were given by revelation so he can't say they were wrong. Yikes!!!!! making up an NRA endorsement is yet to get a defense, who made Mitt do that? |
|
This is going to be another multi-parter, sorry.
Sarah wrote [edited, slightly, for clarity]: “Dr. Bob, we want Romney to denounce the racist views of his religious institution and then stop pretending to be a conservative by owning up to the fact that he does support embryonic stem cell research and prefers that states handle abortion (just like Rudy says, its a states’ issue) and that this is pro-choice. This would mean he still loses but keeps his respect. Also, we want Romney to stop lying that the faith of his fathers does not impact his decision making because it does!”
First, if you would have him make every effort to lose, then you are obviously trying to undermine his campaign. Thus, such “free advice” is poisoned by your bias and merits rejection regardless of its contents.
Second, to whatever degree Mormonism has a racist/sexist background, it’s “history,” and your perseveration recalls that of the MSM (and the Hucksters) who harbor thinly-veiled sinister motives when avoiding issues-laden discussions. Thus, you should please appreciate the commonality of Mitt (as a Republican) with yourself (I hope).
Third, if you recall Romney’s “Faith” speech, you will please remember that he specifically decried the use of Religious-Testing, as ensconced within the Constitution; no one (and I blogged this @ Townhall.com overnight) challenged any of his citations (including the most pungent one, from Sam Adams, advising prayer). Thus, learn that there is a distinction between how one makes sausage and whether one enjoys consuming the end-product, and recognize that you share his values (I hope).
|
|
Fourth, specifically, you are advising that he detail his views on faith-based issues, unprecedented even when one recalls JFK’s speech; that the Vatican wouldn’t tell him what to do is akin to Mitt’s uttering identical phraseology regarding Salt Lake City. Thus, if you cannot stomach this as an endpoint, your ideology is consuming your intellect.
Fifth, if you recall how he crafted a distinction between upholding campaign promises (not to restrict abortion) and honoring his ethical transformation (regarding stem cell research), you will appreciate how—as Governor—he BOTH ensured that all bills he signed were pro-life AND declined to erode precedent. Thus, you should please consider appreciating his maturity of profound ethics and executive conduct.
Sixth, you could note that the issue of Federalism (applied to the minimum wage, to abortion, to health care reform) is a constant dynamic in the judiciary, and thereby understand how he has settled upon what you should (as a Conservative) want to have ensconced in the Presidency, namely, a desire to minimize actions arising in D.C. Thus, please refrain from attacking a specific evolutionary concept [no pun intended] when trying to learn how he has refined his overall approach to government…through having participated therein.
Seventh, and I will “rest” after making this brief point, when you accuse him of lying when he explains that his heritage will inform his decision-making (but not control it), you are besmirching your credibility. Thus, if you cannot cogently reply to these points (without going ad-hominem), you should please desist from trashing Mitt (and, by extension, promoting Huck).
|
|
I wish you do become an independent. You are a wingnut! I have been reading your blather on sites all over and you ahve such a hatred for Mitt Romney that is unbelievable. He is not a racist (his father stood for civil rights and marched with Dr. King as Mitt has said over and over). My church is not racist in the least. The savior when he was on the earth himself only came to preach and teach to the Jews. Certainly Jesus wasn't a racist. I don't know why the Lord up until 1978 did not allow blacks to recieve the priesthood. They were still members of the church. Just as I don't know why Jesus didn't come and teach ALL people? Do you know what he was thinking? What is silly about all this is that this conversation has nothing to do with taxes, immigration, war in Iraq, etc. I think that is why the Founders were smart enough to see we didn't want to go into having to explain doctrine to run for President of the United States. You don't see LDS people asking ALL these other churches about methods of baptism-sprinkling, immersion, don't need it at all- or who exactly was Jesus praying to in the Garden of Gethsemane? Who's voice was it that said "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." if they are the same being. How come there are so many churches if you all claim to study from the same Bible-which the LDS faith uses as well??? See there are so many questions that do not pertain to the presidency of the country. So give it a rest would you?
BTW all you that bring up about Romney's sons not serving we in the military couldn't give a rip about that!! Only about 1% of the country serves in the military and almost ANY politicians kids don't serve...I know Duncan Hunter and McCain's have but it their choice to VOLUNTEER. We in the military wish you'd quit comparing what you think others kids should do a rest. We welcome anyone but it is not to be a political issue because it is a weak argument. |
|
I wish you do become an independent. You are a wingnut! I have been reading your blather on sites all over and you ahve such a hatred for Mitt Romney that is unbelievable. He is not a racist (his father stood for civil rights and marched with Dr. King as Mitt has said over and over). My church is not racist in the least. The savior when he was on the earth himself only came to preach and teach to the Jews. Certainly Jesus wasn't a racist. I don't know why the Lord up until 1978 did not allow blacks to recieve the priesthood. They were still members of the church. Just as I don't know why Jesus didn't come and teach ALL people? Do you know what he was thinking? What is silly about all this is that this conversation has nothing to do with taxes, immigration, war in Iraq, etc. I think that is why the Founders were smart enough to see we didn't want to go into having to explain doctrine to run for President of the United States. You don't see LDS people asking ALL these other churches about methods of baptism-sprinkling, immersion, don't need it at all- or who exactly was Jesus praying to in the Garden of Gethsemane? Who's voice was it that said "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." if they are the same being. How come there are so many churches if you all claim to study from the same Bible-which the LDS faith uses as well??? See there are so many questions that do not pertain to the presidency of the country. So give it a rest would you?
BTW all you that bring up about Romney's sons not serving we in the military couldn't give a rip about that!! Only about 1% of the country serves in the military and almost ANY politicians kids don't serve...I know Duncan Hunter and McCain's have but it their choice to VOLUNTEER. We in the military wish you'd quit comparing what you think others kids should do a rest. We welcome anyone but it is not to be a political issue because it is a weak argument. |
|
[this is another two-parter, sorry]
While I was composing the prior two messages, you appear to have become unhinged.
[I guess there is no “rest” for the weary!]
First, although a bit indelicate, what Mitt was trying to say with regard to the NRA is that he had won its support in a fashion that demonstrated statesmanship, when he shepherded a compromise bill through the legislature that both banned and verified. As one commentator on TownHall.com averred, if this was the only slip he made (which he corrected, somewhat, when he elaborated), then he did quite well when confronted by Tim Russert’s carefully-prepared queries.
BTW, is it true that Huck was to have appeared next week, but cancelled (as I read on this web-site)?
Second, I really wish you’d stop using the word “lying” all the time; even the disinterested reader is turned-off by such rhetoric, because you portray yourself as so helplessly biased that you are actually blogging more to satisfy internal drives than to elucidate truths.
Third, comparing Mitt to Kerry is beyond absurd, for only the latter has flip-flop-flip-flopped repeatedly and inexplicably; again, you are self-marginalizing your comments, dissuading the busy reader from wasting his/her time when your name is shown as the author of a subsequent comment. [And, yes, if you don’t heed such advice, I will include myself in that category; have you responded to my prior two-installment memo?]
|
|
[continued, and, hopefully, concluded]
Fourth, Mitt doesn’t blame anyone for his errors, the mark of a seasoned CEO. Rather, he explains that he gives people (such as contractors) second chances. And then he continues (as when he was challenged by Rudy) to decry any suggestion that he should survey people working on his property for language-defects, and then “card” them. I’d say the compassionate conservative would resonate with the views and behavior he has espoused…even as he (as noted in another essay today on this web-site) doesn’t want discretionary tax-$$$ spent on the education of Illegal Aliens (and wants them not to be forgiven) as does Huck.
Fifth, I concur with “g2825m” when he suggests that you may wish to follow your heart…and become Independent. You poison discussions with your vitriol, for you fail to respond to the bloodletting you provoke.
Sixth, returning to the issue of MM’s column, it seems that he has articulated an anti-Mitt posture months ago; if this be documented, it will go a long way to explaining this most recent column. Can anyone provide an on-line reference (text or audio)?
Seventh, I have WORK TO DO, so I will try again to “rest”!
|
|
|
Medved, there are bigoted comments calling the LDS church a cult in this very thread. Is the smearing of Romney completely imaginary? Did Huck's little aside about Mormons and Satan escape your notice? |
|
Better be careful Mike. Daring to write the truth like this may get Bain Capital / Clear Channel to exercise the newly purchased arm of the Mitt Romney machine to terminate your contract. Seriously though, it's good to see at least one of the Clear Channel / Townhall.com personalities has not caved to the Romney campaign.
Maybe in your next article you can explore Romney's record as a RINO. Then you will truly be a religious bigot for daring to expose this died-in-the-wool liberal for who he really is. In fact, the whole bigot card is straight out of the liberal play book and would make a great starting point for an article on RINO Romney.
|
|
He now thinks Romney is manipulating people to vote for him because he is a Mormon!? Oh my goodness, that’s rich.
It’s in fact Mike Huckabee that continues to look more and more like a less viable candidate. In fact, I’m leaving the GOP party if the man gets the nod. And I’m reading that a lot on blogs so I don’t think I’m going to have a hard time convincing other Republicans to do the same.
Actually, I read a blog that said, which I’ll plagiarize a bit, that said, “not only will I quit the GOP, I will join Kierkegaard and go after all of Christendom!”
Huckabee is bad for the GOP, he is bad for evangelicals and he is bad for America. He, not Mitt, has turned American politics into something akin to the Sunni/Shiite hate spewing doctrinal divide.
Also, I heard Bill Donohue. President of the Catholic League, say that Huckabee had to fire folks from his staff because they were anti-Catholics. Did he fire them all?
Poster cd nailed MM’s insincerity with their question: “If Mitt were Jewish and Huckabee had asked “Didn’t Jews kill Christ?” would you be so hesitant to acknowledge his religious smear?”
Huckabee is going to sink the GOP if he hasn’t already. He is probably the single worst presidential candidate either party has ever seen.
Actually, all I want for Christmas is to never hear the name Huckabee and all it's stupid manifestations for a long time.
|
|
|
Michael Medved you really should stick to movie reviews. Your great with FICTION and Fanitisy! Michael you need to leave the Pugit Sound and see that the rest of America is not like Washington. Oh and I bet you would be the first person to complain if people were passing out the protocols of Zion. (which is wrong)Did you know that Anti-Mormon books were being passed out during Huckabees speach at the SBC conference in 1998. Oh and Huckabee knows nothing about the religion. Maybe he doesnt since his theology degree might not even be real. But Im sure you have some excuse for that and then you will acuse people of me as calling people Bigots. |
|
|
You should read Frank Pastore's column on Christians...Your points contradicts it. |
|
Mike Huckabee was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax increaser and spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent, boosting the levies on gasoline and cigarettes. The Arkansas Leader.com editorialized that Mike Huckabee raised more taxes in 10 years in office than Bill Clinton did in his 12 years.
Two months after taking office, Huckabee stunned the state by saying he questioned rapist Wayne DuMond's guilt and that it was his intention to free the rapist, DuMond murdered a women in Illinois after Huckabee set him free
Huckabee battled conservatives within his own party who were pushing for stricter state-level immigration measures, such as:.
- proof of legal status when applying for state services that aren’t federally mandated
- proof of citizenship when registering to vote
- Huckabee failed in his effort to make children of illegal immigrants eligible for state-funded scholarships and in-state tuition to Arkansas colleges.
He joined the Democratic chorus in indicting President Bush for his "arrogant bunker mentality." Is he in the right party? he joined the Democratic amen chorus in indicting President Bush for his "arrogant bunker mentality."
Huck’s use of the “Christian Leader” title and his attempt to denigrate Mitt Romney’s religion is a thinly-veiled attempt to impose a religious test in violation of Article Six of the Constitution
Mike fails on so many levels as a true conservative.
The Huckster was the keynote speaker at an anti-Mormon conference in Salt Lake City. And he knows nothing about Mormons? And the "Christian Leader" doesn't want to release his sermons?
The moniker "Huckster" is well-earned.
|
|
For those who do want to know about Mormons, one of the first things to learn about is Joseph Smith
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHcnnkshRyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghYCqOWhIBM&feature=related
(BTW, I'm of the belief that this should not be relevant to a presidential campaign.) |
|
|
(my last post is in response to Mark - comment Tuesday, December, 18, 2007 6:07 AM) |
|
|
Romney is being asked to explain his statement of "remaining true to his father's faith" and don't insult JFK by comparing him to Romney. He made Religion an issue - now he should answer questions about his speech. He refused to say that the racist views held by his religious institution were wrong. That is what most americans call RACIST. When you and other Romniacs say shared values, you should add "of political expediency". Most moral people do not believe in destroying embroys even when using private funding. Also, most people know what they believe about abortion by age 60 but Mitt's revelation 2 years ago makes him a fake. Finally, he lied about an NRA endorsement during his MTP interview. Most americans call people who do not tell the truth LIARS. Hence the racist, lying rich mormon republican title. His polls are ranging from 11-25% after millions of dollars and 3 years of Romney all the time radio - do the projections. No mormon in the whitehouse. |
|
|
who knock on doors uninvited to preach about spaceships taking saints to procreate eternal worshippers. Refrain from the name calling please. I will become independent only if Romniac is nominated so don't rush me - am just getting started to exercise my right to express my genuine disgust for romniac or is freedom of expression only for those who knock on doors. Get over it! |
|
Romney is a "guy is so obviously qualified and brilliant and charismatic and wonderful" that their is no rational reason not to vote for him.
None of his critics have any rational reason. He is not flip flopper for having corrected one erroneous position on abortion. All other accusations of flip-flopping are distortions and could easily be said of all other candidates. He can be trusted as he carried out each of 100 campaign promises while Governor. Not a soul who knows him does not trust him. He is right on the issues. He has the best record of success and conservative positive change.
And there is a large, vocal, anti-mormon contingent whose life's work is to denigrate that noble faith. If you do not believe it, try a websearch. No other religion in America suffers such hate in the open like this. The despicable tactics of trashing all things held sacred and holy in an effort to destroy the faith are obvious. Try covering Salt Lake Temple Square during their semi-annual conference.
While other American religions may also be persecuted, their persecuters are clever and sly and less organized, and tend not to advertise their hate. That is not the case for Mormons whose persecuters are large groups and well-organized and educating themselves in conferences and weekly sunday school. It is truly unAmerican. Where are the civil rights leaders who will call a stop to this outrage?
That Romney has done so well inspite of it speaks more of him than of his detractors. |
|
|
promises were kept and that is why political expediency is the only reason that an objective republican can see Romniac has changed his mind on ALL MAJOR SOCIAL ISSUES. Romniacs are asking republicans to use Romney's experience as governor to nominate him, but to ignore parts of his record as governor that are very disturbing to a conservative - huh? It is obvious as his positions change with political expediency in mind - the strategy of selling "shared moral values" to conservatives is back firing. Fiscal conservatives know fees are taxes, even if Romney is trying to say they aren't. Social conservatives know that killing embroys with priviate funding vs. govt. funding, is not a position that respects life. Dark skinned people believe these truths to be self evident "that all people are created equal" and any person who worships a god who calls dark skin cursed as and refuses to denounce this position, is applying for presidency a few years too late. This is why Mitt's market share is diminishing faster than his new found conservative platform. This racist, lying, mormon republican will never convince americans that his MBA/JD from harvard is more important than a basic belief in conservative issues. And that is why I am a proud american who is disgusted to think my party is even considering this man as a viable nominee. |
|
|
"Romney will keep his campaign promises" to understand why Romney is a liar. The list is too long. Also, trying to explain why he lied about his NRA endorsement is pathetic, even Hugh acknowledged it. Hey, this brilliant JD/MBA also wants americans to believe that his contractor made him employ illegal aliens without his consent - what happened to just taking responsibility for one's actions? Nobody is getting fooled by your long worded arguments - they just make it worse because your education does not seem to offer you any insights into the basic requirement of holding people to their word. |
|
All this talk about religion and who is holier than thou is just nonsense. Sure, there are Evangelicals who will vote for Huckabee. Just like there are Conservative Elites that will vote for Romney. However, there are those of us that do not and have not been to church in over 5 years that still like Huckabee.
I like Mike because he is as authentic as a politician gets, yes I know every candidate has skeletons in their closet. He has a stance on issues I care about and he sticks by them even if they aren't the going trend for that particular time or location. He is not afraid of uniting the country rather than dividing it more with partisan attacks.
The reasons I do not like Romney have nothing to do with religion, although a lot of people view it as their #1 reason for not liking him. Their argument is a persons beliefs (faith) does influence their values and morals and they simply do not agree with the mormon teachings. For me, I don't like Romney because of his convenient timing of changing views on very big issues. He runs for governor of a liberal state and takes liberal views. Then he decides he wants to run for president as a republican and changes his views to conservative. I don't care what anyone says, that is not coincidence. To me, Romney is no different than Clinton as they are both so rehearsed they act like robots. They are groomed like prize poodles. They both change their message slightly depending on who they are talking to. They have flipped flopped on key issues within their own party. They have spent a ton of money to run mostly negative campaigns because they are unable to stand on their own merits. The list goes on and on.
The sad part is these two, Romney and Clinton, will likely be the candidates for president because they are the main stream media choice. If that does happen, I think the Democrats will do fine and be stronger for it but I think the Republican party will be so fractured, it may take 20 years to recover, if ever. |
|
I think Mike was first to suggest Ron Paul a Religious bigot because his articles appeared in a newspaper that had articles by holocaust deniers and articles that were ant-semitic.
Mike is qiuck to point out bigotry toward his faith, and rightly so.
However it's ashame he has such a double standard toward people not of his faith. |
|
Words to the Song:
On the "First" day of Christmas Mike Huckabee gave to me:
1st.A tax hike to make me scream.
2nd. No IRS
3rd. Anti Mormon Slogans
4th. All his hidden Sermons
5th. Walker Texas Ranger
6th. Meetings with Teran
7th.his Fabricated Theology Degree
8th.a place to sign on his target registry
9th.Tuition for illegals.
10th. Ten Convicted Murders
11th. A slam on Bush foreign polic
12th.Hillary and that is Scary |
|
"Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats...
Rick Beltram, chairman of the Spartanburg County, S.C., Republican Party that hosted a Romney fund-raiser in February, said South Carolina's Republican presidential primary voters may think twice about supporting a Massachusetts governor whose judicial picks had been 'actively lobbying for gay marriage.'
'That could be a problem,' Beltram said.
At the same time, Beltram said he suspects Romney's judicial choices reflect 'smart politics,' given that Republicans constitute just 13 percent of Massachusetts registered voters."
Search Boston.com for the whole article titled "Romney Jurist Picks Not Tilted to GOP"
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
I say enough with the politicians who play 'smart politics' - whatever happened to principled leadership? I'm voting for Huckabee.
|
|
|
Question was George Washington a raciest for owning slaves? I bring this up because you said "Dark skinned people believe these truths to be self evident "that all people are created equal" and any person who worships a god who calls dark skin cursed as and refuses to denounce this position, is applying for presidency a few years too late." Giving reference to passages made in The Book of Mormon. First you should read the whole book and not take it out of context. But also understand that people of ancient times were much more barbaric then we are to day and didn't think of races and racism the same way we do. Even if you think The Book of Mormon was made up by Joseph Smith, Joseph lived before the Civil War and therefore could have though, what would have been the norm of that day, that other races are inferior. So again I ask If you think George Washington or any of our founding fathers that owned slaves were raciest and that we are now raciest for believing in the same values that they did. |
|
FYI, Sarah hasn't been reasoned into her opinions so you can't reason her out of them.
She won't listen to cogent thought or your convincing rationale's. She simply wants to spew her bigotry and hatred of Mitt Romney.
Your logic and intelligent arguments are lost on people like Sarah. She's a gonner.
|
|
"The reasons I do not like Romney have nothing to do with religion, although a lot of people view it as their #1 reason for not liking him."
Translation: I'm not a bigot but I know a lot.
I hear this a lot from Huckabee supporters. And what their doing is parroting Huck's straddle as Krauthammer illustrates here:
"Huckabee has been asked about this view that Mormonism is a cult. He dodges and dances. "If I'm invited to be the president of a theological school, that'll be a perfectly appropriate question," he says, "but to be the president of the United States, I don't know that that's going to be the most important issue that I'll be facing when I'm sworn in."
Hmmm. So it is an issue, Huckabee avers. But not a very important one.
And he's not going to pronounce upon it. Nice straddle, leaving the question unanswered and still open -- the kind of maneuver one comes to expect from slick former governors of Arkansas lusting for the presidency."
It's beyond me why someone as intelligent as Medved would back such a weak candidate.
|
|
Enough already. Forget Huck, Romney and all the imposters...vote for Duncan Hunter...the real conservative.
Political comment paid for by People Who Have Actually Heard of Duncan Hunter. |
|
I recognized that Sarah is irrational, but my posts yesterday were intended to speak to those who may be bouncing-between Mitt and Huck.
The goal was to take her at face value, and then address would might not have been initially articulated, but what might actually reflect her innermost thoughts.
I was not disappointed, for her bedrock views are nasty, particularly if she is merely asked to apply them to her Huck-supporters.
"Dr. Bob - simply put" recapitulates charges that had been refuted, without advancing any knowledge-base; it's conclusion ["His polls are ranging from 11-25% after millions of dollars and 3 years of Romney all the time radio - do the projections. No mormon in the whitehouse."] both is untrue (Romney launched only a year ago) and bigoted (the last line).
"Dr. Bob, campaign" focuse on social issues, but it doesn't take into account his MTP interview (which she says she watched), during which he provided cogent clarifications to each of them; Russert scored no "gotcha" moments, and she sidestepped the rejoinder that her-boy Huck has refused to subject himself to a comparable interrogation.
"Dr Bob, refer to Hope Yen's column" is not easily rebutted, because I haven't seen it.
THUS, Sarah (assuming she represents the most committed of all Hucksters) has failed to shake the commitment of this Romniac to the conclusion that he would be the best person to unify the GOP against any D (such as Edwards...watch him!).
|
|
In her first post (following my marathon), she concluded Mitt merits a "racist, lying, rich mormon republican title."
Not withstanding the fact that we would all want to be Rich, and that we are all nominal Republicans, the obvious focus is on Mormonism's alleged Racism.
Does anyone recall any political candidate being asked to defend (discuss in detail) his/her religion's tenets?
So why should Mitt? And why shouldn't Huck?
For example, did he lead a Southern Baptist Convention that sported anti-LDS programming?
Would she disqualify Catholics such as JFK because they didn't renounce what Pope John XXIII was to accomplish during the Second Ecumenical Conference, a half-decade hence?
And in an earlier post, she claimed Mitt introduced the religion criterion, when it is clear to most pundits that his "Faith" speech was composed in reply to the noise created by people such as herself; can she claim that the latest Huckster-ad was also issued in response to anything Mitt said/did on this issue?
Or is Huckster now retreating behind religious cloaks to avoid replying to the specifics in Mitt's ads?
|
|
Romney has tried to leave religion out of his campaign all along. The pundits (and Americans in general) essentially forced Mitt into giving his religion speech.
Mitt's campaign platform supports both a pro-life position as well as a federal marriage amendment...something no other front-runner (except Huckabee) supports. On those two issues alone, conservative evangelicals should have been sprinting to Romney's support long before anyone knew who Huck even was.
Unlike Huckabee - Romney is a fiscal conservative. Romney is tougher on illegal immigration that all other candidates. Romney isn't as strong as McCain on foreign policy, but at least his foriegn policy is better than "staying at a Holiday Inn Express last night;" at least Romney understands Iran (wherein Huck is clueless.)
These are some of the most important issues to conservatives and Romney is miles ahead of all other candidates on every one of them - yet he lacks support from the base.
Bigotry against mormons seems to be the only possible explanation as to why the base is not flocking to someone who is a true conservative on all the most important issues. |
|
"wingnuts are people who knock on doors uninvited to preach about spaceships taking saints to procreate eternal worshippers."
Oh how ironic, in your ramblings about Mormons being racist you show some of your true colors. I commend Dr. Bob and other who are attempting to debate with you. Personally, I found out a long time ago that you can reason with crazy. |
|
|
I always thought that Mormons were good and decent people. Now I'm left wondering if they are terribly insecure people with a victim mentality. LDSers can prove me wrong by stop calling me a bigot when I stat MY opinion that their religion is -dare I say it- wrong. |
|
Does Mitt really want to be President or is he just fulfilling his father dream? I don't know how anyone can emotionally connect with Romney. Whether its the John Edwards hair or John Kerry flipping. I see Romney as the tin man in the wizard of oz looking for a heart. Hucklebee has fire, and takes firm positions, unreasoned as they may seem. He's the Lion-just looking for a brain. I probably agree with Romney more often then not, but there is no spark. Being a pro-choice, non-secular conservative I should fall into Ron Paul's camp. I don't know why but I looked into Hucklebee eyes and saw the candidate for me.
|
|
I'm LDS.
I couldn't care less when people say my religion is wrong...unless they do so with misinformation. (Then I correct them pretty quickly and pretty strongly.) That's because I have integrity, not because I'm insecure. That's another issue entirely.
Back to Romney.
If pro-life, pro-marriage-amendment, anti-illegal-immigration, fiscal conservatism, smaller-government, lower taxes, and more efficient government are important to you in this election - Romney is the only one who has that whole package. Every other candidate comes up short on at least two of those categories.
It's one thing to disagree with various components of Romney's platform - but its quite another to disqualify his candidacy on the sole basis of his faith (especially if the disqualification is at the peril of some of your own conservative principles.)
People who support another candidate because they disagree with Romney's campaign platform are not the bigots - When I say bigot, I am speaking solely to those who agree in principle with most everything in Romney's platform, yet who sacrifice some of those conservative principles (ie: Huckabee...fiscal conservatism...illegal immigration...soft on crime) so that they don't have to vote for a mormon.
If you agree with Romney's agenda, but are voting for a candidate whom you truly believe is less-qualified, less-conservative because of Romney's mormonism - I hate to break it to you, but you are a bigot.
Sorry if that's too blunt, but its true. |
|
|
Approximately half of Huck's Iowa supporters don't support him strongly...If that hesitancy to fully support Huck isn't some indication of those who have sacrificed some of their conservative principles to line up behind Huck, then I don't know what is. |
|
Michael, I'm glad that you have taken this on becuase I agree with you, but I would go even further than you.
The strategy of the Mitt Romney camp seems to me to be right out of the Left Wing Playbook. What I mean by that is that rather than dealing with the issue or having an intelligent conversation, Romney's campaign is simply minimizing any critic as a hatemonger, or a bigot. This goes against the conservative ideals that I hold dear.
But I would go even further than you. I believe, as a conservative, that all belief systems and cultures are not created equal. I believe that I get to decide that if any person holds a belief system and is faithful to it, it says something about that person. If I believe that a certain belief system is kooky and lacks any intellectual, historical, or biblical basis, no matter what its fruits, I get to use that as part of my decision making process not vote for that person because of it.
I respect someone's right to be a Mormon, and I respect Mitt Romney's rights to believe as he sees fit. I also need my right respected to not vote for him for president because of it without being labeled a bigot.
The denial of a great priviledge, meaning my presidential vote, is not the same thing as denying the basic rights given to citizens or actively campaigning to destroy or discredit a belief system.
This also minimizes real bigotry.
No one enslaving them or making them sit on the back of the bus as African Americans endured, or exterminating them or denying them basic participation (as Jews endured), or murdering them and burning down their Churches (as Catholics endured).
R
|
|
"If I believe that a certain belief system is kooky and lacks any intellectual, historical, or biblical basis, no matter what its fruits, I get to use that as part of my decision making process not vote for that person because of it."
Those who hold this view of mormonism are EXTREMELY mis-informed, but if that is truly the lens through which you view mormonism, I'd replace "bigoted" with "ignorant."
|
|
whole are great people, great Americans and have terrific values. Mitt and his sycophants are something else.
They need to stop hiding behind the skirts of anti Mormon bigotry. The vast majority of Huck's supporters would be happy to vote for a worthy Mormon.
Good for Medved for his clarity and honesty. |
|
Please clarify. I have investigated and read the book of mormon. I have formed my own theological objections. Here is one from Catholic answers. Is this ignorance? I honestly don't know. Pleae enlighten me.
The Book of Mormon itself suffers the same fate when it comes to its own historical support. In a word, it hasn’t got any.
The Book of Mormon describes a vast pre-Columbian culture that supposedly existed for centuries in North and South America. It goes into amazingly specific detail describing the civilizations erected by the "Nephites" and "Lamanites," who were Jews that fled Palestine in three installments, built massive cities in the New World, farmed the land, produced works of art, and fought large-scale wars which culminated in the utter destruction of the Nephites in A.D. 421. The Latter-Day Saints revere the Book of Mormon as the divinely-inspired record of those people and of Christ’s appearance to them shortly after his crucifixion in Jerusalem.
The awkward part for the Mormon church is the total lack of historical and archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. For example, after the cataclysmic last battle fought between the Nephites and Lamanites, there was no one left to clean up the mess. Hundreds of thousands of men and beasts allegedly perished in that battle, and the ground was strewn with weapons and armor.
Keep in mind that A.D. 421 is just yesterday in archaeological terms. It should be easy to locate and retrieve copious evidence of such a battle, and there hasn’t been enough time for the weapons and armor to turn to dust. The Bible tells of similar battles that have been documented by archaeology, battles which took place long before A.D. 421.
The embarrassing truth—embarrassing for Mormons, that is—is that no scientist, Mormon or otherwise, has been able to find anything to substantiate that such a great battle took place.
|
|
To say that there is lack of ANY archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon simply elevates your stupidity flag a little higher up on the pole.
Here are two discussions on Book of Mormon Archaeology:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMEvidence.shtml
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Archaeology_and_the_ Book_of_Mormon.pdf
Additionally - this next article draws many resemblences between the (Apostatized) Meso-American God of Worship (Quetzacoatl) and Jesus Christ...which would imply some sort of connection at some earlier point in time. (Similarities include: Quetzalcoatl was the Creator, that he was born of a virgin, that he was a god of the air and earth (in his manifestation as the Feathered Serpent), that he was white and bearded, that he came from heaven, that he raised the dead, and that he promised to return.)
Full Article here: http://text.farmsresearch.com/display.php?id=298&table=jbm s
Even though the Bible has had far more time and resources dedicated to proving its authenticity archaeologically, the Book of Mormon is not without ANY archaeological evidence as you suggested earlier.
Again - you elevate the flag of Stupidity when you make such claims. |
|
I didn't intend for this to turn into a discussion about mormonism, but somehow Romney opponents always turn it into one.
Back to Romney - He is a very intelligent, successful candidate. His platform possesses more conservative principles than any other candidate.
If Americans reject the most qualified, conservative candidate on the sole basis of his faith - Americans lose. |
|
|
|
I didn't meant to get dragged into a theological discussion about mormonism. However, no one has answered my central question. I regret that I used some words that deflected from my central point.
If I disagree with mormonism and I don't wish to vote for a mormon because ot it. I have looked at the issue carefully and am not "stupid" or "ignorant" as I have been called by my mormon friend hawk, am I a bigot?
I am not making an ignorant and sweeping generalization like "I won't vote for Obama because he's black (I have other reasons not to vote for Obama, like what he believes)."
Its the same as the homosexual marriage debate. I think homosexual marriage is wrong. Voting with my conscience in that case does not make me a bigot, then why does it when it comes to mormonism? I wouldn't vote for an atheist or a muslim either. I venture to guess that neither would a mormon. Does that make all of us bigots?
I think not.
|
|
Hawk was calling you ignorant because you said there is no historical, biblical, etc basis for Mormonism. I'll grant you that there are still many problems and questions with the Book of Mormon, but to say that there is no basis in the aspects you mention is ignoring quite a bit of circumtanical evidence.
To you actual point, yes I think if you would not vote for Mitt because of his religion (only) then that is considered bigotry. Same if he were Jewish or Muslim.
Just a quick question. What is your reasoning behind not voting for a Mormon? |
|
Yes - I would consider myself a bigot if I refrained from voting for a muslim or jewish candidate who held all the conservative positions I wanted to see in a candidate (and that the sole reason for withholding my vote was on the basis of religion.)
This would be especially evident if the alternate candidate I selected was less in line with my political views than the muslim/jewish candidate.
Maybe you have other reasons for disliking Romney...maybe you are pro-choice...maybe you don't want a federal marriage amendment...maybe you think Romney is too hard on illegal immigration...maybe you like bigger, less efficient government, higher taxes...etc. Maybe you think its a bad idea for everyone to have private (not government) health insurance. Those who don't support Romney because they disagree with his political positions are not the bigots. (Probably not true conservatives either.)
Those who disagree with more of Huck's postitions than Romney's positions - yet support Huck over Romney because of religion are the bigots with no if's, and's, or but's.) Religious bigotry would have elected Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan.
I am not so ignorant as to say we don't have bigotry in this country, but I hate when people won't admit they are bigots.
Admit it and move on! |
|
Thanks at least for asking the question....
Heres why: Mormonism teaches that there was a great apostasy sometime in the 2nd Century and that evil took over the church at that time and that the true word of God was only restored by Joseph Smith through the book of Mormon.
This means to me that everything that occurred in my Church from the time of the beginning of the Apostasy is looked upon by Mormons as "evil."
This means that St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Ignatius of Loyola, St. Catherine of Siena, Pope John Paul II, are all a part of this apostasy and therefore either horribly stupid or evil.
To me, someone who believes that is the true bigot and there is no reconciliation between the two positions. My non vote for a mormon, I see, as a vote against bigotry.
HM |
|
Prior to mid September I liked Romney.
Mitt had money. Business success. The Olympics.
Looked presidential to boot.
The Huckabee debate success caused me to look closer at Mike. Past and present. I also looked closer at Mitt past and present.
Sadly, I find the negative attacks by Mitt hypocritical. Un-Reagan like.
TAX BURDEN:
Mike- went up 1% per yr.
Mitt- went up 2% per yr. (yes,fees count!)
Mike- Fair Tax. (conservatives owe this a look)
Mitt- ? plan ? no tax pledge like Mike
ILLEGAL IMM.:
Both shared the same view until 2006. WEAK!
Mike- Trade w/Mexico looked other way on workers
Mitt- sanctuary cities while Gov.
NOW:
Mike- 9 point plan is tough. (Tuition issue)
Mitt- still avoiding what sounds like amnesty
for those here now. Talking tough.Fence.
CRIME:
Mike- too many pardons...
Mitt- not one in four years? looks political.
compassionate - not.
IRAQ:
Mike- Wants to win it.Build up military.
Mitt- Strong now. called for time-tabled
withdrawl when surge just started.
LIFE:
Mike- Pro life always.
Mitt- Pro life. Was pro choice til now.
Romney's had as many if not more, "then and now"
positions (Flip-Flops) as Huckabee.
I switched. I find when Mitt attacks Mike on topics where Mitt has been weak it's pure hypocrisy.
|
|
The Mormons are the bigots here. Every once in a while a Cult gets a flying start and snow balls into some mamoth operation. This is ths Mormon Church today. Either knowingly or out of blind, military like obedience they follow a "religion that is no more or no less than a gross corruption or caricature of Christianity. Some of them are just to dumb to see it and others know exactly what they are about.
It's bad enough that "God the Father and Jesus" tell some 14 year old farm boy that every religion in existance is teaching error, but then soon after, John the baptist show up to ordain the kid into the priesthood of Aaron. As if that was not enough, Peter James and John show up to ordain the kid into other priesthoods as well. Only two types of people would swallow this fantasy, yokels or charlitans. Which do you people think Romney is. I don't think we need either in the white house.
People, there's a ton of mis information on line about the mormon church. However, all you have to do to see just how cunning or nuts these people are is stick strictlty ro their own website and believe nothing unless it's backed by references to their own "sacred" material.
This thing should never have grown to the size it has, but that's no reason to be sent on a guilt trip or otherwise beguiled by these weirdos. |
|
|
MM you deserve a standing O for this blog. As you can seen by the comments the self appointed biggot-police know as the Romney campaign are fullfilling exactly what you wrote about. Great piece! |
|
Hey Truth
Hebrews 5:4
Where did you get your authority?
You have none. It's the Cathloics or the Mormons,
everybody else is a breakoff.
And everyone who does not subscribe to your particular version is doomed statight to hell?
Nice loving god.
You are a 4th century Credal Christian.
Mormons are first century Restorationist Christians.
Mormons had no problem supporting George Bush who is also a Credal Christian. In fact Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming had a greater percentage of support for Bush than anywhere in the country.
Therefore, Mormons are not Bigots, and can vote for a good man of any persuasion.
Apparently punk bigots like you cannot do the same.
Therefore "Truth" the bigot shoe seems to fit you just fine.
Carry on-Ignorance is bliss
|
|
Yes and no.
Mormonism does teach of a great apostasy, but not that "evil took over" but the Priesthood (authority to act in God's name) was taken from the earth. So no, according to Mormonism, your church isn't evil but misguided. Read this....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
Every religion thinks it's the most correct, this is no different for Mormonism. I don't see how this makes them any more "bigoted" than any other religion. I do, however, think that not voting based on anyone's religion falls well within the definition of bigotry. If some aspect of their religion affects the job they are campaigning for then it's a valid concern.
|
|
Critique of distilled criteria:
TAX BURDEN:
Mike- went up 1% per yr.
Mitt- went up 2% per yr. (yes,fees count!)
NO THEY DO NOT! RECALL THAT MITT INCREASED BILL TO McDONALD'S FOR ROADSIDE-ADS, FOR EXAMPLE.
Mike- Fair Tax. (conservatives owe this a look)
Mitt- ? plan ? no tax pledge like Mike
MITT MAKES NO PLEDGE OTHER THAN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.
ILLEGAL IMM.:
Both shared the same view until 2006. WEAK!
Mike- Trade w/Mexico looked other way on workers
Mitt- sanctuary cities while Gov.
NOW:
Mike- 9 point plan is tough. (Tuition issue)
Mitt- still avoiding what sounds like amnesty
for those here now. Talking tough.Fence.
MIKE GIVES ILLEGALS A PATHWAY-TO-CITIZENSHIP (AMNESTY), BUT MITT DOESN'T.
CRIME:
Mike- too many pardons...
Mitt- not one in four years? looks political.
compassionate - not.
MITT LOOKS FOR JUDICIAL INJUSTICE AND ESCHEWS BLEEDING-HEART ERROR THAT CAN (AND DID) YIELD RECIDIVISM; HUCK ALLEGEDLY PULLED-STRINGS TO AVOID PROSECUTION OF SON (REMEMBER MIKE VICK?) FOR ANIMAL-ABUSE.
IRAQ:
Mike- Wants to win it.Build up military.
Mitt- Strong now. called for time-tabled
withdrawl when surge just started.
MITT DIDN'T CALL PREZ TONE-SETTER OF "ARROGANT BUNKER-MENTALITY."
LIFE:
Mike- Pro life always.
Mitt- Pro life. Was pro choice til now.
MITT SWITCHED YEARS AGO, AND EMULATES OTHERS WHO HAVE LEARNED TO CONFRONT ETHICS OF CLONING.
Romney's had as many if not more, "then and now"
positions (Flip-Flops) as Huckabee.
ROMNEY SEES "GRAY" AND EXPLAINED EVOLUTION ON MtP VERY EFFECTIVELY.
I switched. I find when Mitt attacks Mike on topics where Mitt has been weak it's pure hypocrisy.
MIKE SOUNDS LIKE A D!!!
THUS, YOU SHOULD SWITCH-BACK!!!!!! |
|
"people are is stick strictlty ro their own website and believe nothing unless it's backed by references to their own "sacred" material."
Umm, is wikipedia a "sacred" source for Mormons? I guess to you anything that doesn't say "Mormons are a devil worshiping cult" is considered "misinformation".
"reason to be sent on a guilt trip or otherwise beguiled by these weirdos."
No one here is attempting a "guilt trip", but if you feel guilty then that says something. Not voting for someone because of their religion is by definition bigotry. |
|
More then happy to be a bigot in this situation. Mormonism is a faulty religion and it has been proven over and over again.
Political records are twisted and mud is flung everywhere in the media. What are you to belive? You have to turn to what that person is all about. What can I prove that this guy belives in?
Religion is the best attempt to understand these individuals, and since Mormon doctrine is completely flawed I think I will have to stick with the one constant throughout history... the Holy Bible. Again, not 'another testomoiny of Jesus Christ' (the mormon bible) but the Holy Bible and only the Holy Bible.
I don't understand Mormons... because if they truly BELIVE in the Holy Bible why would they take the chance on any other information out there?
|
|
I am a Roman Catholic. I have a major question for the Mormons out there. Maybe you can clarify something for me. The LDS says that the great Apostasy began sometime immediately after the apostles were killed and the truth was restored by Joseph Smith. I also understand that Mormons believe that along with the Book of Mormon, the Bible is the Divinely revealed word of God.
Here lies my quandry. The Bible did not become "The Bible" by itself. The Gospels were written in most cases AFTER the death of the Apostles. The earliest writings were the Book of Peter and St. Pauls Letters.
Also, not all of the "Gospels" that were written were included in the final Canon. The Final books were not agreed upon until after Jerome's traslation the "Vulgate" was completed sometime around 397 and it was proclaimed by the Council of Hippo in around 400. This is at least 200 years AFTER the beginning of the "Great Apostasy."
I also understand that Mormons utilize the King James Version of the Bible which was completed after the Reformation in the 18th Century. This New Testament also coincidentally contains the same Canon as Jerome's Vulgate.
This would seem to make the Bible itself a product of the "Great Apostacy."
How do Mormons reconcile this? |
|
...the more I realize that the bigots who would rather cast aside their conservative principles than vote for a mormon (although they tend to be very vocal about it) are a much smaller percentage of the GOP than we realize.
I have heard polls indicating that as many as 30% of Americans voters say they "could not vote for a mormon candidate." I suspect many of those are liberal democrats anyway (like the Mitt heckler in the cafe that made the headlines.) I guarantee at least 80% of GOP voters who say they won't vote for a mormon, WILL (upon considering the Hillary alternative.) These folks will come to their senses and understand what is at stake if they allow a pro-choice liberal like Hillary pick the next 3-4 Supreme Court Justices (thereby sticking a daggar into the last 35 years of conservative effort to overturn Roe v. Wade.)
These kinds of attitudes toward Mitt tend to be more prevailent in the south...which is overwhelmingly GOP anyway. Even if (pessimistically) 10% - 15% of southern GOP voters would rather hand Hillary a victory than vote for a Mormon, this will not be significant enough for any southern states to go Blue in 2008.
The battleground states are going to be WI, MI, MN, VA, FL, & OH where the bigoted attitudes toward mormons are less likely to impact Mitt's ability to beat Hillary. |
|
Let me first say that mormons believe the foundation of the church is the apostles and prophets. If the mormon apostles and prophets today were to all die in a plane crash - the mormon church would be in the same predicament that the early church faced after the 1st century A.D. (There would still be plenty of members and believers, but a crucial piece of the authority necessary to run the church and administer the necessary ordinances for salvation would be gone.) We would have to wait until God came and called new apostles.
This predicament would not condemn us to hell or turn us instantly into evil people. We would simply have to continue following the gospel the best we could...doing the very best we can with what we have while praying for God to again restore his authority.
The inspired writings of prophets and apostles are the word of god - scripture. Even if the prophets and apostles are dead, their writings are still scripture.
Just because mormons believe that a crucial piece of authority was gone from the earth during the period of apostasy and that no further revelation took place during that period does not mean mormons believe the earth lacked good, honorable, inspired christian disciples.
Mormons accept that the Bible was compiled and preserved by honorable, inspired christian disciples. Thus we can accept the work as the word of God. |
|
"Let me first say mormons believe the foundation of the church is the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone." Ephesians 2:20
(I left that out earlier because I assumed it was obvious. Unfortunately, enough people consider my faith un-christian that I realized my earlier assumption was a bad one.) |
|
So Mormons don't belive the foundation of the church should be God instead of apostles and prophets?
And don't try to say that the authority would be given to the apostles and prophets by God so ultimatly the foundation of the church is God. If that is what you belive then go re-read what you wrote.
God should be the only foundation of the church, not Mormon self proclaimed prophets.
|
|
...of early church fathers and reformers.
Mormons acknowledge that there were many good, honorable, inspired church fathers and protestant reformers. At the same time, there were still controversies that arose when points of doctrine came under dispute and apostolic authority was unavailable to settle the matter.
During these controversies, true doctrines prevailed much of the time, but not always. Protestant reformers many years later began to notice that some of the doctrines seemed to deviate from the scriptures and began to break away forming their own demoninations in an effort to restore some of the doctrines that had been lost/changed over the years.
Unfortunately - these reformers still were without apostolic authority (and claimed none...take Roger Williams for example.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_(theologian)
He is credited as being the founder of the Baprist faith in America - yet he ultimately discontinued his preaching on the grounds that "There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking." (Picturesque America, p. 502.)
There is no doubt in my mind that these inspired men accomplished much in getting people to follow Christ best they could...and that there will be place for them in God's Kingdom. |
|
LDS belive in the the book of mormon which they claim is another testement of Jesus Christ (written on the inside cover). This is blashphmy(however you spell it... time for me to go home!)
Because nobody here knows me please take a simple warning from me. Be careful what what Mormons teach... they have been revising thier doctrine for years to adhere to socieites views.
Best advice... just stick to the Holy Bible, you will be safe and sound. |
|
That's why we send missionaries out. That's why we proselyte to christian and non-christian alike. Our message is that God has (in answer to countless prayers over the years) brought back the apostles, prophets, and authority to administer ordinaces of salvation.
If you believe that authority was never lost to begin with - then I would assume you are Catholic. If you are not Catholic, then your church should have some way of tracing its authority back to Jesus Christ...not from some man taking this authority until himself. (Heb 5:4)
Like I said in my amended post - the foundation of the church is its apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. Apostles have authority from Jesus Christ. Those with apostalic authority can ordain another apostle when there is a vacancy in the apostleship (like the 11 apostles did to Matthias in Acts 1:19-26.)
The Apostles direct the affairs of the church through revelation (Acts 1:1-3; Eph 3:3-5) |
|
was provided as evidence that Joseph Smith is not making up his story. This book cannot be completely proved or disproved by outside facts and circumstances (and I believe God intended it that way.)
All he asks is for those who hear its words to pray about whether or not it is true, authentic, and whether Joseph Smith's story (and claim to apostolic authority) is authentic.
Many people claim to have received an answer from God that the book is true. Many claim to have received an answer from God that the book isn't true. That answer is between the individual and God - but as a mormon, my objective is to get everyone to get their own answer from God on this matter and rather than simply take someone else's word for it. |
|
I ask an honest question and get tagged as a liberal and a bigot. I'm neither.
Its also interesting how the priesthood lacked divine authority during the 'great apostasy" yet a "priest" and the "priesthood" of the church somehow magically produced sacred scripture which you yourself agree is sacred. Its very convenient to say that the apostasy didn't apply to them. Its also ridiculous.
So if St. Jerome was not apostate in his translation, than is everything he said valid, or just the things you agree with?
Someone who bases their life and salvation on something with so many inconsistencies is suspect to me. I am allowed to not vote for someone based on this and not be labeled a bigot.
Good Luck and God Bless
HM
|
|
1. I still maintain it is bigoted to say "I refuse vote for someone because of their religious views." (Just because I have toned down my criticsm doesn't mean I have changed my views.)
2. St. Jerome was not apostate in his works - but because I don't believe he had God's authority, he would be just as prone to potential mistakes as you and I. Mormons accept that the Bible was very well preserved over the year, but acknowledge (along with Bible Scholars) that it is less than 100% accurate. The inaccuracies I refer to are imaterial...mormons don't use "mistranslations" as an excuse for a bible passage that might seemingly contradict our doctrines.
I feel LDS doctrines are 100% consistent with the Bible. The supposed inconsistencies between the LDS and the Bible are due to mis-interpretation, not mis-translation.
Conclusion
My intent here is not to proselytize people toward my faith, but I hope my comments have at minimum shown that there is plenty of intellect behind the mormon faith (whether you agree with it or not) and that a candidate's adherence to mormonism is not indicative of a "lack in judgement" that should disqualify someone from being elected President of the USA.
If Mitt gets the nod (and I think he will) then - if you are a true conservative you certainly should be much more concerned with electing Hillary than electing a Mormon. |
|
"Its also interesting how the priesthood lacked divine authority during the 'great apostasy" yet a "priest" and the "priesthood" of the church somehow magically produced sacred scripture which you yourself agree is sacred. Its very convenient to say that the apostasy didn't apply to them. Its also ridiculous."
Perhaps I wasn't clear earlier. The reason we accept the Bible as the Word of God is not because Jerome produced it. We accept the Bible because it contains the writings of Peter, Paul, John, etc. The Bible was compiled as a collection of authentic prophets' writings - that's why we accept it as the word of God. (Keyword - Prophets, who had authority.)
It isn't ridiculous.
Again - there is plenty of intellect behind the mormon faith (whether you agree with it or not) and that a candidate's adherence to mormonism is not indicative of a "lack in judgement" that should disqualify someone from being elected President of the USA.
If Mitt gets the nod (and I think he will) then - if you are a true conservative you certainly should be much more concerned with electing Hillary than electing a Mormon. |
|
Jay,
I think it's on the cover, not just on the inside cover. Don't know why that makes it "blasphemy" but I doubt you will bother to explain.
Herc,
You may not like being called a bigot, but that doesn't change the definition. What would you call a person who refused to employ a person based on their religion? How about a person who refused to voted for a Jew or a Catholic (based on their religion)? You have every right to vote how you choose, that's your prerogative. You don't have a right to do so and not be called on it. It is telling though, first you refused to vote for a Mormon because you thought Mormons believe your church is "evil" (they don't). Next, you won't vote for a Mormon because of "inconsistencies" towards the bible. Seems like you are searching for an excuse rather than clarity or truth on the issue.
|
|
“That’s the annoying message subliminally conveyed by the Romney campaign and expressed far less subtly by some of the governor’s increasingly desperate supporters.”
Please provide an example of a time when this “Subliminal” message was sent. You’re starting to sound like your Conspiracy Day callers here Michael.
“It’s troubling that it was Mitt Romney, not Mike Huckabee, who gave the campaign’s biggest address on religion and politics, and it’s the Romney rooters, not the Huck-a-Nuts, who seem most eager for every opportunity to discuss the role of faith in the campaign. “
Once again, I take exception to the portrayal that some nebulous “Romney rooters” are playing the religion card. This is quite an audacious charge that deserves at least one paltry example. Of course, there isn’t one – this notion only exists in the world of Mike Huckabee apologetics.
From where I’m sitting, Huckabee is the only candidate injecting religion into the race, not Romney or his supporters (celebrating the “birth of Christ” in an ad, referring to Isaiah 54 and his opponents “Weapons formed against” him, touting himself as a “Christina Leader”, etc.) If you can cite a single example of when Romney brought up religion unsolicited then I’m listening. Every time the topic comes up (and that’s almost every interview he does) Romney tries to refocus the discussion on values rather than doctrine. |
|
The American Heritage Dictionary defines bigotry as "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ"
So what does it mean to be "intolerant" mean? Again the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs."
I am not "unwilling to tolerate" I have asked and will continue to ask valid questions. I tolerate Mormon beliefs. I respect your right to have your beliefs completely and would never do anything to stop you, and I would fight against anyone else who did. It is indeed wrong to deny a Mormon a job because of their religios beliefs and I would be the last to do that. I treat everyone with respect due a human being created by God.
But we're not talking about basic human rights here. We're talking about one man's vote for president. That is not a basic human right.
What if you loved everything about a particular candidate but found out he was an Atheist? Like me, you probably believe that your rights are fundamentally granted to you by God, an atheist cannot believe this and must in turn believe that rights are granted by the state. This "religious" belief or lack thereof would be a cause not to vote for him. That would not make you a bigot.
I would certainly vote for a Jew or a Protestant Christian for President. I am questioning whether or not to vote for a Mormon because of the wholesale rejection of my own faith by your church and my own discovered inconsistencies.
I am allowed to explore and make up my own mind on this, and if in your world that makes me a bigot, than so be it. My concience is clear.
HM |
|
How is Judaism and the Reformation not the "wholesale rejection" of Catholicism? Do you think a Jew or a Protestant Christian reject your religion less than a Mormon? Your reasoning is flawed just by simple name substitution.
By your own definition, how is it "tolerant" to say that you would not vote for a certain religion on grounds that have nothing to do with ANY of the functions they would perform in the position they are campaigning?
Based on your logic, wouldn't you be required to not hire a Mormon because you are only benefiting the very religion that "wholesale rejects your faith" and is "inconsistent"? Why would you hire a Mormon but not vote for one (hint a job isn't a human right either)?
If there was a perfect candidate who was atheist, I would not only vote for him, but enthusiastically support his campaign. I realize that God works through all people not just a chosen few. I would take a conservative atheist six days a week and twice on Sunday over a socialist Christian.
It's not "my world" in which you would be a bigot, it's the real world. I could see if something about Romney's religion affected his potential position, but to reject him on the grounds you've laid out is "intolerance".
|
|
"It is indeed wrong to deny a Mormon a job because of their religios beliefs and I would be the last to do that. I treat everyone with respect due a human being created by God."
The President of the United States of America is a job. Voters are the employer who make the hiring decision. Candidates are the applicants.
We have several applicants and you as the potential employer are overlooking the qualifications of one applicant (and possibly even giving more consideration to another less qualified candidate) because of religious beliefs.
That is wherein the problem lies. Peel away the prejudices and see if you can objectively consider all applicants based solely upon their qualifications.
Just last year - I voted for a mayor (despite his wholesale rejection of my faith and even despite his earlier reference to my faith as a "cult.") I disagree with him on religion and I think his faith is full of inconsistencies, but that was simply not part of the criteria for my vote. |
|
How about these folks reasoning - they are very upfront about their theological differences with Mitt: http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/why.php
|
|
|
Not sure why this link won't link - one more try: http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/why.php |
|
http://www.catholicsformittromney.com/
(Still no luck getting links to link - I'm not sure what the trick is.) |
|
Please don't get me wrong. Belive it or not, all my in-laws are SLC Mormons. I have had plenty of time to sit with them and thier friends. I have had hours of disscuissions with well LDS versed people. So yes, I have spent time in that world.
What is the one... most distinctive thing that I encounter when I deal with these people? Deception. Yes, even the guy that knows LDS doctrine up and down is decieved.
Now, I get along great with my in-laws and I love them. And Mormons, in general, are very nice loving people.
So yes, I am very close to a Mormon world everyday of my life and it pains me to see such decieved group. It truly pains me. |
|
to win a political campaign is un-becoming and kinda creepy.
|
|
Deceive: to mislead by a false appearance or statement;
There is no deception in mormonism. Mormonism is a faith that brings people closer to Christ. False prophets shall be known by their fruits (and in my opinion - preaching for money is one obvious fruit of a false prophet...that narrows things down quite a bit.)
I am a mormon because the Book of Mormon has strengthened my relationship with Jesus - and that is not something you can argue. As a result of studying both the Bible and Book of Mormon together, I know him far better than I could had I used either book on its own.
John 17:3 "And this is life eternal to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."
Matt 7:22-23 "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
1 John 2:3-6 "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him...He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."
Jay - you can argue that I have been deceived all you want - but in the end, it is not you I will answer to. I'm comfortable with my relationship with Jesus; I acknowledge him as my savior; I pray regularly; I feel his guiding influence and light; I feel the inner peace and happiness that comes only from doing what Christ has taught (if LDS have a few more commandments than what is in the Bible - so what? We don't ignore any Biblical commandments); and no arm of flesh is going to convince me that this is deception. |
|
|
|
|
|
Knowing very little c/o Mormonism I have a few questions.
Do Mormons pray to Christ?
Who wrote the Book of Mormon?
What are the differences between the LDS and the Mormons (if there are any)?
What's the average air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
I have heard some explanations of Mormonism (usually from non-Mormons) but I'd like to hear from a Mormon c/o these questions. The last question was actually for any Monty Python buffs out there :)
Shalom.
|
|
Answers to Questions:
1. Mormons pray just the way Jesus taught in Matthew - we pray to God the Father in Jesus' name.
2. The Book of Mormon was written by ancient prophets who lived on the American continent. It was named after Mormon (who was one such of these prophets who lived about 300-400 A.D.) because he labored extensively to abridge the multiple records into one "book." The records were engraved on Gold Plates. Joseph Smith (who lived in up-state New York in the 1800's) received a visit from an angel telling him where this record was contained...he obtained the record and translated by the gift and power of God it into what he have now as the Book of Mormon. Upon completion of translation (and because there were never-ending mobs of conspiring men trying to steal the Gold Plates from Joseph Smith) the angel came back and collected the Gold Plates.
3. The term Mormon is a nick-name for those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (L.D.S.) In most cases (unless someone is referring to an apostate, break away group from the church) the terms mormon and lds are synonomous. Although the former term is not offensive to us, we prefer to use the latter in light of the increased efforts by enemies of the church to portray us as "non-christian" or as a "cult."
4. I'll defer to the Monty Python buffs out there.
Hope that helps. |
|
Good info. Is there any evidence (outside of the book of Mormon) that this prophet "Mormon" existed; either writings or physical evidence.
I realize that most Christian denominations view Mormonism as a false doctrine. I however don't have enough knowledge to make a judgement c/o this. I do believe that we can form an opinion of people of faith based on their actions tho.
"By their fruit you will recognize them...A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." Matt 16-18 From what I've seen of those who call themselves Mormons, I see good fruit.
But, if we are all Christians, why is it that we're tryn to "convert" each other? Do Mormons believe that other Christians are not saved. I know that those I've spoken to (Baptists, Methodists and Episcopalians {sp?}) don't believe that Mormons are. I'm a Christian who attends a Baptist church BTW.
Another thing I'm curious about; does your faith believe that baptism by water is essential for salvation?
Thanks for taken the time to respond to this.
Peace. |
|
Any time.
I'll respond to a couple more points, but steer you to a website where someone has articulated vast amounts of information & research regarding many of the misconceptions regarding mormons. The site is: http://jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml
Jeff Lindsay is a mormon (from Wisconsin, I believe) who has LDS discussion & research on his website in regards to everything from archaeology to doctrinal topics. His write-ups are pretty thorough and cover the broadest range of topics I have seen.
Meanwhile, I'll explain my view of why mormons proselyte to others who are already christian. Let me first say that mormons believe any Christian church can deliver on its promise to save its adherants from Hell. However, our view is that deliverance from Hell does not necessarily = returning to our Father in Heaven. Matt 7:21-23 indicates that many professing christians will not make the cut. That is why we proselytize to other faiths.
The other reason is because we believe that returning to our Father in Heaven is a little more glorious than what traditional christians believe. It is a place referred to in the scriptures where people become "Sons of God" (1 John 3:1-2) "Heirs of God and Joint Heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:16-17; Acts 17:28-29) and where they inherit "all things." (Rev. 21:7)
These are very in-depth topics and require much more than I have time to write. If you'd still like to know more, I would recommend going to http://www.mormon.org and inviting missionaries into your home to discuss these topics with you in greater detail. (Sure they will at some point invite you to be baptized, but they won't pressure you.)
Good Luck - and God Bless. |
|
It would help Capn Crunch's case if he could get some basic facts correct. For example, he writes:
1. Mike Huckabee has never been president of the Southern Baptist Convention. The Arkansas State Convention is not the SBC. They are independent entities. Anybody who knows anything about SBC polity should know this. When one can't get this sort of fact correct, it bodes ill for the rest of what he states, particularly while saying that Huckabee knows nothing much about the LDS faith.
2. When the SBC, via the North American Mission Board states that the LDS is a cult, it means "any group that deviates from fundamental Christian orthodox doctrine." Since the LDS believe that Christ is Jehovah and the Father is Elohim, worshiping the latter, not the former, and viewing them as 3 separate beings, that definition of "cult" is by no means illegitimate, since historic Christianity views them as 3 subistences within a single Being, each worthy of worship, all equally God. There are more differences, that's only one.
3. When Huckabee says that he thinks Mormonism is not a cult, he is not disagreeing with the SBC since he agrees with the SBC that it is a different religion altogether. Rather, he doesn't want to use the word "cult" because in recent years the term has been degraded such that anybody who says it of Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses is seen to be equating it to groups like Jim Jones' group and others like it.
|
|
Is it true that Mormons proslytize Christians because they believe that any church can deliver on its promises to deliver a person from hell? Wouldn't it be more accurate for you to candidly admit that Mormonism actually does this because other churches are apostate and your doctrine of "hell" is really such that Christians who do not become Mormons do not have access to the third heaven?
If Evangelicals are guilty of "bigotry" what are we to make of statements like these:
"And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent of the unholy and impious act." (Orson Pratt, OP-WA, "The Kingdom of God," no.2, p.6)
"Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the "whore of Babylon" whom the lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness." (Pratt, The Seer, p.255)
"After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christiandom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common orgin. They belong to Babylon." (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, p.324)
Those statements are hardly taken out of context, and none of them come from Evangelical Christians. |
|
How is it bigotry to point out a theological truth that is explicitly taught by Mormons? Is the statement that Jesus and Lucifer are "spirit brothers taken out of context?" The June, 1986 edition of the Ensign Magazine, p. 25, the official publication of the LDS Church, had this question, "How can Jesus and Lucifer be spirit brothers when their characters and purposes are so utterly opposed?" The response provided included the following:
On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some---especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers....But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer's older brother.
Herein lies the main objection to Romney's statements. He says that he believes that Jesus is the Son of God, but he doesn't mean by this anything remotely like what orthodox Christianity has meant by this statement. Mormon Christology bears no resemblance to Christian Christology. Evangelicals would be more comfortable with Romney's statements if he would be straightforward about what he means and not equivocate. We see this and we see what we've been saying for years now about the way Mormons operate has been confirmed. The issue for most of us isn't that we don't think a Mormon can or should be president. Rather, we see these sorts of statements and his ever changing positions as no better than Bill Clinton's equivocations over the meaning of "is" a few years ago.
|
|
1) Thanks for the clarification of Huck's past. I haven't heard anyone claim that Huck didn't know anything about the LDS faith and that's the problem. He, if anyone, should know the Jesus/Lucifer comment is a common smear of Mormons.
2) SBC's definition of "cult" is just a semantics game in which they've altered the meaning to support their theological view. The fact that they would use such a derogatory word says more about them then it does about those they wish to label.
3) Evangelicals are only "guilty of bigotry" if they choose not to vote for a candidate base solely on that candidate's religion. I thought I made that clear.
4) It's not bigoted to point out "theological truths". It is a smear when you turn it into a half-truth to try to marginalize a religion. It's particularly bad when you do it in a political dialogue. If you're wondering how it's a half-truth, then I will point to an article by Ken Jenings...
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/12/19/2007-12-19_p oliticians__pundits_please_stop_slander.html
"The truth, Huck, is that Mormons believe that God is the Father of us all, which does, I guess, in some sense, make Jesus and Satan brothers. And by the same logic, we also believe that Moses and Orville Redenbacher and Attila the Hun and Neil Diamond are brothers. Happy now?"
5) How is it "equivocating" for Romney to say he believe that Jesus is the Son of God? That IS what he believes. This is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|