Evangelical leaders leaning towards Fred

posted at 10:37 am on July 16, 2007 by Allahpundit

What do you know. I guess he’s Christian enough after all.

The success of the effort is by no means ensured; in March, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson told U.S. News that he doubted Thompson was really a Christian. But Dobson and Thompson have since talked, with Dobson rumored to be reassessing Thompson. And prominent social conservative Paul Weyrich, who met recently with Thompson and evangelical activists, said the former senator “was in agreement with us on almost everything.”

For Thompson, the timing couldn’t be better. McCain’s campaign is reeling from staff departures and cutbacks, and Giuliani faces fierce opposition from Christian right leaders. So Thompson’s team is betting that the GOP primaries will turn into what one adviser calls a “Thompson-Romney duel,” since Romney is the one top-tier Republican lobbying hard for evangelical support. “If he gets strong support from evangelicals, Thompson could reshape the race,” says the Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life’s John Green…

Thompson still faces stumbling blocks among rank-and-file evangelicals, including his own reputation as an infrequent churchgoer. But “Thompson’s very good on the defense of normal marriage and free expression of religion,” says one time presidential candidate Gary Bauer. “Frankly, he might have an easier time…if he’s not easily labeled as ‘religious right.’”…

Last week, the Los Angeles Times alleged that Thompson had even lobbied for an abortion-rights group. But Thompson’s Christian outreach team quickly E-mailed a detailed denial to conservative leaders. Within hours, evangelical activists were chatting with reporters, quoting straight from Thompson’s talking points. The story’s damage wasn’t undone, exactly. But the response may have been a signal that evangelicals are ready to join the Thompson team.

I doubt whether a Thompson-Romney duel will be much of a duel. I mentioned Mitt to a born-again Christian friend not long ago as someone possibly worth supporting and she sniffed that he belonged to a “cult.” Not all Christians agree, of course, but given a choice between two candidates with similar takes on most issues it’s natural that they’ll lean towards the guy who “looks” most like them. On the other hand, Fred’s already copped to having chased (and been chased by) plenty of skirts in his bachelor days. How many’s going to be too many for Dobson and company? I’m sure Mitt’s oppo researchers are busy working to find out.

The media’s already busy sifting through his Senate papers, although, per Patterico, it looks the cast of characters in the next LA Times hit piece overlaps somewhat with the cast from the last one, which won’t help their credibility any.

Here’s Mitt’s new ad, by the way. Replace the voiceover and the shot of him at the very end with a couple walking hand in hand and it could be a spot for an erectile dysfunction pill. Exit question: Given the media’s sudden, not at all partisan interest in candidates and their history with lobbyists, how much traction do you suppose this article‘s going to get?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The Mormons believe some insane things.

I mean, so do the Christians, but they’ve been believing them for 2,000+ years, whereas the Mormons only more recently.

So, yes, I think your Christian friend has a point. Mitt, for example, believes he can be a God and with his wife create spirit children to populate his own world one day if only he will but follow the teachings of Elohim, the God of our world, who was once a man and, presumably, struggled with such issues as whether to continue touching himself or not.

I’m not saying Christian beliefs are more sane… just that Mormon beliefs are definitely cultish.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 10:48 AM

What a lame “message!”

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on July 16, 2007 at 10:49 AM

So Thompson has to get his Christian bona fides from a bastard like Dobson in order to be a credible Republican nominee? No wonder everyone hates America.

Enrique on July 16, 2007 at 10:51 AM

I mentioned Mitt to a born-again Christian friend not long ago as someone possibly worth supporting and she sniffed that he belonged to a “cult.”

…um, that’s because he does.

Mojave Mark on July 16, 2007 at 10:54 AM

Frankly, Fred? might have an easier time if he wern’t an essayist rehashing conservative opinions from 1980. Frankly, Fred? might have an easier time if he showed any energy at all in his campaign, e.g. doing something other than writing essays and shooting the breeze with Leno and Hannity. Frankly, Fred? might have an easier time if he stopped jerking his announcement date around on us and playing us for the same dopes that slobber over Paris Hilton wherever she goes. Frankly, Fred? might have an easier time if his resume included something other than Washington insider, irrelevant senator, and playing a lawyer on TV.

Vote Fred? He promises you the experience that comes with pretending to be important, the same old, stale 1980′s style positions and tireless mediocrity for a new world. Did I mention he was on Law and Order?

BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 10:56 AM

If one pays only half attention to the ad, one might think it’s a commercial for environmentalism with all that “cleaning up the water” talk.

flipflop on July 16, 2007 at 11:01 AM

I mentioned Mitt to a born-again Christian friend not long ago as someone possibly worth supporting and she sniffed that he belonged to a “cult.”

Good thing we don’t have litmus tests in the Republican Party. I’m quite sure I was told this last week.

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 11:01 AM

Enrique on July 16, 2007 at 10:51 AM

It always reminds me, though I know it’s not the same exact thing, of leaders in the Middle East having to get the ok from Islamic leaders.

amerpundit on July 16, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Enrique on July 16, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Actually, Enrique, Fred has to get his bona fides from God, not man.

I don’t agree with the so-called Christian right giving endorsements to any candidate. I am a conservative, church-going Christian. For some reason, the MSM likes to lump us all into one catagory as a block of voters with a single mindset. We aren’t a single block. We’re individuals who cast our ballots one at a time, just like everyone else. I know what I look for in a candidate and I make my choice based upon my knowledge and life experience.

People like Dobson have a large audience. That doesn’t mean the audience is mindlessly going to follow his pronouncements — albeit, some undoubtedly will.

My point is, no one needs to be endorsed by Dobson to win. Last I heard, he isn’t even a voting delegate for the Republican National Convention.

Tennman on July 16, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Oh, and the ad is boring.

amerpundit on July 16, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Tennman on July 16, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Exactly. I’m a Conservative Republican Christian. I plan on voting Giuliani.

amerpundit on July 16, 2007 at 11:04 AM

Ref your ‘Blotter’ exit question……zero play.

Another hit piece that I suspect is coming from the BillaryBunker. At least on this one they didn’t lead the story with ‘Bimbo’.

Limerick on July 16, 2007 at 11:06 AM

I mentioned Mitt to a born-again Christian friend not long ago as someone possibly worth supporting and she sniffed that he belonged to a “cult.”

And a lot of so called Christians believe Catholics are not Christian. I’m sick of these religious criteria candidates are held to.

Blake on July 16, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Oh, and the ad is boring.

amerpundit on July 16, 2007 at 11:03 AM

I could see the ad appealing to some of my Mormon friends, who seem to feel boring is a plus, but it’s hardly great marketing.

A person could conclude from my comments I dislike Mormons or Mitt Romney.

Hardly. I’ve been a Mormon in times past and some of my friends are devout Mormons. However, the beliefs the religion teaches, and I’ve barely scratched the surface (most Mormons themselves don’t know the full “secrets of the church” only revealed at the higher levels of the temple) are often nuts.

Yet as many point out, some are great. It’s a mixed bag like all religions. Just more wacky.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Replace the voiceover and the shot of him at the very end with a couple walking hand in hand and it could be a spot for an erectile dysfunction pill.

Bob Dole comes to mind. And he didn’t win either. Go Fred!

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 11:12 AM

I mentioned Mitt to a born-again Christian friend not long ago as someone possibly worth supporting and she sniffed that he belonged to a “cult.”
…um, that’s because he does.

Mojave Mark on July 16, 2007 at 10:54 AM

I concur. It is a cult.

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Thompson’s got a “Christian Outreach Team”? And they were quoting from his talking points? Man, the guy’s thought of everything.

I actually don’t know how I feel about that. He sure seems to know how to play the game, though.

nailinmyeye on July 16, 2007 at 11:18 AM

I don’t care if Mitt belongs to the Church of Eric Cartman….as long as he is willing to kill the enemy, cut taxes, stop the murder of the unborn, and build the fence we will get along just fine.

Limerick on July 16, 2007 at 11:19 AM

“I don’t care if Mitt belongs to the Church of Eric Cartman”

Well, that’s where you’re different, Limerick. Most people would care about that.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Bottom line is I’d feel fine with Mitt or Fred in the White House but I’d feel more confident that Fred wouldn’t metamorphosis into a quasi liberal on us.

bj1126 on July 16, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Goddammit, why do people have to dismiss Romney for being Mormon?

I’m not real keen on Romney as a candidate(I’ll pick Rudy over Romney), but this dismissing him because people think he’s a member of a “cult” (which I find calling Mormonism a cult wrong too) has to f*cking stop.

Bad Candy on July 16, 2007 at 11:34 AM

I don’t care if Mitt belongs to the Church of Eric Cartman

HmmMaybe?

I think I’d like that religious based platform. We might finally see hippies get the smackdown they so richly deserve…

Bad Candy on July 16, 2007 at 11:39 AM

I could support him, Mormon or not. I’m saying from a Christian perspective, and I’m not one, but the majority of Americans are, I could could see why they’d find his religion’s bizarre beliefs and distortion of Christian teachings — while claiming to be Christians despite obvious rejections of and distortions of Christian teachings — to the point of saying God was once just a man like you or men, sinful at that, and by following the teachings of his God was eventually allowed by a council of Gods to become a God and engage in spiritual sex with his wife/wives to populate the Earth — troubling.

From a Christian perspective.

From mine, I say, “Works for me.”

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 11:44 AM

*like you or me, sinful…

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Evangelical leaders leaning towards Fred

…. yay?

It’s our version of the nutroots endorsement, only more powerful and entrenched. At least that’s what I’m lead to believe. I know people vote their own conscience, but there is no doubt the religious leaders are very organized and get out the vote efficiently.

Dash on July 16, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Possibly the first misstep in the Thompson (non)campaign. The perception that he is the man of guys like Dobson will not ‘play well in Peoria’, as they say.

So much for the idea that he’s an outsider, looking to buck the system. All because of the myth that Falwell got Reagan elected. Shame, Fred, shame.

Krydor on July 16, 2007 at 11:53 AM

I don’t care if Mitt belongs to the Church of Eric Cartman….

Limerick on July 16, 2007 at 11:19 AM

As far as South Park is concerned, Mormons are the ones who’ve got it right.

Esthier on July 16, 2007 at 12:03 PM

Ho-hum ad, Mitt.

Mormon or not…

Romney comes from the liberal fever swamps of Massachusetts.

9/11 hero or not…

Giuliani comes from the liberal fever swamps of NYC.

I’ll be damned if I vote for a RINO.

Zach on July 16, 2007 at 12:03 PM

I mentioned Mitt to a born-again Christian friend not long ago as someone possibly worth supporting and she sniffed that he belonged to a “cult.”

A lot of Christians do seem to believe that. My own mother even said the exact same thing to me when I mentioned Romney not long ago.

I’ll say this, I have a few problems with the being a leader of another planet thing and the Christ coming to America second Bible thing, but if a Mormon accepts as truth the basic tenant other Christians accept as truth, then I don’t see why we should be disparaging against them.

Esthier on July 16, 2007 at 12:07 PM

Esthier on July 16, 2007 at 12:07 PM

But they don’t accept the basic tenant of truth. It is possible to dispute the belief of others without being disparaging, by the way.

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Plus Mormons are usually pretty solid conservatives. Utah’s pretty right leaning far as I can tell.

Bad Candy on July 16, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Frankly I am getting tired of the “Fred” worhsipping at Hot Air.

Hilts on July 16, 2007 at 12:12 PM

So Thompson has to get his Christian bona fides from a bastard like Dobson in order to be a credible Republican nominee?

Joe Carter, probably the best known evangelical blogger, has been on the Fred bandwagon for a month already, as have I. No one is waiting for orders or a stamp of approval from Dobson.

That crap is insulting. No wonder nobody likes atheists.

John on July 16, 2007 at 12:13 PM

Plus Mormons are usually pretty solid conservatives. Utah’s pretty right leaning far as I can tell.

Bad Candy on July 16, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Oh yeah. Polygamy is super-conservative all right.
/

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 12:15 PM

No wonder everyone hates America.

Enrique on July 16, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Why do people say this? Even IF it were true, who cares? This isn’t France. We don’t fold up our tent if people hate our freedom and hate our values and hate our prosperity. America has done it’s part to save Europe and China and even Russia. They can hate us, but we still wear the white hat.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Dobson, bah. I’m waiting to see who Ted Haggard endorses. Him and the Archdiocese of LA.

Who gives a crap what any relgious leader thinks? We are electing a president not a priest.

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 12:17 PM

I mentioned Mitt to a born-again Christian friend not long ago as someone possibly worth supporting and she sniffed that he belonged to a “cult.”

So know we know where Allupundit gets his snarky anti-Mitt talking points from. One “born again” friend and it’s settled!

Maybe someone could locate the zombie-eyed and brainwashed cult members who follow Harry Reid, err, Mitt Romney around with slavish devotion waiting for their marching orders from the cult master to…do what exactly? Cut taxes and spending? Vanquish Islamofascism? Examine the ethics of the Brave New World?

Someone help me out here.

Buy Danish on July 16, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Bad Candy on July 16, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Something about that in the 1st Amdmnt, i think: )

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 12:19 PM

Plus Mormons are usually pretty solid conservatives. Utah’s pretty right leaning far as I can tell.

Bad Candy on July 16, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Oh yeah. Polygamy is super-conservative all right.
/

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 12:15 PM

ophelia, yes, why it is. Read the Old Testament.

It’s very conservative, so much so it’s fallen out of mainstream in Judaeo-Christian philosophy

I’m sure I’d like you and agree with many of your beliefs. But here you’re expressing your ignorance.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 12:21 PM

I’m never voting for a Mormon. (I also concur with some comments above about voting for a RINO, thus I’m in the ring with Fred!!!)

congsan on July 16, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Well now we have it! Mitt is a Polygamist! Where does he hide all those wives of his?

Buy Danish on July 16, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 12:21 PM

With all due respect, you bring up the OLD Testament. I claim ignorance and naivete on a lot of things but I do know the NEW Testament fairly well. See, polygamy=adultery, which is hardly considered conservative. Well, at least in my Bible anyway. But, hey. Think what you want.

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Frankly, Fred? might have an easier time…
BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 10:56 AM

Yeah, maybe then he’d be a first tier candidate, leading the polls among likely primary voters without even having announced or having to spend much money.

Oh, that’s right- he already is. I suppose he could’ve followed the FlipFlop Mitt strategy of blatant slickster pandering, because that’s worked so well for Flipper, being as how his support numbers are half that of the next candidate and all.

The devout Christian community is one that often votes in great numbers; of course Fred is going to reach out to them- particularly given the skeletons and abortion stance of RINO Rudy, FlipFlop Mitt’s non-conservative pro-choice record and (fair or not) the disdain for Mormonism many have.

Hollowpoint on July 16, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Mitt does have a problem with how people perceive the LDS (Mormons)…

Many many of them served in the military at various points, but, were in non combat related feilds… the basic tenents of Mormonism is one of peace. I grew up with Mormon freinds and although they do say they must “render unto Ceasar” and acknowledge secular authority, including war, the base teachings do not really support war…

Now, I do beleive that a mans (or womans) religion tells me a LOT about them as a person… if their politics are opposite of their stated religion? Hyporcrits… if they are devout? then we can tell somthing about how they will react in a crises…

Either way… Mitt looses out when you consider him as Commander in Chief in a time of war.

Romeo13 on July 16, 2007 at 12:33 PM

See, polygamy=adultery, which is hardly considered conservative. Well, at least in my Bible anyway. But, hey. Think what you want.

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Given that it was outlawed by the Mormon Church, why do you think its an issue? Should we not vote for a Catholic because of the Spanish Inquistion? See murder and torture and forced conversion aren’t in my Bible.

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Ho-hum ad, Mitt.

Mormon or not…

Romney comes from the liberal fever swamps of Massachusetts.

9/11 hero or not…

Giuliani comes from the liberal fever swamps of NYC.

I’ll be damned if I vote for a RINO.

Zach on July 16, 2007 at 12:03 PM

I take it then you found Ronald Reagan distasteful because he came from the liberal swamps of California.

Coming from a certain area doesn’t make you liberal or conservative, it just means if you’re smart you’ll never live there. Currently I don’t have the option of moving out of Massachusettstan, but I will so soon as I have the means.

BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 12:35 PM

See, polygamy=adultery, which is hardly considered conservative. Well, at least in my Bible anyway. But, hey. Think what you want.

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Heh. What kind of Bible do you have?

I generally stay out of the religion threads, but what does your Bible say about Jacob, who fathered the 12 tribes of Israel?

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Mitt isn’t a polygamist. Most Mormon’s are opposed to polygamy.

Which is just another MASSIVE knock against their religion with their supposed annointed prophets of God preaching the rightness of marrying many wives, preferably young and hot (hey, that’s my intepretation) in the teenage girl sense.

Of course, Joseph Smith, for all his fraud, didn’t start out as a polygamist.

Indeed, a little known fact is the early Mormon church expressly forbade polygamy in the Doctrine and Covenants until 1876.

The little problem of him being caught out in an adulterous affair, however, allowed him to get revelation from God that men are meant to be polygamous after all.

Question: Why would anyone think Mormonism is a cult?

But God is very fickle and when Utah wanted in the union, God decided that polygamy is bad after all.

Still, it’s a true church. Wait, it’s “the only” true church. Is it their fault that God can’t make up his mind?

Good thing God’s prophets finally accepted that blacks are equal too.

Took a while, though. Fortunately, God figured it out in the 20th century and not a moment too soon.

Nope, nothing cult-like here!

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 12:36 PM

No one is waiting for orders or a stamp of approval from Dobson

John, I beg to differ.

Krydor on July 16, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Currently I don’t have the option of moving out of Massachusettstan, but I will so soon as I have the means.

BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Because of taxes or social issues?

Big S on July 16, 2007 at 12:40 PM

“With all due respect, you bring up the OLD Testament. I claim ignorance and naivete on a lot of things but I do know the NEW Testament fairly well. See, polygamy=adultery, which is hardly considered conservative. Well, at least in my Bible anyway. But, hey. Think what you want.”

As Spirit of 1776 (and yourself) point out, you are expressing a great deal of ignorance.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Either way… Mitt looses out when you consider him as Commander in Chief in a time of war.

Romeo13 on July 16, 2007 at 12:33 PM

That’s interesting. I didn’t know much about Romney really until the debates, etc, but he has never struck me in that vein, as a hawk – he has always struck me as a fiscal & social con platform.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Zippity Do Da Zippity aay My Oh My What A Wonderful Day. Heh Heh I gotta go to work. You know blue collar and all.

sonnyspats1 on July 16, 2007 at 12:45 PM

As Spirit of 1776 (and yourself) point out, you are expressing a great deal of ignorance.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 12:40 PM

As are you. Do you really want to talk about the hypocrisy and history rampant in the Christian faith on a day when the Archdiocese of LA is paying over $600 million for the raping of little children by it’s priests?

All faiths have their issues and all of them look cultish and weird in some ways to those who are not of that faith. How about we just look at the candidates on the issues and not sling mud with things that have nothing to do with the office of the president?

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Yeah, maybe then he’d be a first tier candidate, leading the polls among likely primary voters without even having announced or having to spend much money.

Oh, that’s right- he already is. I suppose he could’ve followed the FlipFlop Mitt strategy of blatant slickster pandering, because that’s worked so well for Flipper, being as how his support numbers are half that of the next candidate and all.

The devout Christian community is one that often votes in great numbers; of course Fred is going to reach out to them- particularly given the skeletons and abortion stance of RINO Rudy, FlipFlop Mitt’s non-conservative pro-choice record and (fair or not) the disdain for Mormonism many have.

Hollowpoint on July 16, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Fred had a real strong showing in the debates… oh wait, he wasn’t there, he was smoking a cigar with Leno or Hannity at the time, preparing his next essay about how much African tinpot dictators suck.

Fred’s poll numbers are all hype and fluff. He hasn’t entered the race. Fred could win 100% of every single poll, including among Democrats, and it wouldn’t matter because he isn’t a candidate AT ALL, nevermind first tier.

See Hollowpoint, before Fred can be a first tier candidate he actually has to be a candidate.

As to Mitt, he’s had the same “epiphany” as Fred has. The same as Reagan had.

Tell me Hollowpoint, is Norma McCorvey(Jane Roe of Roe) a flip-flopper worthy of disdain? I mean, she WAS Jane Roe but now she opposes abortion? FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP! All people’s positions remain static over time, any change is just posturing and popularity grabbing.

The flip-flop argument is weak. Romney has 5 kids and limitied abortion to the level it was at in Mass when he came in. Maybe you don’t realize it, but Romney was governor, not God. He had zero control over the legislature outside of a veto and zero countrol over court rulings. It’s called “Checks and Balances,” and its how America keeps from coming a commie/socialist hellhole.

But tell me Hollowpoint, when you get down to the real issues and ideas, what does Fred Thompson offer? What experience can Fred Thompson bring to the presidency? Fred Thompson is a paper tiger. The only reason his poll numbers are up is because he hasn’t exposed himself to any hard criticism. He sits in his home or office writing rehashes of conservative opinion before scheduling another quickie with Leno and Hannity, then retires to his room to watch his campaign’s primary support mechanism: Law and Order.

Fred Thompson would be a nobody without his Law and Order stint. You and I both know it.

BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 12:48 PM

The rule of thumb of presidential campaigns is to run from the middle, or close to the middle. We’ve seen Hillary, that old socialist, try to reposition herself as a moderate on several issues. It appears that Fred! is doing the same thing. He is supportive of religion and Christians, though he may not be “super-devout” and attend church on a regular basis. He is showing that he is favorable to the religious conservatives, without going to far to the right to scare the middle voters away from some one seen as “hyper-religious” Fred! knows what he is doing.

Mallard T. Drake on July 16, 2007 at 12:51 PM

Because of taxes or social issues?

Big S on July 16, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Primarily because I just graduated college and need to get a good paying job in order to have the after tax money to actually move somewhere decent. Every state in the area is Massachusetts-lite, including New York. I’d have to move to Pennsylvania or Virginia to come anywhere close to conservative territory.

BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 12:51 PM

No, JackStraw, and there’s a remedy for the ignorance you are expressing now and it’s called reading.

The Mormons believe some insane things.

I mean, so do the Christians, but they’ve been believing them for 2,000+ years, whereas the Mormons only more recently.

I’m not saying Christian beliefs are more sane…

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 10:48 AM

A person could conclude from my comments I dislike Mormons or Mitt Romney.

Hardly. I’ve been a Mormon in times past and some of my friends are devout Mormons. However, the beliefs the religion teaches, and I’ve barely scratched the surface (most Mormons themselves don’t know the full “secrets of the church” only revealed at the higher levels of the temple) are often nuts.

Yet as many point out, some are great. It’s a mixed bag like all religions. Just more wacky.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 11:07 AM

I could support him, Mormon or not. I’m saying from a Christian perspective, and I’m not one, but the majority of Americans are, I could could see why they’d find his religion’s bizarre beliefs and distortion of Christian teachings — while claiming to be Christians despite obvious rejections of and distortions of Christian teachings — to the point of saying God was once just a man like you or men, sinful at that, and by following the teachings of his God was eventually allowed by a council of Gods to become a God and engage in spiritual sex with his wife/wives to populate the Earth — troubling.

From a Christian perspective.

From mine, I say, “Works for me.”

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 11:44 AM

Now what were you saying?

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 12:54 PM

All faiths have their issues and all of them look cultish and weird in some ways to those who are not of that faith. How about we just look at the candidates on the issues and not sling mud with things that have nothing to do with the office of the president?

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Hmmm… so its your contention that the religious upbringing of someone does not matter? That their stated religion has no bearing on who they are, and cannot give us some indication of how they might act?

I hate to break it to you… but we are currently in a religious WAR with a sect of Islam who is hard core fundamentalist…. religion does matter…

Romeo13 on July 16, 2007 at 12:56 PM

BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 12:48 PM

Unsubstantial hyperbole. If you can’t accurately access Fred and his base for support, how can I trust your assessment of Mitt? QA: I can’t. I don’t know Mitt well, so if you want to do me a favor, take a page from Jack and tell me the merits of your candidate.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine. All Marines are asassians.
Rulon Jeffs was a Mormon. All Mormons are polygamists.

Might be logic to some of my Christian brothers and sisters. Doesn’t mean squat to me.

Limerick on July 16, 2007 at 12:58 PM

There is a very good South Park episode that intercuts the clearly insane founding of the religion with the boy’s reaction to a Mormon family moving into town. They want to be bias against the Mormon kid, but he was so kewl they became his friend.

Moral of the story:
They seem and act so normal, but their religion is nuts! (no offense intended)

tommylotto on July 16, 2007 at 12:59 PM

But they don’t accept the basic tenant of truth. It is possible to dispute the belief of others without being disparaging, by the way.

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Some that I have talked to do accept it, and that’s what I’m referring to, individuals as opposed to the religion as a whole.

And I’m fully convinced that criticism can occur without disparaging remarks. I just rarely see it. Calling Mormonism a cult simply does not cut it.

Esthier on July 16, 2007 at 1:01 PM

And I’m fully convinced that criticism can occur without disparaging remarks.

I like you:)

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 1:02 PM

Moral of the story:
They seem and act so normal, but their religion is nuts! (no offense intended)

tommylotto on July 16, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Actually, they didn’t act normal. They acted strangely family oriented, to a point that would make the old 50s sitcoms feel weird.

Besides, there was a second moral, the Mormon kid was nice and accepting of all. It was the town and the kids who judged him based on his beliefs.

Esthier on July 16, 2007 at 1:06 PM

But tell me Hollowpoint, when you get down to the real issues and ideas, what does Fred Thompson offer?
BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 12:48 PM

Have you not read the many articles or radio and speech transripts available on the web? Read ‘em and get back to me. In short- Fred is the most conservative of the top tier candidates, with a record that largely backs that up.

This in complete contrast with FlipFlop Mitt, who not only flipped 180 degrees on abortion, but on too other issues as well. Given his record and pandering (in some cases being blatantly dishonest about it) he just can’t be trusted not to flip back to his more familiar big government, “moderate” default persona.

I know you and some of the other residents of the People’s Republik of MA are going to back the home town boy no matter what his record or who his competition is, but there’s good reason he’s not gained traction despite the success in fundraising. He’s simply not a viable candidate, not after being let down by GWB for 8 years.

Besides, your vote doesn’t count anyways since MA electoral votes will go to whoever the Dems put up, even in the highly unlikely event that FlipFlop Mitt got the nomination.

Hollowpoint on July 16, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Esthier, you have to examine a thing for what it is.

This is a religion founded in the late 1800s by a man fleeing fraud investigations and consequences. He was strongly opposed to polygamy, to the point of having it written in his sacred texts, before he was discovered in an adulterous relationship, then he received a revelation from God about the importance of polygamy.

Got gave a new prophet of the church a further revelation that polygamy was, after all, less than a century later when Utah wanted statehood.

The church claims to be the only true church with its prophets inspired by God. Who hated blacks. Before he loved them.

And they teach God was once a sinful man who followed rules laid down by his God (who also was once a sinful man) and then following a decision by a council of Gods, became the creator leader of our world.

And you can too or, rather, you could if you had a penis. But your husband can or your brother or your baker, if he’s so inclined.

This sounds a lot like a personality cult.

Now, I know A LOT of people who are decent and Mormon. There are great beliefs too.

But in what sense is the founding of the church, if not it’s present incarnation where, I admit, it has many hallmarks of a mainstream religion, NOT a cult?

I think Christianity was likely founded on personality cult as are most religions (all?). Mormonism was more recently so founded and, when you look at its beliefs, bizarrely so.

I love Mormons, have dated a few and even been one, but, as tommylotto aptly pointed out:

There is a very good South Park episode that intercuts the clearly insane founding of the religion with the boy’s reaction to a Mormon family moving into town. They want to be bias against the Mormon kid, but he was so kewl they became his friend.

Moral of the story:
They seem and act so normal, but their religion is nuts! (no offense intended)

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 1:08 PM

Hmmm… so its your contention that the religious upbringing of someone does not matter? That their stated religion has no bearing on who they are, and cannot give us some indication of how they might act?

To the first part, yes. To the second, no. Tell what part of Bushes Evangelical epiphany told you what he would do in office? How did it make him act any different than Clinton or Carter and their Southern Baptist ?

I hate to break it to you, but your assertions on Mormons and war are flat wrong. Ever heard of Brent Scowcroft? Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft? National Security Adviser for Gerald Ford and George Bush Brent Scowcroft?

Mormons do have rules on just wars, just as Catholics do. There is a peace element in the Mormon faith, just as there is throughout Christianity and Judiaism. But there is no evidence that Romney would end the war on the followers of Qutb and Azzam. These are not fundamentalists. These are Wahabists. Romney in fact, he has been among the most hawkish of the candidates.

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 1:09 PM

Fred Thompson would be a nobody without his Law and Order stint. You and I both know it.

BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 12:48 PM

Oh, forgot to mention- until The Troll shows up, this is and will remain the dumbest thing said in this thread.

An other example of obnoxious desperation from a delusional East Coast Moderate supporter of FlipFlop Mitt.

Hollowpoint on July 16, 2007 at 1:11 PM

Now what were you saying?

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 12:54 PM

I’m saying religion is a meaningless topic in politics. It has become far to pervasive in Republican politics and needs to end. It’s pointless and divise.

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 1:11 PM

Hillary or Romney?

Obama or Rudy?

Edwards or Fred?

I would vote for “or” before voting for Hillabamawards.

(Which sounds like a multi-culti t.v. show giving out trophies for exemplary p.c. acts.)

profitsbeard on July 16, 2007 at 1:13 PM

“I’m saying religion is a meaningless topic in politics. It has become far to pervasive in Republican politics and needs to end. It’s pointless and divise.”

Absolutely. One of the driving forces of mankind will just cease being important in politics.

Now back in the real world…

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Besides, whose talking about Mormonism as it relates to politics? Not I.

I’m talking about it as it relates to religion. And, for that matter, a combination of logic and entertainment.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 1:14 PM

No what we need to ‘examine’ is the issues. Which flavor of Christian Mitt is is about as important as to his choice of breakfast cereal. I am willing to hear the man out, not shut my eyes, and cover my ears. When he talks about what his First, Second, Third and Fourth Lady will do in the WH…then maybe I’ll add it to the negative column.

Limerick on July 16, 2007 at 1:14 PM

this is and will remain the dumbest thing said in this thread.

And insults the intelligence of his supporters in the GOP (not only the people but also the establishment – Frist, etc). I usually expect that sort of argument from our ‘socialist saviors’.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 1:15 PM

It’s our version of the nutroots endorsement, only more powerful and entrenched.

Dash on July 16, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Cha-Ching. I’m a church going Christian and Fred’s ok by me.

BadgerHawk on July 16, 2007 at 1:22 PM

And a lot of so called Christians believe Catholics are not Christian. I’m sick of these religious criteria candidates are held to.

Blake on July 16, 2007 at 11:06 AM

And here I thought that anyone who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, sent here to shed blood for our sins, was a Christian.

I’m sick of it too, although I must say that I would never vote for a Satanist.

Pulchritudinous Patriot on July 16, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 1:08 PM

With all due respect to my mother and other Christians out there who share her opinion, no, I don’t think it’s a cult. One could argue that its origins were cultish and maybe that sects of Mormonism are cultish (I guess).

But as a whole, its members are free, free to think for themselves and free to have a life outside the church. To me, that’s the principle difference.

When talking about a cult, the general idea is something of the Waco variety.

a cult is a term designating a cohesive group of people (generally, but not exclusively a relatively small and recently founded religious movement[1]) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be outside the mainstream.

Of course looking at its actual definition finds a more loose interpretation, but then you’ll find that any religion can, by definition, be called a cult.

The church claims to be the only true church with its prophets inspired by God. Who hated blacks. Before he loved them.

On this point, many Christians were to blame. Slave holders would cite passages about slaves in the Bible and use them to promote slave-holding.

Now anyone who would examine the passages would see that the Bible was speaking to slaves and not slave-holders, but Christianity was nonetheless misused this way.

My only real point here is that calling a religious movement that has become as mainstream as Mormonism has a cult is to engage in insults that will only make Mormons defensive rather than open up any meaningful dialogue.

I like you:)

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 1:02 PM

thanks.

Esthier on July 16, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Absolutely. One of the driving forces of mankind will just cease being important in politics.

Now back in the real world…

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 1:13 PM

This whole thread is about the influence of religion in politics, specifically, how Fred is trying to convince that even though he doesn’t go to church he is the choice of the evangelical community and how Romney is part of a cult.

The thread last night about Fred and the LAT was instructive. Of course the LAT has a liberal bias. Nobdy who knows the facts debates that. But what was interesting was Allah’s contention that Fred is bulletproof. Apparently to even evangelicals.

He was pro-choice and even lobbied for it. Doesn’t matter.

He was a champion of McCain/Feingold. Doesn’t matter.

He is about as devout as my couch. Doesn’t matter.

Fred is the conservative champion!

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 1:25 PM

So Thompson has to get his Christian bona fides from a bastard like Dobson in order to be a credible Republican nominee? No wonder everyone hates America.

Enrique on July 16, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Actually, I believe Dr. Dobson attacked Fred for his lack of Christian credentials

Jonas Parker on July 16, 2007 at 1:26 PM

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Point taken. However, again that refers to the Old Testament. The New Testament clearly denounces sexual relations outside of the marital covenant. Still, technically you’re right. That doesn’t make me ignorant and neither does standing up for what I believe in.

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Thank you for that. :)

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 1:28 PM

Fred is the conservative champion!

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 1:25 PM

To be fair here, conservative does not equal Christian. We don’t need to mix the two up here. Allah will ban us.

Esthier on July 16, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Unsubstantial hyperbole. If you can’t accurately access Fred and his base for support, how can I trust your assessment of Mitt? QA: I can’t. I don’t know Mitt well, so if you want to do me a favor, take a page from Jack and tell me the merits of your candidate.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 12:58 PM

You mean assess, I presume.

Fred’s basis for support is that he is a conservative. He writes on topics conservatives like. I’m not arguing that Fred isn’t conservative, I’m arguing that he’s a phantom candidate with no initiative, no willingness to take tough questions, no relevant experience, and no distinguishable advantage over any other candidate on any issue.

However, that makes him basically a cookie cutter of every other second tier candidate (except for executive experience, which some of them have). So what makes Thompson different than say Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, or Mike Huckabee? Answer: Law and Order, and subbing for Paul Harvey. Fred Thompson’s name is already out there in the general public. People who listen to Talk Radio already know who he is. The masses that watch Law and Order know who he is. If Fred were not so well known, he would just be another second tier candidate with no media traction.

As for Mitt’s credentials?

4 years as Governor of Massachusetts, where he was as conservative a Governor as you could ever get. Halted gay marriage as much as he could and fought against it [see, he can't overrule court rulings for those of you who don't understand that], vetoed any attempt to expand abortion or embryonic stem-cell research, and basically used all power available to him as Governor to keep the state from going further down the tubes. The health care plan he developed is not socialized medicine. Massachusetts does not have a single-payer (read: government funded) system.

Romney is extremely successful in business, with a history for turning around bad situations in compaies. For anyone who believes government should be run as efficiently as a business, this experience is invaluable. Mitt has lived in the real world and thrived there.

Turned around the 2004 Olympics. If he can do that with the US budget it would be wonderful.

The only baggage anyone can find on him is that he’s a Mormon and he once strapped a dog kennel to the roof of his car for a cross-country trip.

Mitt has actual executive experience (working with nearly all Democrats and winning or walling them, no less.), relevant business experience, lives his life as a conservative, and is generally a strong charismatic candidate to top it off.

BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 1:29 PM

And here I thought that anyone who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, sent here to shed blood for our sins, was a Christian.

I’m sick of it too, although I must say that I would never vote for a Satanist.

Pulchritudinous Patriot on July 16, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Well put.

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 1:31 PM

“This whole thread is about the influence of religion in politics…”

I’m not talking about that.

Now, it was supposed to be about that, indeed, it was supposed to be about Fred Thompson.

I’m talking about Mormonism in reaction to another comment initially and I’m talking about the religion itself and whether, in my opinion, it meets the definition of a “cult”.

Sure. For those who think their’s a nickel’s worth of difference between cult and religion.

I’m saying as far as religions go, Mormonism is inconsistent with itself, and in a surprisingly short period of time. It’s founder was a provable fraud.

Others have better track records of consistency. For example, fundamentalist Islam.

Barbaric then, barbaric now.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 1:32 PM

Romney is extremely successful in business, with a history for turning around bad situations in compaies. For anyone who believes government should be run as efficiently as a business, this experience is invaluable. Mitt has lived in the real world and thrived there.

Turned around the 2004 Olympics. If he can do that with the US budget it would be wonderful.

Amen. He did fantastic work at Staples.

I challenge anyone to find one word in this thread that indicates I don’t, or at least wouldn’t, support Mitt Romney if he were president.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 1:34 PM

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 1:28 PM

Yes, but many of its leaders, King David, King Solomon, Joseph and many others, married more than one woman and thus were not having relations outside of their marital covenant.

The Bible even has a verse or two on polygamists.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17

15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

Esthier on July 16, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Well put.

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 1:31 PM

What? Are you changing your position here?

Esthier on July 16, 2007 at 1:37 PM

Well found, Esthier.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 1:38 PM

I’m STUNNED about some of the comments when it comes to religion and politics.

First, it’s pretty hard to separate religion and politics these days because the politics have become so divisive. If you are anti-Christian, anti-traditional values, pro-abortion, anti-capital punishment, and pro-sodomy; you are a Democrat/liberal. If you are pro-faith, pro-family, pro-life, and against same sex unions; you are a conservative/Republican. The politics of the day make it virtually possible to be “somewhere in the middle” on these issues. The wild card, of course is how these social issues play in relation to security issues like terrorism or domestic issues like taxation.

All the legitimate first-tier candidates are going to be a mixed bag if one is not a single issue (or single type of issue) voter. Rudy is great on security and domestic issues but sucks on the social issues. Mitt is in much the same situation but has to make the case with the religious right (many of whom view his faith as a cult- mine included). John McCain lost the conservative vote over his stand on domestic issues (CFR and amnesty the most notable areas).

On the Democrat side, it’s tough to differentiate between the three frontrunners. Obama is blessed with absolutely no record whatsoever so he is a blank slate. Most of Obama’s ideas, however, should scare any conservative or center leading voter because it all smacks of socialism. Edwards panders to the right on social issues, is a failure on security issues, and speaks like Obama on the the domestic issues. Hillary is downright wrong for America.

In short, I think conservative voters are going to eventually rally around a “mixed bag” candidate. I think it likely to be Fred Thompson but that isn’t a given. I think Fred and Rudy in some combo will be the ultimate ticket (Southern Conservative and moderate NYer).

highhopes on July 16, 2007 at 1:38 PM

To the first part, yes. To the second, no.

Mormons do have rules on just wars, just as Catholics do. There is a peace element in the Mormon faith, just as there is throughout Christianity and Judiaism. But there is no evidence that Romney would end the war on the followers of Qutb and Azzam. These are not fundamentalists. These are Wahabists. Romney in fact, he has been among the most hawkish of the candidates.

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 1:09 PM

Couple of points…

Religion plays a HUGE impact in how children are brought up. To dismiss this is silly. They are taught “values” at a very young age, and these values are the ones they will instinctivly rely on in a crises situation. The more involved and active the religion? the more it will affect them later in life (either positivly or negativly…). The more extreme the religious upbringing is? the more involved the familty is? the more impact it will have. In Palestine, Saudi, Iran, and Pakistan, we have had Religious Schools who have now indoctrinated an entire generation.

Wahabism is ONE form of militant Islam… problem is that any fair reading of the Koran will lead you to certain behaviours as you try to follow Mohamed… Wahabism is a Sunni sect who does this… but there are Shiites who do this as well. It IS a systemic problem with the Political/Religious system which is Islam.

One other interesting though on Mitt… Christianity is one of the “People of the Book” according to Islam, and so its treated with at least a bit of respect…. If we were to elect a JEW to the Presidency, the Moslem world would go beserk… anyone know how they will act if we elect a Mormon? (serious question, how are Mormons looked at by the Moslem world?).

We need a leader who our ENEMIES will take seriously.

Romeo13 on July 16, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Mormons are total loony bins. I’ve had a mormon friend and asked her questions about the ‘church’…and the answers were rather disturbing. One belief that is *officially denied but still taught* is that a husband teaches his wife a secret handshake she must know when she goes to enter heaven.

Furthermore, not only are some modern Mormons in hot water for polygamy, but the bit about blacks being accepted equal (just recently) really twanged a nerve.

Oh, and the ‘revelations’ their leader supposedly received from an angel and added to the Bible? A fraud through-and-through.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Book-of-Mormon.pdf

Dark-Star on July 16, 2007 at 1:41 PM

I take it then you found Ronald Reagan distasteful because he came from the liberal swamps of California.

Coming from a certain area doesn’t make you liberal or conservative, it just means if you’re smart you’ll never live there. Currently I don’t have the option of moving out of Massachusettstan, but I will so soon as I have the means.

BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 12:35 PM

True. Living in a liberal fever swamp out of economic necessity or birth doesn’t necessarily make you liberal.

But getting elected to office in one….

The difference with Reagan is that he believed what he said. That’s why he won two landslides running as a conservative, NOT a centrist.

Zach on July 16, 2007 at 1:44 PM

You mean assess, I presume.[...]
BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Actually I mean access, as to approach into, or to put oneself in the mind of;

And thanks, if I’m a fiscal-con first, or an Olympic planner, I’ll make him my #1 candidate:)

Ophelia

I wouldn’t dare say that you are ignorant. I merely say that equating that with adultery is a bridge too far.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Actually, Enrique, Fred has to get his bona fides from God, not man.

I don’t agree with the so-called Christian right giving endorsements to any candidate. I am a conservative, church-going Christian. For some reason, the MSM likes to lump us all into one catagory as a block of voters with a single mindset. We aren’t a single block. We’re individuals who cast our ballots one at a time, just like everyone else. I know what I look for in a candidate and I make my choice based upon my knowledge and life experience.

People like Dobson have a large audience. That doesn’t mean the audience is mindlessly going to follow his pronouncements — albeit, some undoubtedly will.

My point is, no one needs to be endorsed by Dobson to win. Last I heard, he isn’t even a voting delegate for the Republican National Convention.

Tennman on July 16, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Thank you for expressing my feelings word for word. Saves me alot of time. :)

Vaporman87 on July 16, 2007 at 1:53 PM

The difference with Reagan is that he believed what he said. That’s why he won two landslides running as a conservative, NOT a centrist.

Right on.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 1:55 PM

Religion plays a HUGE impact in how children are brought up. To dismiss this is silly. They are taught “values” at a very young age, and these values are the ones they will instinctivly rely on in a crises situation. The more involved and active the religion? the more it will affect them later in life (either positivly or negativly…).

Ok. Fred is a member of the Church of Christ. What are his values? The Church has about 1.3 million members, far smaller than the Mormon Church. How will that play in the Islamic world and why are they going to fear the Fred more than any other candidate.

It IS a systemic problem with the Political/Religious system which is Islam.

If you believe this, then any true reading of the Koran has a problem with anyone who is not a Muslim. Trust me, the Islamic world may hate the Jews but they fear Israel.

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 1:55 PM

There is so much information you should read here, ophelia, and this is part of it:

Jesus never said a true prophet would appear in the last days. Rather, He said false prophets would arise who would deceive, if possible, the very elect.

If you’re going to be a Christian, be a Christian. At least read and think before you excuse a religion that teaches Jesus is the brother of Satan, Mary and God had physical sex, and God was not the “alpha and omega” the beginning and the end, omniscient, omnipotent, etc., but was once a sinner and had to appeal to a higher authority to become God.

Read a little before you conclude Mormons are Christians. They only recently wanted to be considered Christians anyway.

One of the many adjustments of this recent church to changing times.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 1:56 PM

Deuteronomy 21:15-17

What Testament is that in again? Old. Read my previous posts. I’m saying that the New differs from the Old vastly.

What? Are you changing your position here?

Esthier on July 16, 2007 at 1:37 PM

I’m not changing my position at all. I probably misinterpreted the comment. I believe that Jesus Christ, the Son of God was sent to die for our sins. I believe that salvation is reached only through Him. That being said, regardless of religion, that faith will save all who have it. I would never vote for a Satanist. I won’t vote for a Mormon, not because of religion but because this country was founded on Christian principles and it would do a lot of people good to remember that.

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 1:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2