Geraghty: If Mitt’s the nominee, lefty bigots won’t be able to stop themselves; Update: Readers sound off on why they won’t vote for a Mormon
posted at 12:24 pm on November 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
True enough but would it matter?
A while back, one of my Romney guys said that in a general election showdown between his man and Hillary Clinton, there are two “landmine” moments. One is if Romney (or any male candidate, for that matter) says or does anything that sounds the slightest bit sexist.
As we’ve seen, facing tough questioning from moderators and criticism from rivals was enough to get Team Hillary to play “they’re piling on to a woman!” card already.
The second “landmine” moment would be, he suggested, if she says or does anything that appears critical of Romney’s faith. Looking at Robert Redford’s comments about Mormons from earlier today [See here. -- ed.], I wonder if Romney vs. Hillary could be a matchup that would turn out quite well for the GOP…
I suspect that if Romney were to get the nomination, we would hear a great deal from those folks about just what’s wrong with “those” Mormons, and the rhetoric would be ugly enough to match the seething disdain, and irrational bigotry lurking in the hearts of the intemperate. Somebody ought to set up a pool to guess which figure makes the first horrific statement painting all Mormons with a broad brush: Rosie O’Donnell? Bill Maher? Michael Moore? Keith Olbermann? Frank Rich?
I doubt whether Frank Rich making a crack about Mormon undergarments would be enough to move the polls (although it would be primo blog fodder), but Jim’s right that that sort of thing is bound to happen. What if it does? Well, first, if someone like Maher goes after Mormons, he’s more likely to do so in the context of denigrating Christianity as a whole, e.g. “Sure, Mormonism’s weird, but is it any weirder than the Catholic Church?” Americans are generally willing to tolerate anti-religious sentiment so long as it’s not focused on a “minority” faith. Second, reporters who want to inject this sort of thing without taking too much responsibility for it have an easy dodge available by framing it in terms of what Americans, not they themselves, allegedly believe. (“Romney leads in Iowa and New Hamphire but Americans may find his belief in some of the more eccentric aspects of LDS theology suspicious.”)
Third, there’s a huge open question about how solidly conservatives would be willing to line up behind Mitt on the religious issue if he’s attacked for it. Most will do so, partly out of decency, partly out of conservative tribalism, and partly out of sheer outrage at the left for being such filthy intolerant hypocrites, but the fact is that there are parts of the right-wing base even now who are warning him not to go around pretending like he’s “one of us.” (See this poll from September and compare Mormons’ numbers to Muslim Americans’.) The left may sense an opening there to peel some of them away; the trick would be to cast enough aspersions on Mormonism to scare off those voters without casting so many that even centrist Democrats become disgusted by the tactic. There are faiths that would disqualify a candidate who belonged to them in many voters’ eyes, Scientology being the most obvious example. The task for Hillary et al. would be to legitimize that calculus in voters’ minds and get them to thinking where Mormonism falls on the spectrum between Dianetics and the Bible. A scummy tactic but not hard to imagine.
One other point. While both sexism and anti-Mormonism may be landmines, the former is much bigger than the latter, needless to say. A crack about Hillary’s gender won’t peel off any Democrat-leaners the way an aspersion cast on Mormonism might among Republican-leaners; on the contrary, it would surely peel off a few women who’d planned on voting Republican (and potentially more than a few, depending upon how snide it was). Revisit this poll from February and compare the relevant categories: Americans overwhelmingly accept a woman candidate but they’re a bit more circumspect about Mormons, suggesting that they view anti-woman sentiment as essentially irrational but are a smidge more nuanced when it comes to LDS. That helps the left, but at 72%, thankfully not as much as it might.
Update: Martin Frost asked his readers whether they’d vote for a Mormon candidate. Most said they would — but not all. Click to see what Mitt’s up against. Objections to LDS’s alleged racism, its hierarchical nature, even the underwear. My favorite:
Jessica Elliott: “I can’t speak for all Christians or all Republicans, but I can give you an honest perspective from one average Christian mom who would never vote for a Mormon. You understand already that many people call Mormonism a cult. What you may not understand is that many of us see Mormonism as such a strange, ridiculous belief system that we have to seriously doubt the judgment of anyone who could believe it. It’s like asking us to consider voting for someone who believes they were kidnapped by aliens.”
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I can answer according to what I used to believe in my protestant tradition.
—begin explanation, not my beliefs—
Jesus was both fully god and fully man. This is contradictory, of course, but it’s the only way that the Bible can make sense. I’m aware that Mormons reject the Trinity, which causes scriptural problems.
Jesus was separate from god while simultaneously god. One god, three persons. I’m sure you’ve been taught how retarded it is. It’s true anyway.
God (the father) is eternal and was never a man. He’s way too good for that.
Man can never become a god. He’s way too bad for that.
Jesus is a special case. He’s a man-god. Yeah, it’s weird, but it is true.
—end explanation, not my beliefs—
The LDS notion that “we all can become gods” offended me greatly when I was a Christian. Now that I’m not a Christian, religion is all just a bunch of hooey and all of it is logically problematic in one way or another.
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Gee, I have been posting here for a couple of years and I have never heard that one before.
I am not2bright or whatever you stated…good one. Got any others? I haven’t personally attacked anyone that didn’t attack me first. But you, I don’t have to attack…you have made a fool of yourself, thanks.
Care to make a more substantive comment? Or do you just flail around with insults.
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 4:27 PM
The fact is; he did not fire the one responsible, he did not condemn the company responsible for safety, he did not return the money, and all of that revolved around a contributor.
It is amazing how someone will stick their head in the sand and not see the truth…Mitt gave his contributors a pass on the death of a women.
So where is your accusation of a half-truth? You are the one who made the false claim of returning money.
Oh, you mean about him not mentioning Bechtel as the “bad-guy”, well guess what, he didn’t and hasn’t…and he won’t, because they are now his meal ticket. Get it?
That’s how it is, you help me in the Olympics, I help you in the big dig, you help me get elected, and I will help you…
It ain’t rocket science.
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Loundry:
As Christ said, there are “many mansions” in Heaven, and Paul refers to being caught up to the third heaven.
There are three general levels of heaven, which Paul compared to the sun, the moon, and the stars. Generally speaking, the telestial, or the one compared to stars, is for most of the wicked people (liars, murderers, etc). The middle level, or terrestrial, is for generally good people. The Celestial, or the level compared to the Sun, is for those who overcome. Christians can certainly make it there (indeed, seeing as we LDS are Christians, it is a requirement). We believe you are judged on your works, so your works and whether you took advantage of Christ’s atonement fully determines where you go. We also believe that those offers are fully extended to everyone who ever lived, regardless of whether they heard of Christ in this life or not.
You don’t have to accept, however. Indeed, from what little I know of most evangelical beliefs about heaven, I think both LDS and those beliefs are fully in line: evangelicals get what they want. I.E. to walk with Jesus. The LDS church believes that there is more to achieve than that, but if that is all you want, you are more than capable of getting that reward, and you never, ever at any time have to accept the LDS view of anything. God, however, offers more than that, if we allow it.
I’m sure there will be plenty of Mormons in the lower levels, and that there will be plenty of people who were not LDS in their earthly life in the Celestial heavens. As for outer darkness, it is very hard to go there: basically, you have to knowingly reject Jesus after having had a spiritual witness. In other words, Judas Iscariot-level sin. I guess you could compare it to spiritual treason. Murder is generally not enough to go there. Even excommunication from the LDS church is not enough, generally speaking.
Excommunication is supposed to be a step in repentance, not necessarily a punishment.
I hope that helps!
Vanceone on November 13, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Look, if you’re not going to keep up with the thread, why bother with this discussion? Scroll up and look for my name and you’ll see who I’m accusing of spreading half-truths, and who I meant when I said Romney had returned contributions.
Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 4:36 PM
He’s also one whom many Republicans wouldn’t vote for, and could inspire a third party spoiler candidacy.
Indies didn’t help other “moderate” Republicans too terribly much in the past, there’s no reason to believe they’d do so now.
Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 4:38 PM
You seem to have forgotten your apology. You said I was full of BS, then admitted I did quote correctly. But you forgot…must of got lost in cyber.
See you called me not2bright, and you are the one who made the mistake…the irony.
luckily, your faith asks you to ask for forgiveness when you make false accusations…I’ll wait.
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Christians and other non-mormons, can also attain the topmost level of the highest level, the same as practicing mormons.
Neither. Murderers, liars, and thieves specifically go to the lowest level.
To go to outer darkness, you have to know that Jesus is the Christ and then deny that. There is a difference between think, believe and know. The number of these people is rather short. And the list would typically only include Mormons.
Even Hitler, and his like, for all their atrocities would not go to Outer Darkness.
Christians, and Mormons, will predominantly go to the highest or middle level of heaven.
Sebastian on November 13, 2007 at 4:41 PM
No more so than you presenting an anti-Christian argument?
>>>
I’m willing to say at this point that Romney could be just as great a president as Giuliani.
Main problem with Romney is he is new to the DC Beltway and doesn’t have the friends that Giuliani does to help him do his job. Hard to place my bet on a new horse.
Main problem with Giuliani is his track record doesn’t always jibe with his campaign rhetoric. Hard to place my bet on a horse that has been known to run the wrong way from time to time.
Main problem with McCain is his willingness to compromise with the other side. Hard to place my bet on a horse that likes to negotiate a tie at the finish with line.
Lawrence on November 13, 2007 at 4:42 PM
“Once a man” is ambiguous. Christian doctrine is that Jesus is an eternal person of the Godhead who for a time walked as a sinless man among us. He was not one of us sinners, and we have no hope of becoming a god like Jesus, though the Church will become his bride, whatever that means.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but LDS seems to talk about believers who are now just men becoming gods of their own universe. That goes against monotheism, whereas the trinity just says that we can perceive 3 aspects of one God.
pedestrian on November 13, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Actually, I never wrote it.
Look closer…”Buy Danish on November 13, 2007 at 4:17 PM”
Now what’s this about making false accusations?
Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 4:42 PM
I did and this is the blog that you started with my quote, and then followed up with this
Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 4:25 PM
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 4:44 PM
I don’t see any credible media carrying this story. Not even the MSM. This will be carried through the internet and churches just like it always has been. The MSM may report on the bigotry of those promoting their bigoted views into the campaign just like they are now, but I don’t think you will see a long detailed story discussing the finer points of the LDS faith.
People like R2B who will spew their lies and mis-characterizations of the LDS beliefs. Bigots will take up the cause and, just like always, they will attract more bigots.
The Clinton’s are the masters of this stuff, but in the end it wont matter. The LDS faith is of no threat to anyone. It produces pretty decent people for the most part and THAT is what scares the bigots. They have been brainwashed by the Ed Deckers and Dr Walter Martins of the evangelical community into thinking that the LDS church is run by Satan and it galls them to no end that their own bible contradicts their bigotry. By their fruits shall you know them. For the most part, people of the LDS faith produce some mighty worthy fruit.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 4:45 PM
I was talking about the columnists linked by Hollowpoint up-thread, the genesis of this entire Big Dig discussion. It was not a personal attack against you in any way, shape or form.
Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Btw, right2bright, I would appreciate a correction of your mis-statements here: right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 4:40 PM.
Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Thats exactly how I feel about it Bill. Something about Romney just feels a little too polished, too shiny to me. I don’t know why but it makes me uncomfortable. Rudy, with all his divorces and dressin up as a woman, his family troubles, lol I don’t know why but that makes him more real to me. Rudy seems very genuine to me, no matter what I feel about every single one of his policies. I just don’t get that vibe from Mitt
Keli on November 13, 2007 at 4:48 PM
I’ll never be able to vote for Mitt because he reminds me so much of Bulworth (as played by Warren Beatty). Every time I see him talk I expect him to start speaking in a Rap cadance. Sorry Mitt. I can’t help it.
Ernest on November 13, 2007 at 4:49 PM
As long as he’s not a Scientologist, I don’t care what religion he believes in.
Mindcrime on November 13, 2007 at 4:50 PM
No, you can’t have a correction, Not Yours.
Dunno.
Bad Candy on November 13, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Vanceone,
That was an excellent explanation, thank you!
I think it bears mentioning that the “Mormons are Christians too” meme is a recent (as in, last few decades) innovation in Mormonism. Mormons used to say, “No, we are not Christians. We are Mormons.” until it became widely understood (to Mormons) that calling oneself “not a Christian” to a protestant is much like calling oneself a Satanist. So the Church instructed Mormons to say, “Yes, we are Christians too.” This is how it was told to me by an almost-bishop, and it was through him that I knew much of anything about LDS theology.
Me, I’m not a Christian and am probably bound for outer darkness. Whee!
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 4:53 PM
My best friend is a Born Again and he reminds he all the time I’m destined for Hell, so I’ll join you. I’ll bring the chips and dip.
Mindcrime on November 13, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Thanks, a good response. I keep forgetting that people are saved via works in LDS theology.
In my old, shucked-off protestant theology, I believed that I was saved by faith, but also that “faith without works is dead”. Hence, I was saved by faith+works, but no, I certainly wasn’t saved by works, because there was nothing I could do that could bridge the gap between me and Jesus because Jesus did it all and all my actions were for naught. Yeah, I know, it’s nonsensical.
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Keep dreaming.
Google ‘Romney Mormon’, and you get all kinds of articles bringing up Romney’s Mormonism, including but not limited to:
Fox News
Weekly Standard
Time
American Spectator
NY Sun
Washington Post
Washington Times
MSNBC
etc, etc, etc
Were he to get the nomination, the scrutiny would increase tenfold, and it’s a certainty that some would be quite negative or at minimum try to explain Mormon beliefs. The excuse would be that it’s newsworthy since most people aren’t terribly familiar with the Mormon faith. Unfair though it might be, that’s the reality.
Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 4:57 PM
People are afraid of that which they do not understand. If you want to know the real Mitt, just look into the way he honors his family. That’s a good man worthy of our respect and trust. This country would be lucky to have a guy like Mitt at the helm for a while.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 4:57 PM
You can’t take it with you.
pedestrian on November 13, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Those are stories about the problems others have with his faith and are not a promotion of the bigotry those people are espousing. You aren’t going to see it any more than you would see bigotry espoused about any other faith.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 4:59 PM
So you’re saying that the Fox News article is the first and last one?
Naive x 100.
Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 5:02 PM
We are saved by faith and works, Loudry. You cannot have just one. I don’t think Evangelicals and LDS people are that far apart, really. They froth about Mormons believe they can earn their way to heaven (Which is wrong), but ask them if you can recite the saving words or whatever, and then go out and deliberately commit adultery, murder, etc and whether they are still saved, and most of them won’t go for that. So we both have the basic same concept.
Works don’t save us on their own. Faith without works is dead. Both together are necessary.
And as far as I know, we have never claimed we are not Christians. We are not traditional Christians, so if there are any statements like those you quote, that is what it refers to. But Christ has always been the author and finisher of our faith.
And I highly, highly doubt you are bound for outer darkness, Loudry. I’m no judge, but I’m fairly certain on that one. In fact, I doubt it is possible for you to go there.
Vanceone on November 13, 2007 at 5:04 PM
I have been calling right2bright “not2bright” for a long time now, notably when he tries to smear Mitt Romney with tabloid trash, and leap to conclusions where none exist.
Slubog had nothing to do with it, but n2b has a lot of trouble keeping up.
Buy Danish on November 13, 2007 at 5:04 PM
No. Mormons are saved by Faith, Works, and Grace.
First you have to Faith in Jesus that he is the Christ. You demonstrate your Faith by your Works till the end. But ultimately it is Grace that saves.
So Mormons aren’t saved by works alone. But it is by works that faith is demonstrated that earns Grace or gains Christ’s approval to extend his Grace to us.
So Mormons aren’t Faith-only, or Works-only, or Grace-less.
Sebastian on November 13, 2007 at 5:06 PM
If it has to be earned, then it isn’t grace.
pedestrian on November 13, 2007 at 5:10 PM
This article is a perfect example. This guy doesn’t go into the teachings. He just reports on the bigots who reject the teachings.
Here is an example of the bigotry.
“Mark Smith: “Why not Romney? You are also forgetting that voters have the right to choose or reject a candidate for any reason(s) they choose. Voter rejection of Romney because of his Mormonism is no more baffling than voter acceptance of Hillary who is unqualified and chosen by many simply because she is a woman and/or spouse of a former president.”"
A justification for bigotry. Mark Smith, whatever else you are, you are a disgusting bigot on top of it.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 5:13 PM
2 100+ comment religion threads in one day?
It’s been too long…
brak on November 13, 2007 at 5:14 PM
No. I am saying the MSM will not promote the bigotry. They will report on the bigotry of others.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 5:14 PM
MINE.
Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Now we know Allah is back.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 5:15 PM
I was going to stay out of this. But the update, Jessica Elliott quote drew me out. I think it was Robert Heinlein (interestingly, a friend of George Romney) who said “One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh.” That makes sense to me. Faith, as the apostle Paul said, is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Unless one hopes for a thing, it probably sounds pretty silly. Most theologies have them, belly laughs for others I mean: God sending a bear to kill kids that teased an old man; a reanimated Jew; an ancient record on gold plates buried in upstate New York; a divine son with the head of an elephant; houris; spontaneous generation, though shown to be false by Pascal, as the source of all life on earth or in the universe; etc. But, if one hopes for a thing, it seems perfectly believable and, with just a little effort, even rational.
Jens on November 13, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Haha. And both are combinations of the two things we’re all told never to talk about – religion and politics.
We’re all uncouth!
Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 5:16 PM
To get Christs grace something has to be done. Once that thing is done, you are expected to show you have received his grace through your actions in your daily life.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Here is the difference between Christians who are bigots and the LDS church…..
And they think they have the standing to judge others.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 5:32 PM
You can’t manipulate God, it is by his grace and his alone that decisions are made. Christ made that quite clear, you cannot buy your way, you can’t work your way, you can’t pray your way, you can’t earn your way, you can’t weasel your way. He makes the decision, not you. And he is the ultimate authority, not you, we have but a small understanding what is given to us…you can’t make a decision when you have so little knowledge or wisdom.
Verses to back this up? Just ask.
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Can’t keep up with your personal attacks. Not2bright was first used by that gal who got banned, Honora…you remind me of her. Always started off with an insult…
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Tell me, oh great one…did Romney fire the safety inspector working for Bechtel when the woman was killed? Hmmmm?
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 5:41 PM
So that makes at least 3 people who have made fun of your pseudonym. What an extraordinary coincidence!
Buy Danish on November 13, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Maybe you have not been posting that long. But Csdeven set the rules for Mormons on this blog. He stated that any argument that is taken up along the same thread, whether posted by you or not, are still yours by “ownership”. I know, it doesn’t make sense, but that is what he stated. I have it archived, but I think he will admit it. So what Vancone, slublog, csdeven, and others, each of you have “ownership. Honestly, that is what he believes.
I think it is ridiculous of csdeven to think that way. So I will say sorry for attributing those remarks to you. Interesting how the person responsible for those remarks didn’t come forward and defend them. I guess he will know how foolish his remarks are.
But certainly if I mis-stated them to you, my apology.
As you can see I have not made any personal attacks on you or any other (except when they went out of the way to attack first). Let’s see how you and a couple others respond to that challenge. Funny how you demand an apology for mis-stating a fact that offends you, but…
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Gee, that makes two Mormons and an atheist who can’t handle a debate so they resort to name calling…what a coincidence.
Now do you want to post something useful, or do you want to keep calling people who disagree with you names?
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Well, at least you admit that Christianity is a cult.
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 6:04 PM
I appreciate that. As a general rule, I don’t use personal attacks. They’re counterproductive and unpleasant.
As for the Bechtel thing, I don’t believe it was in Romney’s power as governor to fire someone who works for a private firm hired by the MTA. Perhaps he could have put more pressure on them, but I think getting the concrete manufacturers in court, fixing the problems and firing the head of the MTA was a pretty good result.
Romney’s record on fighting corruption in Mass is a good one, considering the state is Louisiana north. His greatest success was getting rid of Billy Bulger, a wart on the UMass system.
Actually, I asked for an apology because you attributed someone else’s comments to me, and did not seem willing to correct the record. However, you have done so and I appreciate it.
And finally, I’m not a Mormon.
Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 6:07 PM
I don’t need verses. All you have to do is ask yourself why you have to accept Christ in order to be saved?
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 6:07 PM
All religions fit the definition of a cult.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Connect the dots to Romney!
Oh, and by what authority would Romney fire an employee of a private company anyway? Hmmmmm?
Buy Danish on November 13, 2007 at 6:15 PM
No, that is your mis-understanding. It is God’s choice that you go or not go to “heaven”. He set out rules of conduct, and He says the only way through is through Him, but He makes the call. Not me, not you, not the pope, not a cardinal, nor bishop, nor a seer, or prophet, or minister, or priest…no one but God gets to make that call.
Now we can judge them as to what we deem is faith, as you and your church does. We do allow anyone to worship in any of our religious sanctuary’s…you are welcome to come to any service in my church and fully participate in our worship service, as the Lord intended (remember the ripped curtain?)…can I go to one of your temples and worship in any of their services?
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 6:20 PM
The Mormon faith is just one more offshoot of conventional religion. Their only problem is that if it happened 2000 years ago it must be true but 200 years ago must be fake. I lived in Salt Lake City for many years and had many Mormon neighbors. They are generally hard working and pleasant people who go out of their way to help everyone.
Romney is not trying to lead the “council of twelve”. He is running for President. His faith should not be a problem. If we could handle JFK surely we can handle a Mormon.
duff65 on November 13, 2007 at 6:26 PM
Since it is God’s choice, I guess we’ll see you on the side of the LDS condemning the bigots who judge other. Glad to see you finally line up with the teachings of the LDS faith.
And no, you cannot go to the temple, but there are many members of the LDS church who cannot attend either. ALL are welcome to Sunday services, just as they are welcome to yours. The difference is in the LDS church, you will not hear a talk that demeans any other faith. YOU cannot say that about many evangelical churches. They are bigots.
Again, glad to see you will be joining us in defending people from the attacks of the bigots.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 6:27 PM
More inconvenient facts:
I wonder the very sanctimonious r2b will apologize for his error(s).
Buy Danish on November 13, 2007 at 6:29 PM
You are right, he had no right to fire him (although I am sure a request would have been honored). Let me make it more plain. He never had him removed as safety inspector, nor had him reprimanded. In other words, as you slice and dice words, he kept him on…that is the bottom line. Here let me use words you understand…he did not have the company responsible for safety, removed from their duties. I will ask again, what ramifications did Bechtel, the largest contractor bear?
Here maybe this will help:
Okay, they hired a company from Portugal to test the bolts, at one-half the load, instead of the normal 3- 5 times the load. They were negligent…and Mitt protected his contributors, just like the Gov. before him hired his cronies. Slice it any way you want, someone died because of Bechtel’s mis-management, and Mitt protected Bechtel.
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Defending the company responsible for killing a woman. Sorry, I will leave that up to you.
Their punishment, stupid, was to make a huge profit…but not as much as if they had not killed a woman.
Boy, you got me on that one, they only made an additional 264 million dollars.
I never new killing someone was so profitable…how much do you think they would have made if she wasn’t killed?
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 6:49 PM
It is at times like these I ask myself, what would Cartman do?
South Park had an episode where a Mormon family moved to South Park. The plot had two tracks: 1) The boys reacting to the new Mormon family, and 2) Joseph Smith’s founding of the religion. The founding of the religion was patently absurd to the point of being nonsensical. They even had background singers going, “dumb, da, dumb, dumb” while Smith was babbling into his hat (very funny). Anyway, back in South Park, the boys decided they were going to hate those weird Mormons, but the Mormon boy their age was really kewl. One of the regular boys went over to the Mormon house for dinner and the whole family was very wholesome and yet very kwel. No matter how much they wanted to hate the Mormons, they couldn’t.
Anyway, those wacky guys that write South Park did a great job of capturing the essence of LDS — the religion its NUTZ, but the people are for the most part really, really, great people.
Religions (all religions) start out as a weird cult until it gets to be real old. Then the crazy beliefs become acceptable as “steeped in tradition”. It also helps that over time very wise practitioners develop philosophies that reconcile the belief system with the natural world. Eventually the cult becomes an accepted major world religion. Some view Mormonism as a “cult” because it’s relatively new — basically, it’s Scientology with a head start towards becoming a religion.
tommylotto on November 13, 2007 at 6:54 PM
What a surprise: butt-sniffing Democrat leftist Martin Frost writing a Fox News column.
Jaibones on November 13, 2007 at 6:55 PM
r2b,
Read this, which goes into great detail about what happened, and you shall see that things are not always as they seem. In this case the State of Massachussets and the Feds share a lot of the blame for putting Bechtel in charge of inspecting its own work. Those decisions had nothing to do with Romney.
BTW, Generally speaking when I hear people use words like “cronies” I suspect a lack of objectivity, and a tendency to be swayed by hack tabloid writing.
But that’s just me.
Buy Danish on November 13, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Did you guys have this same visceral hatred for the Mormon-based storyline of Battlestar Galactica too?
ScottMcC on November 13, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Heh, I didn’t know r2b was Jessica Elliot. :-D
BKennedy on November 13, 2007 at 7:08 PM
Did you guys have this same visceral hatred for the Mormon-based storyline of Battlestar Galactica too?
That show just has some of the worst writers I have ever tried to watch. I don’t see anything “Mormon” about the scripts. I just see some really awful scripts.
duff65 on November 13, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Our posts just crossed. Let me make this very simple R2B:
I did not defend Bechtel, I was defending Romney, and Romney wasn’t defending Bechtel either!
It’s too bad that you are incapable of processing information without reaching bizarre conclusions that are entirely a figment of your
inflicted imagination.
What is really appalling is how you try to smear me in the process.
*Romney Derangement Syndrome
Buy Danish on November 13, 2007 at 7:22 PM
there is litterally no historical foundation for believing in the so-called god of abraham.
jummy on November 13, 2007 at 7:25 PM
UNFORGIVABLE.
Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 7:27 PM
Whoa–I NEVER heard most of this stuff about Mormons before! I gotta say I think ole’ right2think has a point. I think all this kinda really strange stuff is gonna come as QUITE a SURPRISE to most other Christians.
I don’t think anyone meant to bash Mormons- but by the same token I think you folks are bein’ REAL NAIVE if you don’t think that all this kinda strange stuff is gonna come out duing a YEAR LONG Presidential Race. And it’ll come out in as ugly a way a possible.
Remember the stuff in SC about John McCain’s black daughter? (Of course she was adopted in Bangaladesh by Cindy McCain)- but the folks puttin’ the flyers on cars didn’t care about the “whole truth.”
WE MUST LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT THE BAGGAGE THAT ALL THE CANDIDATES ARE CARRY’N! AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW THAT BAGGAGE CAN BE USED- FAIR or NOT!
By the way this thread sure does explain why cdseven hates Fred so much! Me, I’m a Fred supporter- but I’m not a Mitt hater. I just want the best candidate and the best POTUS.
Ex-tex on November 13, 2007 at 7:44 PM
You have no clue why I oppose Fred.
The point is that to believe that people will reject Romney based solely on his faith, is accusing those people of bigotry. I agree. ANYONE who opposes ANY candidate on their religious beliefs is a bigot. I do not think enough Americans are bigoted that Mitt would not beat Hillary based solely on his faith.
And people who tacitly allow it to go unchallenged are part of the problem, if not bigots themselves.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 7:50 PM
R2B is the only person who is looking at Mitt’s record as a civic leader as a way to determine his worthiness to be president. She is totally wrong, as many have proven with their links etc., but these are the issues that matter. NOT his faith.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Well csdeven, I guess you can call’em bigots if you want, but folks make up their minds for all sorts of reasons. And they can make up their own minds about Mormonism, Christianity, Scientology, Wiccan-ism, or Islam for that matter, and I DON’T think it makes’em BIGOTS!
Ex-tex on November 13, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Why is it that to defend bigotry you use the right people have to be bigots? NO ONE ever said they didn’t have a right to be bigots. The fact is that they ARE bigots when they reject a presidential candidate based on his faith. If you defend bigotry YOU are adding to the problem.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 8:03 PM
A little late on this but what was written about Wiccans and the circle etc was crap. In the 90s the market got flooded with a bunch of Womens studies Wiccan books who claimed everything was a womb. Gardner invented Wicca in the 50s and the circle was originally a nod to the ceremonial practices to “Magick” which he used to fill in the blancks missing from the documents he used to “re-create” the old religion. By recreate I mean rip of the public domian works of folklore writer C.G. Leland.
Wicca has as much to do with Masons as Alex Jones does to truth.
I know, I’m nominally still a Wiccan. And I’m a Bush supporting pro-market Republican. Don’t let your inate bigotries drive more people out of the GOP big tent.
Rob Taylor on November 13, 2007 at 8:43 PM
I’m not sure of your definition of “bigot,” but I beg to differ. The connotation I get from the word “bigot” assumes some irrational rejection of a candidate based on his religious faith. A candidate could be otherwise perfectly swell, but if I found out the candidate was a devote Muslim of any sect he would be completely unacceptable to me. That judgement is not based upon an irrational bias against Islam, but a rational understanding of Islam’s basic tenants, history and beliefs. I simply do not believe a devote Muslim could place his submission to our Constitution above his submission to the will of Allah as he understands it. Also, I think value judgments based on religion are not bigotry so long as the judgment is based a reasonable understanding of that religion. If I reasonably understand a particular religion, and I think belief in that religion requires irrational thought on the part of the devotee, than I am perfectly within my rights to hold that religious affiliation against that candidate.
I believe in moral relativism to a point, but any moral equation must have as an added constant my own personal point of view. If a religion to me seems irrational, weird, and cult-like I am not required to surrender those judgments at the alter of political correctness, and I am not a bigot because I allow myself to be guided by those rational judgments.
tommylotto on November 13, 2007 at 9:05 PM
If I as an atheist have no problem with Mitt’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, why do Evangelicals or whatever?
What is the explaination?
Is it Freud’s “narcissism of small differences” on their part?
Or is it that they fear something that I do not?
MB4 on November 13, 2007 at 9:06 PM
I disagree that one is bigoted to use faith as a basis for a vote, because if their faith is real it will have a big impact on their policies. I support Mitt for a lot of reasons, including because I’ve met a lot of Mormons and saw and respect their values. People aren’t going to vote for a Scientologist, and that’s because they usually come across as wackjobs and not because of Xenu(tm). Other denominations are more diverse. Theologically, I’m closer to Hillary than anyone else, but I fear for the country if she wins.
pedestrian on November 13, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Well there is one exception. The religion that teaches:
2:10 Disbelievers are diseased.
2:99 Disbelievers are evil people.
2:104 For disbelievers is a painful doom.
2:171 Disbelievers are deaf, dumb, and blind.
3:73 Don’t believe anyone who is not a Muslim.
3:48 Don’t be friends with non-Muslims. They all hate you and want to ruin you.
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
4:63 Oppose those who refuse to follow Muhammad.
4:101The disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
4:144 Do not choose disbelievers as friends.
5:51 Don’t take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them.
5:51 Jews and Christians are losers.
5:60 Allah turned unbelievers into apes and swine.
5:59 Jews and Christians are evil people.
9:5 Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them.
MB4 on November 13, 2007 at 9:11 PM
This is where the candidates behavior in the political realm becomes relevant. If we had a Muslim candidate that has a history of opposition to extremist Muslim ideologies, then his/her faith has zero to do with it. The same is true for an atheist.
This is the point. Mitt has done nothing in the political arena that lends any credibility to the idea that his faith is an issue in this election. Oppose him on flip-flops and the big dig, or pick a rational argument to scrutinize him on.
But what we are seeing here are people who reject a person on the basis of their understanding of his faith from their perspective and not from an examination of the facts surrounding the candidates behavior as a public servant.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 9:34 PM
I’ll stand w/ Jessica.
AZ_Redneck on November 13, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Nice try, you lace your posts with personal attacks, and then call me the one that smears. *uck’in liar. Look at your smears. You were name calling me right out of the gate you stupid swine…you must live and drink in your own urine. I don’t have to sit here and have heaps of name calling foisted on me by some candidate groupie, because I don’t like his policies, and then be told not to retort. You stupid fool, read your posts, and then tell me how many personal insults you hurled at me, before I decided that I have had enough of your stupid ignorant, dirty mouthed insults…you are the type that makes personal attacks, because you don’t have the huevos to say it to anyones face. You are like the momma’s boy you support. Feel safe, and hurl your insults…I assure you, face to face and you would swallow your insults. Harrass someone else you little groupie, leave the thinking to the big boys that don’t start off each post with some stupid, smart-*ss insult. Wise up groupie.
Now back to the real problem, you are a nothing…
As I said, you think punishing Bechtel by giving them and additional–additional almost $300,000,0000 is punishing them, then please, God, have Mitt punish me.
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 10:01 PM
“Does anybody here give a damn that Mitt is a Mormon”
NOPE!!!
jeanie on November 13, 2007 at 10:12 PM
csdeven, I refuse to believe that if a candidate (we have been down this road before) dances to voodoo, and sticks needles in a doll, mixes herbs to cast spells on people, and I refuse to support him because of that, you call me a bigot.
In deference to you saying I am self naming myself…if that is what you think is a bigot, than that is your definition and I would be one.
I call it being practical, common sense, you said you would support anyone who has conservative values, no matter what he beleives. And I believe a person is defined by his beliefs…and those beliefs, and the effects of those beliefs should be measured and weighted when choosing a President, a mate, a baby-sitter (how about someone who worships nude children, care to hire them?), an employee, a friend. If someone walks the walk, then great, but you and I differ on Mitts honesty (not his integrity, but honesty). I want him to prove himself, let him be VP or some other cabinet post– no problem, and prove for some years that he believes what he says this week.
I just don’t believe that he believes what he says, he says what others want to hear.
That is probably our biggest disagreement.
But if he gives me $250,000,000 for being wrong, then I will change my mind and support him.
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Wrong, Mormons care…and they should.
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Jessica Elliott is a bigot.
Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Exactly. As long as they hold to conservatism, I don’t care what they worship and you do. Your problem is you are utterly intolerant of the beliefs of others that don’t march in lockstep with you.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 10:46 PM
csdeven, so would you vote for a devote Muslim with an ulterior motive to impose sharia just because he maintained a facade of conservativism until he was able to convince the sheeple to vote him in as the most powerful person in the free world? Of course not. You are too mart for that. You would see through that facade. You know what Muslims think and why. If you could see through Fred’s 100% pro-life voting record, certainly you could see through Keith Ellison’s Taqiyya.
tommylotto on November 13, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Morman, shmoreman. Who cares? It isn’t like he is going to issue an executive order requiring my kids to wear special magic underpants or anything. I don’t see what the fuss is. Honestly, who really cares?
crosspatch on November 13, 2007 at 11:23 PM
I understand what you are saying and in that context I would NOT vote for him. I just do not believe an extremist could stay under the radar long enough to get that close to power. The problem they have is their slavish devotion to their beliefs. They would have too many decisions they would be expected to make that they cannot vote for because of their tenets. The American people are not a bunch of third world tribal members that will give extremists the opportunity to run their society like they did in Anbar. They regretted that real soon.
My conditions to vote for a Muslim are very narrow, but their faith alone is not the reason I would reject them.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Since all religion is based on faith, not repeatable scientific experiments, why should any voter care about a candidate’s religion? (Unless when he takes office he can smote evildoers with a wave of his hand.)
I care only about how he handles the world of facts (and one particular faith that is pushing galloping sharia) –
like illegal immigration, deficit spending, etc., etc.
JFK did just fine when his religion was brought into question. Just because his religion, practiced by 40% (??) of Americans, believes in transmutation during communion, did the American public repudiate transmutation?? Is transmutation looked at skeptically by non-Catholics? Any more skeptically than a few golden plates??
fred5678 on November 13, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Bigots care, that is for sure.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 11:26 PM
@ MB4 on November 13, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Its because the very Christians who see Mormonism as a cult and their views as extreme are the very people who never take a step back and look at what they themselves are believing. For anyone like dear old Jesicca there to say that a Mormon is weird because of his beliefs because he is not a christian and doesnt believe her version of how people in the past before the scientific revolution explained things they didnt understand, is just ludacris.
muyoso on November 14, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Gee, utterly intolerant, gosh…I am honored. Yep, if your not lockstep with me, I am intolerant. That is why I suggested Mitt be the VP, or that I voiced support for Rudy, or that I think highly of Lieberman, one of my dearest friends is the most liberal person on our city council, my fishing buddy is a black liberal, the best man at my sons wedding was Mormon, my brother-in law, who I love, is a Jew. My son hasn’t voted the same as me, ever, he is a liberal attorney. Yeah you have me pegged, your a regular Sherlock Holmes.
You must be one of those prophets…
right2bright on November 14, 2007 at 12:51 AM
Would that Bill Clinton had been as circumspect when asked, “Boxers or Briefs?” We mocked Bubba endlessly when he actually answered the girl. The correct answer to a question about a candidate’s underwear is no answer at all. It’s unseemly, and beneath the dignity of the office we’re seeking to fill.
Whatever question Mitt is asked, I suspect he’ll be judged more by his responses than by any questions. We’ll remember only if he comes off like an automaton, a used-car salesman, or a poor-widdle-me Clinton.
sulla on November 14, 2007 at 12:51 AM
I believe a Mormon poster was the one that through out the cult card. No Christian used that word to define Mormon’s . It was a Mormon who called Christians a cult, and then tried to cover his *ss by saying all religions are cults. I guess they can call Christians a cult, but Christians can’t return the favor.
right2bright on November 14, 2007 at 1:03 AM
I missed that by you, darn. I can’t go to a temple, but you are welcome to come to any of our Christian churches. Guess you have to work your way into a temple.
And I always thought Christ made it apparent that he abhorred the way temples were run; where only the select could come and worship. Imagine, a church so special, that only “special” people can come and worship God. How very selective…it must be difficult to choose who gets to worship and who can’t. Probably have some pretty strict rules to be a temple Mormon. Have to give enough, work enough, what did Luther call it? Oh yeah, plenary and papal indulgences. The church would sell you, either by works or money the opportunity to worship in their church. Interesting, never saw that in the bible.
Thanks for sharing.
right2bright on November 14, 2007 at 1:31 AM
Mormons believe that you go to either outer darkness, a terrestrial, a telestial, or a celestial kingdom. Your final state is determined by your works while on Earth, hell (a temporary state, not eternal) being reserved only for the most wicked. This teaching is foreign to Jesus’ teaching about hell, and it is why Christians react so strongly against the Mormon message. Woe to those who preach a message that comforts people in their lost state without addressing their plight! Woe to those to who preach a gospel of works rather than the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ! I will not vote for Mitt Romney because 1. he is plastic and pliable to whatever the prevailing political climate is, and 2. He is an active enemy of the cross of Christ. Call me a bigot if you want– I really don’t care.
gajaw999 on November 14, 2007 at 4:26 AM
1) Who says I’m a member of the LDS church?
2) Many, and possible even you have called the LDS church a cult.
3) The fact is that ALL churches fit the definition of a cult.
4) You are more than welcome to the LDS equivalent to your Sunday services. All are welcome.
5) There are several questions that are asked by the Stake president and the Bishop of your Ward. Those questions include some that are works and the rest are statements of faith.
The rest of your rant is outright lies.
The fact that I am having to educate you on the LDS faith is evidence enough that you do not know enough about the truth surrounding LDS teachings to come in here and speak as if you are an authority. The problem that lots of faithful people have is that they discard intellectual honesty whenever a competing faith is discussed. It makes them look ignorant and unnecessarily sheepish. You have this in spades. You believe you are right to the point that everyone else must be wrong, so there is no reason for you to be accurate about what you say. You think can lie, misrepresent, and just talk out of your a$$, and it doesn’t matter, because everyone except those who believe as you do are wrong anyway.
If you want to see this intellectual dishonesty on display in all it’s glorious ignorance, just visit a thread discussing atheism, or Mormonism, or any other faith that YOU do agree with.
csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 8:07 AM
If he is the Republican nominee, I’d vote for him. That said, as a former Mormon for a few weeks in my mis-spent Osmond youth, I do hate to think of the whole “Families Are Forever” campaign back on the burner enticing people like me who were lonely and disconnected to see the Mormon Church as just a bunch of good, decent people wanting to be good Christians; “by their fruits you will know them” as if those who smoke and drink are the moral equivalents of the worst society has to offer. Yes, they are good, decent people (flawed in other ways just like the rest of us) and I am grateful for their friendship, but dig deeper into the history before you get involved. If I had the internet decades ago, I would have found the historical things they presented to me as fact as frauds; the archeology “facts” proving the Book of Mormon to be true were bogus; the Book of Mormon, supposedly untouched like the Bible by fraudulent re-writing, has tons of words and pages added or deleted when you see copies of the original edition and the current edition side by side, etc. Just get informed before you think those goosebumps and chills are a testimony of the truth when you read the Book of Mormon. Other than that I appreciate Mitt Romney and his family and have nothing against him except the hope that he doesn’t revert back to his liberal ways when trying to form a consensus with the Dems.
deedledee on November 14, 2007 at 8:23 AM
Well stated, and a journey that many have followed.
right2bright on November 14, 2007 at 8:38 AM
Ahhhhh, the obligatory, love the sinner, hate the sin, mantra. I was wondering when that bit of disguised bigotry would raise it’s ugly head. Why don’t you go back to your anti-Mormon “Christian” site where that hatred disguised by faux love is celebrated? Most of us would rather discuss the candidates on their merits as elected officials and not by how they worship.
csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 9:03 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »