Quotes of the day

posted at 10:30 pm on November 30, 2009 by Allahpundit

“Now notice something curious: not one of the initial publicly identified signatories of the Manhattan Declaration is Mormon…

“That degree of commitment might seem to entitle you to a seat at the table. But no. The framers of the Manhattan Declaration say they ‘act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God.’ Mormons do not accept the concept of God as three-in-one…

“The next wave of social conservatism is presenting itself as a particularly Christian cause, with Christian defined in a way that would exclude not only Mitt Romney, but also the man who created Tiny Tim and Ebenezer Scrooge. (Charles Dickens was a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian.) For that matter, neither George Washington, nor John Adams, nor Thomas Jefferson, nor Abraham Lincoln was a believer in the Trinitarian God of the Manhattan Declaration…

“Mormon America has provided leadership and support for conservative politics out of all proportion to its numbers. If there’s a test for conservative identity that excludes Mormons, it’s not a good test. And if conservatism has shrunk too small to contain conservative Mormons, it is not only Mormons who will search for something bigger.”


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 3 4

Ten minutes was up over fifteen minutes ago. Let me save you some time: you’re not finding any evidence to support your allegation because you were simply wrong. Aside from a small handful of Huckabee supporters you’ll be lucky to find anything more than a couple people expressing a bias against Mormons.

FloatingRock on November 30, 2009 at 11:37 PM

Sorry, I don’t hang out on blog comment sections all night to deliver the immediate response you require for sufficient evidence. LOL @ anyone even having to do this to “prove” of such an accepted fact — that there is bigotry against mormons, and why Mitt failed.

Having said that, I did respond, with about 10 links to threads, of about 100. For some reason it hasn’t showed up yet.

jjraines on November 30, 2009 at 11:55 PM

I’m glad we agree :P

alohapundit on November 30, 2009 at 11:54 PM

:-D

Emily M. on November 30, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Links to story, please? Proof that this really happened?
President Bush would never snub veterans and certainly not to hang out with moneyed country clubbers.

Jenfidel on November 30, 2009 at 11:51 PM

Call my Mom.

She lives in that town, worked at the V.A. at the time, and told me the story herself. All the residents were talking about it.

So shove your link, sister.

David2.0 on November 30, 2009 at 11:58 PM

canopfor on November 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM
So true, so true. The leftards are incredibly predictable.

Still, I’ll put her briefest of connections to that guy up against 20 years with Rev. “G-d Amerikkka” Wright, any day.

red winger on November 30, 2009 at 11:46 PM

red winger: No kidding,there is noooooo comparison to Rev.
Wright,with his little scream’n chick demons,
or Father Plager,for that matter!!:)

canopfor on November 30, 2009 at 11:58 PM

Links to story, please? Proof that this really happened?
President Bush would never snub veterans and certainly not to hang out with moneyed country clubbers.

Jenfidel on November 30, 2009 at 11:51 PM

Absolutely correct! He went to Fort Hood, no photogs allowed and spent time with those injured and the families of those who were killed.
Love Romney, Sarah, and Liz Cheney.

Bambi on November 30, 2009 at 11:58 PM

As a lifelong Democrat, I’m very concerned about the direction Obama is taking us. Maybe we should consider nominating a different candidate for 2012.

See how easy that was? Now you try it!

JohnJ on December 1, 2009 at 12:00 AM

Having said that, I did respond, with about 10 links to threads, of about 100. For some reason it hasn’t showed up yet.

jjraines on November 30, 2009 at 11:55 PM

I’ll be waiting with baited breath….

FloatingRock on December 1, 2009 at 12:01 AM

So shove your link, sister.

David2.0 on November 30, 2009 at 11:58 PM

David2.0:A little harsh don`t cha think!

Jenifel is asking for facts,like a link to prove what your saying,no biggy!

Its the Left that don’t need facts,just hearsay!!!

canopfor on December 1, 2009 at 12:01 AM

Call my Mom.

She lives in that town, worked at the V.A. at the time, and told me the story herself. All the residents were talking about it.

So shove your link, sister.

David2.0 on November 30, 2009 at 11:58 PM

Mom’s number please

/s

Sorry I am in the snarkiest mood tonight. I think it’s because I only won my fantasy league by .57 and I have extra energy to burn off :)

alohapundit on December 1, 2009 at 12:01 AM

You can pretend like it didn’t happen — but plenty won’t forget that loud and clear message: Mormons ain’t welcome by many of you. Rather a Marxist than a Mormon, is the apparent preference.

jjraines on November 30, 2009 at 10:57 PM

Not me. I would prefer a Mormon over a Marxist, or Muslim, or a fascist socialist like we now have in the White House. In fact I would prefer a Mormon, except Harry Reid of course, over even most atheists.

MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 12:02 AM

over even most atheists.

MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 12:02 AM

ALLAHPUNDIT/PALIN 2012? I like it!

MB4 YARRRRR!!

alohapundit on December 1, 2009 at 12:04 AM

Wow, does anyone else try to post something 5 times and never show up?

jjraines on December 1, 2009 at 12:04 AM

Having said that, I did respond, with about 10 links to threads, of about 100. For some reason it hasn’t showed up yet.

jjraines on November 30, 2009 at 11:55 PM

If true, and it shows up later, you should link to your comment because it will be buried back on page one.

FloatingRock on December 1, 2009 at 12:05 AM

Wow, does anyone else try to post something 5 times and never show up?

jjraines on December 1, 2009 at 12:04 AM

It’s probably stuck in moderation, but if all you did is link to HotAir archives I don’t see why it would be.

FloatingRock on December 1, 2009 at 12:06 AM

FloatingRock on December 1, 2009 at 12:05 AM

I’ve now tried six times, I think it’s futile for now.

But just curious: Are polls, videos, endless quotes all by the same three Huckabee supporters, or evidence of anti-mormon bigotry? Because half of my links you don’t even need to go to the comments section — proof is right there in the post. Hard to believe you missed all that.

jjraines on December 1, 2009 at 12:07 AM

Sorry for the OT, but Saints kicked Pats azz tonight!
11-0 ppl!

(back to regular programming)

soundingboard on December 1, 2009 at 12:10 AM

I’m happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with both Mormons and Evangelicals (I find most of both groups religious “truths” equally ridiculous) since we tend to agree that individual LIBERTY is the one American principle that overrides all others. Clearly, fiscal conservatism and national defense are the policy areas where we are all least likely to argue, so why don’t we focus on those?

Or shall we descend into the abyss of doctrinal trash talk?

peski on December 1, 2009 at 12:10 AM

“We find that of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping, many admit it is Romney’s Mormonism and not his flip-flopping that is the real issue,” Brett Benson of Vanderbilt University said in a press release out today. “Our survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney.”

Now its moved on to Romneycare. Despite Republicans calling for Romneycare reforms instead of Dem plan.

PrezHussein on December 1, 2009 at 12:14 AM

But just curious: Are polls, videos, endless quotes all by the same three Huckabee supporters, or evidence of anti-mormon bigotry?

jjraines on December 1, 2009 at 12:07 AM

If I understand your question correctly, no. Polls of people that don’t comment on HotAir, external videos, and endless anti-mormon quotes by a few Huckabee supporters wouldn’t substantiate your claim that, “500-comment threads on Hot Air alone full of anti-mormon diatribes”, or, “Mormons ain’t welcome by many of you”.

But if you wish to rephrase that sentiment to indicate that some here expressed anti-mormon bias, and did so prolifically, and that bias exists elsewhere, that would be accurate enough.

FloatingRock on December 1, 2009 at 12:15 AM

Links to story, please? Proof that this really happened?
President Bush would never snub veterans and certainly not to hang out with moneyed country clubbers.

Jenfidel on November 30, 2009 at 11:51 PM

Absolutely correct! He went to Fort Hood, no photogs allowed and spent time with those injured and the families of those who were killed.
Love Romney, Sarah, and Liz Cheney.

Bambi on November 30, 2009 at 11:58 PM

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/03/con06100.html

David2.0 on December 1, 2009 at 12:16 AM

Frummy seems to have overlooked this passage in the declaration:

We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

ramrocks on December 1, 2009 at 12:17 AM

But if you wish to rephrase that sentiment to indicate that some here expressed anti-mormon bias…

FloatingRock on December 1, 2009 at 12:15 AM

Some = a few

FloatingRock on December 1, 2009 at 12:19 AM

David2.0 on December 1, 2009 at 12:16 AM

Sorry, but Buzzflash isn’t a credible news source, especially when it came to President Bush, whom they attacked with nothing but sheer lies (like this “story”) for 8 years.

Jenfidel on December 1, 2009 at 12:19 AM

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/03/con06100.html

David2.0 on December 1, 2009 at 12:16 AM

Ooooooh, sorry. That link doesn’t count since it is a progressive website in the vein of DailKos. Got anything else?

/s

Ok, ok, I’ll stop…

alohapundit on December 1, 2009 at 12:21 AM

Actually I think Goldwater would have mumbled something about UFO’s and then admitted he was a Paultard.

tetriskid on November 30, 2009 at 11:54 PM

So is Goldwater to be excommunicated from the Conservative movement too? That would be almost like excommunicating Christ, or at least John the Baptist, from Christianity.

We hear praise of a power-wielding, arm-twisting President who “gets his program through Congress” by knowing the use of power. Throughout the course of history, there have been many other such wielders of power. There have even been dictators who regularly held plebiscites, in which their dictatorships were approved by an Ivory-soap-like percentage of the electorate. But their countries were not free, nor can any country remain free under such despotic power. Some of the current worship of powerful executives may come from those who admire strength and accomplishment of any sort. Others hail the display of Presidential strength simply because they approve of the result reached by the use of power. This is nothing less than the totalitarian philosophy that the end justifies the means If ever there was a philosophy of government totally at war with that of the Founding Fathers, it is this one.
- Barry Goldwater

There’s Something About Barry:
Goldwater has many claimants to his legacy, but most lack his rebellious spirit.
Whatever his heterodoxies, his place in conservative history, and conservatives’ hearts, was settled. He was still, as Pat Buchanan wrote at the time, “the father of us all.”
No putatively conservative politician today has the idealism of a Goldwater or brings together idealists like Bozell and Hess, each driven by a vision of a more just America—the one vision radically Catholic, the other radically libertarian.
Today, nation-building and empire, together with K-Street politics, is about all that animates the Republicans who claim to be following in Goldwater’s footsteps. They’ve lost what the 1960 and 1964 Goldwater movements were really all about, and they won’t rediscover what they’ve lost by furrowing their brows wondering if Goldwaterism was really purely libertarian or fusionist. Goldwater himself was a man of the American West, and his legacy can be claimed by either libertarians or traditionalists—if they can put the principled spirit of the old movement before the emoluments of politics.
- The American Conservative

MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 12:23 AM

“We find that of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping, many admit it is Romney’s Mormonism and not his flip-flopping that is the real issue,” Brett Benson of Vanderbilt University said in a press release out today. “Our survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney.”

Now its moved on to Romneycare. Despite Republicans calling for Romneycare reforms instead of Dem plan.

PrezHussein on December 1, 2009 at 12:14 AM

Not that he doesn’t flip flop or that he doesn’t back socialized medicine: an estimated 1 in 4 of you really hate the Mormons!! Let the other 3/4 bite their tongues for SHAME!!!!!!

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/03/con06100.html

David2.0 on December 1, 2009 at 12:16 AM

He hit up a senior center and had a rally in a high school gym. That liberal storyteller doesn’t mention the VA either, so I guess your mom is batting 0.0000 in terms of political oomph.

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 12:25 AM

So is Goldwater to be excommunicated from the Conservative movement too? That would be almost like excommunicating Christ, or at least John the Baptist, from Christianity.

WHAT?? Religious analogy in politics? Barry would smite thee, Pharisee!

Goldwater caved to the secular humanists. We do indeed reject his legacy.

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 12:29 AM

Goldwater caved to the secular humanists. We do indeed reject his legacy.

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 12:29 AM

Speak for yourself.

FloatingRock on December 1, 2009 at 12:32 AM

Speak for yourself.

FloatingRock on December 1, 2009 at 12:32 AM

You beat me to it.

hillbillyjim on December 1, 2009 at 12:33 AM

Goldwater caved to the secular humanists. We do indeed reject his legacy.

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 12:29 AM

His legacy? No.
One individual nuanced act? Maybe.

But I reiterate: His legacy? Hell no.

alohapundit on December 1, 2009 at 12:36 AM

Romney is a fraud.

nelsonknows on December 1, 2009 at 12:39 AM

Goldwater caved to the secular humanists. We do indeed reject his legacy.

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 12:29 AM

Goldwater “caved” to the U.S. Constitution. You know the one that the current occupant of the White House thinks is obsolete.

If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet, they could do us in. When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Well, I’ve spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ‘Old Conservatism.’ And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength. Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers?

The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, less the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. We have succeeded for over 200 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.
- Barry Goldwater

MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 12:39 AM

MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 12:39 AM

Can I get an AMEN?

Seriously, thank you for that excellent post.

hillbillyjim on December 1, 2009 at 12:44 AM

“Blast” from the past by Charles Krauthammer:


Huckabee Plays the Religion Card

When Mitt Romney’s father ran for the presidency 40 years ago, his Mormonism was not an issue. When Mo Udall was a major challenger for the Democratic nomination in 1976, his religion was so irrelevant that today most people don’t even remember that Udall was a Mormon.

Five members of the Senate are Mormon. Are there any intimations that the Mormonism of Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, Gordon Smith, Michael Crapo or Robert Bennett corrupts, distorts or in any way diminishes their ability to perform their constitutional duties?

Mormonism should be a total irrelevancy in any political campaign. It is not. Which is why Mitt Romney had to deliver his JFK “religion speech” this week. He didn’t want to. But he figured that he had to. Why? Because he’s being overtaken in Iowa. Why Iowa? Because about 40 percent of the Republican caucus voters in 2000 were self-described “Christian conservatives” — twice the number of those in New Hampshire, for example — and, for many of them, Mormonism is a Christian heresy.

The appealing aspects of Huckabee’s politics and persona account for much of this. But part of his rise in Iowa is attributable to something rather less appealing: playing the religion card. The other major candidates — John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson — either never figured out how to use it or had the decency to refuse to deploy it.

Huckabee has exploited Romney’s Mormonism with an egregious subtlety.

Huckabee is running a very effective ad in Iowa about religion. “Faith doesn’t just influence me,” he says on camera, “it really defines me.” The ad then hails him as a “Christian leader.”

Forget the implications of the idea that being a “Christian leader” is some special qualification for the presidency of a country whose Constitution (Article VI) explicitly rejects any religious test for office.

Just imagine that Huckabee were running one-on-one in Iowa against Joe Lieberman. (It’s a thought experiment. Stay with me.) If he had run the same ad in those circumstances, it would have raised an outcry. The subtext — who’s the Christian in this race? — would have been too obvious to ignore, the appeal to bigotry too clear.

Well, Huckabee is running against Romney (the other GOP candidates are non-factors in Iowa) and he knows that many Christian conservatives, particularly those who have an affinity with Huckabee’s highly paraded evangelical Christianity, consider Romney’s faith a decidedly non-Christian cult.

Huckabee has been asked about this view that Mormonism is a cult. He dodges and dances. “If I’m invited to be the president of a theological school, that’ll be a perfectly appropriate question,” he says, “but to be the president of the United States, I don’t know that that’s going to be the most important issue that I’ll be facing when I’m sworn in.”

Hmmm. So it is an issue, Huckabee avers. But not a very important one.

And he’s not going to pronounce upon it. Nice straddle, leaving the question unanswered and still open — the kind of maneuver one comes to expect from slick former governors of Arkansas lusting for the presidency.

MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 12:49 AM

David2.0 on November 30, 2009 at 11:46 PM

Is that you Dave Rywall from Canada? Same M.O.. You sound like Obama. You first say “I remember President George W. Bush stopping in a small upstate New York town that I grew up in. The Vet’s at the local V.A. were so excited that the President might stop and visit with them. George W. Bush bypassed them and hung out with the money by the lake”. and then you say “Call my Mom, “She lives in that town, worked at the V.A. at the time, and told me the story herself. All the residents were talking about it”, and then you name some left wing web-site.

Johan Klaus on December 1, 2009 at 12:51 AM

MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 12:39 AM
Can I get an AMEN?

Seriously, thank you for that excellent post.

hillbillyjim on December 1, 2009 at 12:44 AM

Amen X 10

alohapundit on December 1, 2009 at 12:53 AM

How does this guy get any work?

He’s like Kato Kaelin. Irrelevant.

Sapwolf on December 1, 2009 at 12:55 AM

How does this guy get any work?

He’s like Kato Kaelin. Irrelevant.

Sapwolf on December 1, 2009 at 12:55 AM

Or Levi Johnston.

Johan Klaus on December 1, 2009 at 1:00 AM

“And he’s not going to pronounce upon it. Nice straddle, leaving the question unanswered and still open — the kind of maneuver one comes to expect from slick former governors of Arkansas lusting for the presidency.”

MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 12:49 AM

Krauthammer nails it again.

Huckabee isn’t really a Gomer Pyle doppelganger; he just plays one on TV.

hillbillyjim on December 1, 2009 at 1:06 AM

The LDS Church is not a Christian denomination based on the Bible. This is what happens when you try to merge the political and the Biblical.

As an evangelical Christian who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, I think that the Manhattan Declaration is already too driven by a lowest common denominator fake unity as it is. The esteemed Dr. John MacArthur, venerated Bible scholar and pastor, challenged the Manhattan Declaration and Charles Colson on this very flaw.

Terrie on December 1, 2009 at 1:11 AM

Admit RomneyCare was a complete disaster or go away.
Religion isn’t even in the picture, much like Frum.

Rocks on December 1, 2009 at 1:11 AM

Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers?

The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, less the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. We have succeeded for over 200 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.
- Barry Goldwater

MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 12:39 AM

As I said: caving to the secular humanists. It’s not the Catholics demanding your taxes to fund their schools. It’s not the Baptists sucking tax dollars for their abortion policy. The Seventh-Day Adventists didn’t try to extort the Boy Scouts into changing their social agenda by threat of banishment from the National Parks. You know who is “imposing” their MORAL views on the American public, and their policy is not neutral towards religion, it is actively hostile. Each and every time somebody suggests Law and Policy and Finance reflect “the right thing to do” that precious wall of separation is breached.
That doesn’t seem to bother you much, so long as the State hauls down the Cross. Freedom OF religion goes with Freedom OF Assembly, dig? You may actually face some organized conscientious objection. Better men than Barry Goldwater somehow stood it without complaining for 200 years. That is partly why I consider them better men.

“Moderation in pursuit of justice, is no virtue.” Remind me who said that?

And 10 points if you can correctly ID the apostle of separation and champion against idealism who wrote these lines:

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe had enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years, with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 1:53 AM

I was wondering, what is this article about? Exclusive inclusiveness? I read the QOTD all the way through to the end where it turns into the blue link – Frum, stopped.

Frum is an individual is exudes pseudo intellectualism.

Litmus test? Here we have a demonstrated malcontent attempting to graft conservatism with a fragment of a declaration written long ago. Claiming it included and excluded certain religiosities based on whether their affected piety adhered to the three leafed clover concept.

I know he is considered a peer to a blogger on this site but must we have this person linked here on such a regular basis. It’s okay for you to keep him for yourself, it won’t bother over 90% of your readership. The other 10% are free to visit his site anytime they want but you seem to feel that the rest of us need to be wired in also.

BTW, Has the blogger who posted the article been receiving any re-gifted table top tested steak knives with R.E. embossed on the handles? jk

Americannodash on December 1, 2009 at 1:56 AM

MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 12:39 AM

Can I get an AMEN?

Seriously, thank you for that excellent post.

hillbillyjim on December 1, 2009 at 12:44 AM

.
Amen!

ronsfi on December 1, 2009 at 2:04 AM

The LDS Church is not a Christian denomination based on the Bible. This is what happens when you try to merge the political and the Biblical.

Terrie on December 1, 2009 at 1:11 AM

You couldn’t be more wrong if you were trying to be. What the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints believes is easily discoverable. They have this thing called the Articles of Faith. One of them states:

“We believe THE BIBLE to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”

Not sure what is meant by a “Christian denomination based on the Bible”, but if you know anything about the origins for the The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints, you would know it was a biblical scripture that inspired its founding. Sheesh! I mean, as opposed to a “Christian denomination based on the Koran”? “Or the Tanakh”?

Fed45 on December 1, 2009 at 2:10 AM

Ten minutes was up over fifteen minutes ago. Let me save you some time: you’re not finding any evidence to support your allegation because you were simply wrong. Aside from a small handful of Huckabee supporters you’ll be lucky to find anything more than a couple people expressing a bias against Mormons.

FloatingRock on November 30, 2009 at 11:37 PM

I got sucked into a few of those 500+ comment threads, and I side with FloatingRock. 95% of the “Mormon-bashing” comments were the product of four Huck-obsessed commenters, two of whom were eventually banned. One of them, Red Pill, was banned twice for threadjacking.

Take away the output of those four Huckabites, and the vast majority of anti-Romney comments had nothing to do with religion.

sulla on December 1, 2009 at 2:14 AM

It’s not the Catholics demanding your taxes to fund their schools. It’s not the Baptists sucking tax dollars for their abortion policy. The Seventh-Day Adventists didn’t try to extort the Boy Scouts into changing their social agenda by threat of banishment from the National Parks.

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 1:53 AM

Freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness involves far more than the absence of taxes.

Did Goldwater support increasing taxes for abortion and schools? Did he support banning the Boy Scouts from national parks? Are you just making this stuff up? /rhetorical

FloatingRock on December 1, 2009 at 2:17 AM

Could someone put me right – are we discussing the election of a president, or a pope?

OldEnglish on December 1, 2009 at 2:17 AM

Could someone put me right – are we discussing the election of a president, or a pope?

OldEnglish on December 1, 2009 at 2:17 AM

Well… you know… after Jesus came Peter, who some say was the first Pope…

And since the guy in the White House seems to think he’s the new Mesiah… I guess we’d need a new Pope….

/sarc… kinda…

Romeo13 on December 1, 2009 at 2:24 AM

Did Goldwater support increasing taxes for abortion and schools?

He certainly spoke out against the battle to ban abortion. I do not know his views on the Hyde Amendment specifically; his open ridicule and opposition to the Moral Majority gives me some idea he did not mind the expansion of government as much as the celebration of religious opposition. That is why I say he “caved”.

Did he support banning the Boy Scouts from national parks? Are you just making this stuff up? /rhetorical

I believe that Clinton era policy came after his time.

Certainly the only real opposition to it is based on the absolute freedom of religious groups to assemble around common moral outlook; a principle to which we all know Goldwater had deep scorn and a misguided distrust. MB4 quoted him on it.

I cite them as examples of the fallacy of Goldwater’s view that the real danger to freedom in America is organized religion forming political action committees. They do so as a defensive against statist encroachments on traditional liberties.

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 2:30 AM

Romeo13 on December 1, 2009 at 2:24 AM

Works for me.

OldEnglish on December 1, 2009 at 2:30 AM

Could someone put me right – are we discussing the election of a president, or a pope?

OldEnglish on December 1, 2009 at 2:17 AM

Can the President go to Hell and spare the country the trip?

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 2:31 AM

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 2:31 AM

You know what they say: misery loves company.

OldEnglish on December 1, 2009 at 2:40 AM

his open ridicule and opposition to the Moral Majority gives me some idea he did not mind the expansion of government as much as the celebration of religious opposition.

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 2:30 AM

You’re reading an awful lot into your “idea”, which you’ve admitted that you “do not know his views on”.

I believe that Clinton era policy came after his time.

So basically you are ascribing to one of the fathers of modern Conservatism extreme left wing views devised long after his time.

I cite them as examples of the fallacy of Goldwater’s view that the real danger to freedom in America is organized religion forming political action committees. They do so as a defensive against statist encroachments on traditional liberties.

That can’t be true, it’s not like the religious right apposes statism as a means so long as they agree with the ends. The Temperance movement was a religious movement and grew into prohibition, and nobody can seriously argue that prohibition was anything but statism on steroids.

FloatingRock on December 1, 2009 at 2:47 AM

Could someone put me right – are we discussing the election of a president, or a pope?

OldEnglish on December 1, 2009 at 2:17 AM

Once we of the only true faith, Islam, take over infidel, it will be a Grand Ayatollah.

Aleph on December 1, 2009 at 2:50 AM

…and nobody can seriously argue that prohibition was anything but statism tyranny on steroids.

FIFM

FloatingRock on December 1, 2009 at 2:53 AM

And 10 points if you can correctly ID the apostle of separation and champion against idealism who wrote these lines:

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 1:53 AM

And 10 points if you can correctly ID the apostle of separation and champion against idealism who wrote these lines:

Oh, that [Thanksgiving Message] is some of Seward’s nonsense, and it pleases the fools.

MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 3:01 AM

Who Dat!!!!!!!!!

LSUMama on December 1, 2009 at 3:01 AM

Conservatives have to get out of peoples personal lives and every plank of the GOP platform must be free of hypocrisy.
If we are the values and principles party, we have to mean it, speak it and live it.
At no point or time can we afford to be accused of do as I say not as I do.

“However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise.
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious
beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than
Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme
being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s
behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are
growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with
wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following
their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups
on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a
loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the
political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if
I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’
Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to
claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even
more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every
religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my
vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today:
I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their
moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’ ”
Barry Goldwater

Speakup on December 1, 2009 at 3:06 AM

Once we of the only true faith, Islam, take over infidel, it will be a Grand Ayatollah.

Aleph on December 1, 2009 at 2:50 AM

I shouldn’t laugh, but that was funny. :)

OldEnglish on December 1, 2009 at 3:09 AM

You’re reading an awful lot into your “idea”, which you’ve admitted that you “do not know his views on”.

Whether I’m wrong really hinges on what his views were; I don’t think you can fairly resent a correct guess. Did he really condemn any of that? I said he “caved”, not that he took an active role in endorsing them.

I believe that Clinton era policy came after his time.

So basically you are ascribing to one of the fathers of modern Conservatism extreme left wing views devised long after his time.

Not really. I’m criticizing YOU, his proud heirs, for witnessing that extreme left wing bigotry in action, and yet praising a Great Man for identifying the Moral Majority as the real threat to the Constitution.

I cite them as examples of the fallacy of Goldwater’s view that the real danger to freedom in America is organized religion forming political action committees. They do so as a defensive against statist encroachments on traditional liberties.

That can’t be true, it’s not like the religious right apposes statism as a means so long as they agree with the ends. The Temperance movement was a religious movement and grew into prohibition, and nobody can seriously argue that prohibition was anything but statism on steroids.

It’s certainly true. Traditionally, Ninth Amendment guarantees of obscenity, abortion, sodomy and controlled substances were unheard of; while prayer in schools, dry counties and no sex education was the American Way. I’m sorry the libertarian version of what was ratified in 1787 really only dates back to the 1960s, but them’s the facts.

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 3:17 AM

Oh, that [his Thanksgiving Message] is some of Seward’s nonsense, and it pleases the fools.
- Abraham Lincoln, to Judge James M Nelson, in response to a question from Nelson: “I once asked him about his fervent Thanksgiving Message and twitted him with being an unbeliever in what was published.” Quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 138

The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.
- Abraham Lincoln (Joseph Lewis, “Lincoln the Freethinker”)

My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.
- Abraham Lincoln (to Judge J. S. Wakefield)

In religion, Mr. Lincoln was about of the same opinion as Bob Ingersoll, and there is no account of his ever having changed. He went to church a few times with his family while he was President, but so far as I have been able to find out, he remained an unbeliever. Mr. Lincoln in his younger days wrote a book, in which he endeavored to prove the fallacy of the plan of salvation and the divinity of Christ.
- Judge James M Nelson (who had an intimate acquaintance with Lincoln in Washington, in the Louisville Times, in 1887)

While it may be fairly said that Mr. Lincoln entertained many Christian sentiments, it cannot be said that he was himself a Christian in faith or practice. He was no disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. He did not believe in his divinity and was not a member of his Church.
“He was at first a writing Infidel of the school of Paine and Volney, and afterwards a talking Infidel of the school of Parker and Channing….
“If the Churches had grown cold, if the Christians had taken a stand aloof, that instant the Union would have perished.” Mr. Lincoln regulated his religious manifestations accordingly. He declared frequently that he would do anything to save the Union, and among the many things he did was the partial concealment of his individual religious opinions. Is this a blot upon his fame? Or shall we all agree that it was a conscientious and patriotic sacrifice?
- The New York World (about 1875), quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 138-39)

MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 3:18 AM

A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.
- Winston Churchill

MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 3:24 AM

Oh, that [Thanksgiving Message] is some of Seward’s nonsense, and it pleases the fools.

MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 3:01 AM

Yeah, we all know how Lincoln signed whatever they gave him. Thanksgiving Proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation. McClellan’s appointments to the Army of the Potomac. Man learned himself to read off a shovel, whaddya expect.

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 3:25 AM

“However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise.
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious
beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than
Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme
being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s
behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are
growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with
wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following
their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups
on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a
loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the
political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if
I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’
Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to
claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even
more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every
religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my
vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today:
I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their
moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’ ”
Barry Goldwater

What a crybaby. ‘Sit down! Shut up! Your votes are mine, your money is mine! No strings! I’m sick of hearing what you think I oughta do!’ Good riddance to him.

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 3:46 AM

It’s not easy for Romney to be a Mormon after all. Not only is it tough politics but he has to accept as fact that the American Indians are all Hebrews by descent. Not easy in this day and age of DNA research.

(Hint: There’s not a molecule of Hebrew DNA in any pre-Columbian Native Americans.)

Mojave Mark on November 30, 2009 at 11:19 PM

Pre-Columbian or post-Columbian, nobody knows.. but it took me all of two seconds to prove your lame talking point wrong:

(Hint: I googled Hebrew Gene?)

johnnyboy on December 1, 2009 at 4:13 AM

Since Huckabigot is done as a candidate in 2012, Frum has to attack who he views as the next logical choice. Mitt Romney. With that despicable bigot out of the race, the south belongs to Mitt. (short of a Palin run)

csdeven on December 1, 2009 at 6:24 AM

Perhaps the Mormons should look to the demorat party for membership, considering that both they and the President are against gay marriage.

Hope and change and green effin shoots.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM

Apparently you missed the newest memo

It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.

On Tuesday night, after a series of clandestine meetings between local gay-rights backers and Mormons in Salt Lake City, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

They seem to be changing their stance….slowly.

deidre on November 30, 2009 at 10:52 PM

Apologies for introducing MASTER of the OBVIOUS, *BUT*:

“‘gay’ marriage” is not the same as nondiscriminatory rights for homosexual behaviors or for any other persons of various descriptions, behavioral or otherwise.

Most people don’t support discrimination while most people do support that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The Left still has work to do to get the issues straight in their own minds because they’re working just about any avenue they can in stringing various words together in describing their wants and demands.

As it is, people involved in homosexuality can easily obtain all necessary legal arrangements if they want to ensure property ownership, sharing, asset protections, just about everything as to those complaints that they’re being prevented from these relationships, while they are not.

Marriage is another thing.

Lourdes on December 1, 2009 at 6:45 AM

I’m not sure — as to the Mormon and Romney-Mormon thing is concerned — why it is that Calvanists have been assumed to be the upper hand in these various theological/denominational denigrations of others.

We need to be supporting a candidate who can provide the nation with intelligent, capable leadership.

I’m not a Romney fan, specifically, but I’m not opposed to him, either, not so vehemently that I’d not vote for him were he to be the GOP nominee. Same goes for Palin, same goes for Elizabeth (or Dick) Cheney. And for Demint.

I think the whole riling-up issues about denominations needs to be retired and Frum needs to find another schtick.

Lourdes on December 1, 2009 at 6:50 AM

Perhaps the Mormons should look to the demorat party for membership, considering that both they and the President are against gay marriage.

Hope and change and green effin shoots.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM

Apparently you missed the newest memo

It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.

On Tuesday night, after a series of clandestine meetings between local gay-rights backers and Mormons in Salt Lake City, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

They seem to be changing their stance….slowly.

( I’m a life-long Mormon) Not changing their stance. The LDS church has nothing against gay people. We believe in mutual tolerance- however, we believe that marriage is marriage, and will fight for the traditional meaning of it. The thing you are talking about was a show of trying to be as tolerant as we can, under the circumstances.

Kristamatic on December 1, 2009 at 7:12 AM

I think the whole riling-up issues about denominations needs to be retired and Frum needs to find another schtick.

Lourdes on December 1, 2009 at 6:50 AM

agree with you there…

cmsinaz on December 1, 2009 at 7:14 AM

Does it say “Triune”?
Not in the Declaration…
Show me the context.

Stirring up trouble
Might sound like fun to AP.
Don’t feel like playing.

Haiku Guy on December 1, 2009 at 7:16 AM

THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION
A Call of Christian Conscience
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Much ado about nothing? Where’s the controversy; already edited?

If someone feels “excluded” but wants “in” then simply ask before going holy roller indignant. It doesn’t require a bulldozer to open an open door. Romney over-reacted, playing to his fan club, in his own little way that he has of separating himself from the “unity in the Holy Spirit” populace. Romney’s playing on PC, showing that he caters to PC for unnecessary sympathy.

maverick muse on December 1, 2009 at 7:20 AM

Goldwater was a real Conservative. I am a Barry Goldwater Conservative. Unfortunately, I had to become a Libertarian in order to be true to my conservative ideology. If Mitt Romney runs as a Goldwater conservative, he wins in a landslide….The Constitution is the ultimate legal document……

adamsmith on December 1, 2009 at 7:29 AM

david frum attacks anything conservative. His idea of what conservatism should be is the democrat party. A bunch of Christians get together to take a stance against the attack on christianity and frum makes it a bad thing. The guy is a flaming liberal whose goal is to attack conservatism anytime and anywhere he can. When are conservatives going to start either ignoring him or disowning him?

peacenprosperity on December 1, 2009 at 7:34 AM

Romney over-reacted, playing to his fan club, in his own little way that he has of separating himself from the “unity in the Holy Spirit” populace. Romney’s playing on PC, showing that he caters to PC for unnecessary sympathy.

maverick muse on December 1, 2009 at 7:20 AM

I’m not sure I’d agree with the over-reacted comment for the simple fact is that Romney was, in fact, torpedoed in 2008 by so-called Christians of the Mike Huckabee flavor. If Romney or any LDS member wants a career in politics on the national stage they will indeed have to overcome Mormon-hate from Huckabee’s crowd of faux evangelicals.

The fact of the matter is that I consider myself an evangelical Christian who will never ever support the kind of evangelism espoused by Huckabee and his followers because it tries to make adherence to fundamental Christianity as the litmus test for political purity and that is as intolerant as the kind of Atheism practiced by Allahpundit where we are all expected to obey his world view or be labeled a Jesus Freak.

highhopes on December 1, 2009 at 7:36 AM

the kind of maneuver one comes to expect from slick former governors of Arkansas lusting for the presidency.”

Ouch, that’s gonna leave a mark. Good job Charles!

conservnut on December 1, 2009 at 7:41 AM

I had to become a Libertarian in order to be true to my conservative ideology.

adamsmith on December 1, 2009 at 7:29 AM

You had to become a Ron Paul Truther dedicated to legalizing pot in order to stay a conservative? Because that is all the Libertarian party really represents despite all the ink they spend espousing higher-minded principles. The political reality is that decriminalizing pot is the only issue and Ron Paul and his trutherism is a mainstream Libertarian view.

There are Libertarian principles I agree with but so long as the mentally ill are running the movement, there is no way that it will be a poltical threat to either established party.

highhopes on December 1, 2009 at 7:41 AM

Charles Johnson speaks out against the haters. The quote below is from LGF, but I am linking to Ace.

Why I Parted Ways With The RightOpinion | Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:49:45 pm PST

1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, Pat Buchanan, etc.)

2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)

5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.)

6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)

7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)

8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.)

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)

10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)

And much, much more. The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.

I won’t be going over the cliff with them.

Mr. Joe on December 1, 2009 at 7:42 AM

“Now notice something curious: not one of the initial publicly identified signatories of the Manhattan Declaration is Mormon”

There are no Islam, Jewish or other religions signatures on it either, but that didn’t seem to bother this reporter.

JeffinSac on December 1, 2009 at 7:42 AM

DO NOT LET FRUM CREATE A CONTROVERSY! He is creating something out of thin air. Anyone hear Romney complain about this? Romney’s speach during the campaign was not complaining or blaming anyone. It was a well written, well delivered speach affirming American traditions and acceptance. If Romney somehow becomes the the runaway candidate to become the 2012 republican candidate frum will be trying to drag him down. Whomever becomes the candidate, aside from maybe lindsey grahm, frum will attack. When are people going to finally realize that? This country will elect a good man from any religion with the possible exception of a muslim or scientologist. Nixon was a quaker.

peacenprosperity on December 1, 2009 at 7:43 AM

All you Christian Conservatives show your support for Mormon conservatives here.

Support Republican Candidate JOE TEGERDINE.

He’s running next year against Blue Dog GENE TAYLOR to put Mississippi 4th back in the GOP column.

Let’s take Gene Taylor out! It’s a crime that the reddest congressional district in the United States is represented by a Democrat and has been since Trent Lott vacated that seat to run for the Senate over 20 years ago.

Prove the liberals wrong and support Joe Tegerdine. He will LOSE without your support. He’s running against the labor unions, the river pilot unions, and the SEIU. Gene Taylor has a war chest of over $300K and Joe Tegerdine has raised less than $20K. He will LOSE without cash. Please help him!

HondaV65 on December 1, 2009 at 8:01 AM

The LDS Church is not a Christian denomination based on the Bible. This is what happens when you try to merge the political and the Biblical.
Terrie on December 1, 2009 at 1:11 AM

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was inspired to utter his first spoken prayer by reading James 1:5 (that’s in the Bible doncha know) which instructed him to ask of God if he had questions he wanted answered. He then received a glorious vision that, if you are interested, you can read about here:
http://mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/the-restoration-of-truth/the-restoration-of-the-gospel

In this vision, he saw Jesus Christ. I have been taught in church my whole life that I am a Christian, based on the Bible. It always amuses me when liberals try to make sure to point out that they know I’m not. Very often the ones who state that Mormons don’t like the Bible have never read the book cover to cover. You will find that most Mormons have read the Bible, repeatedly- and the harder, more accurate King James version as well.

Kristamatic on December 1, 2009 at 8:05 AM

There are no Islam, Jewish or other religions signatures on it either, but that didn’t seem to bother this reporter.

JeffinSac on December 1, 2009 at 7:42 AM

How many Muslims are going to sign a “Call to Christian Conscience?”

The real crux of the matter here, and what defeated Romney in the 2008 primaries is the whole “are LDS members Christian” question. Most mainstream Christian faiths consider Mormanism to be a cult. Unfortunately, the Huckabee brand of Christian will not vote for a conservative “cult” member and essentially allowed the nation to be taken over by a radical socialist Muslim.

This, IMO, is one area where politics and religion should not meet. I don’t care what the faith of a politician is, so long as their political positions are based on solid reason and dismissive solely on the basis of built-in bias. I would gladly vote for a Jew or Muslim with solid credentials as a fiscal and social conservative over whatever the hell it is that Huckabee ideologues represent.

highhopes on December 1, 2009 at 8:09 AM

This discussion is based upon The Manhattan Declaration that either never included any discriminatory text to “keep out” Mormons, or was revised since there was no malice intended in the Declaration’s effort as an Ecumenical and inclusive Christian article of agreement. People who take offense immediately and trump the call to arms because they just don’t get the ‘unity in the Holy Spirit’ don’t measure up in the top notch of Americans who live by the e pluribus unum motto. Rather, those granted grace who yet carry the perpetual chip on the shoulder resemble in their own way Obama antipathy for what is good in America simply because what is good does not center all around the “I Me Mine” syndrome.

highhopes 7:36

The fact of the matter is that I consider myself an evangelical Christian who will never ever support the kind of evangelism espoused by…

Mormons actively proselytize and send missionaries to canvas for “quality converts” from other Christian sects. Of course such people would consider themselves evangelical Christians. There’s a conflict of interest in claiming Christ as your savior while “never ever” supporting the Christian evangelicals of other sects. I do not care what it is that you deem yourself to be as any matter of fact. Birds of a feather don’t need my permission to flock. I enjoy the natural wonders of God along with people of good will.

As per your take on Romney’s knee jerk call to arms, try sore loser, bad sport, and divisive leader.

maverick muse on December 1, 2009 at 8:10 AM

Regarding ROMNEY as a politician seeking the US Presidency:

People who take offense immediately and trump the call to arms because they just don’t get the ‘unity in the Holy Spirit’ don’t measure up in the top notch of Americans who live by the e pluribus unum motto.

maverick muse on December 1, 2009 at 8:12 AM

Frum = Useful Idiot

WordsMatter on December 1, 2009 at 8:17 AM

I enjoy Hot Air quite a bit. However, whenever there is a topic of Mormons, I typically get disappointed with the discussion. I have been a Mormon (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) most of my life. Mormons are Christian and cannot understand why others say we are not. Christ is the center of the Mormon religion. Our lessons are from the Bible, we revere the Bible, our prayers end in the name of Christ, all that we do is centered upon the teaching of Jesus Christ. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn’t know what they are talking about. If you want to know what Mormons believe, ask one. Don’t ask someone who is not a member. Mormons are honest and good people and the backbone of conservatives in the United States.

Buckley on December 1, 2009 at 8:27 AM

By definition, Christianity is a cult, as is Buddhism and the Muslim followers of Mohammed, theh Bahá’í Faith, and any religion constructed to promote the teachings of a specific prophet whom they adore as divine.

Is the Jewish faith cultist for basing itself upon being “chosen” via Abraham’s promise recounted subsequently by Moses who laid down the Law?

What of Transcendentalists and Atheists who worship their own existence as all there is?

Get over the “cult” hang-up as if ONLY one sect pleases the Creator.

Deal with upholding the Constitution. Uphold our own supreme law of the land that protects our unalienable rights. Those who manipulate PC are untrustworthy. And those with a perpetual chip on the shoulder are a big pain in the @ss with hypersensitivity played as their calling card of divide and conquer. To hell with the Constitution when the self-righteous feelings get hurt; look out for the sabotage as their rights are more deserving than everyone else’s. PC.

maverick muse on December 1, 2009 at 8:34 AM

I enjoy Hot Air quite a bit. However, whenever there is a topic of Mormons, I typically get disappointed with the discussion. I have been a Mormon (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) most of my life. Mormons are Christian and cannot understand why others say we are not. Christ is the center of the Mormon religion. Our lessons are from the Bible, we revere the Bible, our prayers end in the name of Christ, all that we do is centered upon the teaching of Jesus Christ. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn’t know what they are talking about. If you want to know what Mormons believe, ask one. Don’t ask someone who is not a member. Mormons are honest and good people and the backbone of conservatives in the United States.

Buckley on December 1, 2009 at 8:27 AM

This is all true (except maybe the “backbone of conservatives” part, but I get your point), but until conservative southern Christians and their religious leaders believe it, no Mormon will ever win the Republican nomination. Southern Christians looooooove to bash Mormons – it’s like reading “Under the Banner of Heaven” except with more virulence.

It’s really a shame. I’ve never met a Mormon I didn’t like.

I think part of the problem is that the Mormon Church’s tumultuous beginnings were fairly recent, so the bad parts of the story are not as easily brushed aside, and the historical inaccuracies – while somewhat unverifiable in the Bible – are kind of hard to avoid in the Book of Mormon. Plus, like every sentence begins with the words, “And so it came to pass,” and that’s just annoying.

Proud Rino on December 1, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Proud Rino-
“and it came to pass” is actually very good middle eastern grammar of the period that the book of Mormon claims to be from- it is annoying because it is grammar. The whole “bad history” talking point is also very funny. There are good people and bad people in all religions. Bigotry comes from repeating stuff you have heard from others that you have not studied or verified. If someone said the same things you said, Proud Rino, and inserted Blacks or Jews or any other thing, there would be outrage all over. People pick on Mormons because they can, end of story. Mormons are, in general, the nicest people you will meet. That seems to go unnoticed. Not by you, but in general.

Kristamatic on December 1, 2009 at 8:45 AM

Mormons are honest and good people and the backbone of conservatives in the United States.

Buckley on December 1, 2009 at 8:27 AM

In writing your own personal reference letter, “the” backbone is not satisfied to be a vertebra aligned with others of like conservative mind. At least there’s the humility of not also claiming to be the brain and brawn of conservatives in the United States.

Not to worry over vanity since everyone has the same problem to contend with, to refrain from preempting conservative unity with the I Me Mine mantra.

Where in The Manhattan Declaration did it snub Mormonism and/or Mormons? Who at HotAir called their Mormon neighbors liars, thieves and arsonists? Why the belly ache except for having over indulged yourself? Get off the high horse of righteous indignation here. No one’s getting tarred and feathered.

maverick muse on December 1, 2009 at 8:46 AM

Mormons are honest and good people and the backbone of conservatives in the United States.

Buckley on December 1, 2009 at 8:27 AM

There is a lot to admire about Mormons, especially their family values. However, the Book of Mormon and its teachings are not Christ-centered making the faith into a cult. Sorry but that is the reality.

highhopes on December 1, 2009 at 8:48 AM

And not to be annoying, but Mormons will defend themselves from stupid talking points. Personally, I don’t care if a person believes in the Great Pumpkin, as long as the said person is going to be conservative, they can have my vote. And no, I don’t care if they were Muslim, as long as they had good solid conservative bona fides.

Kristamatic on December 1, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Kristamatic on December 1, 2009 at 8:45 AM

I’m sure it’s great grammar, but you’ve got to mix it up a little. I don’t care, though, that was a joke. I just remember reading the Book of Mormon and thinking that was funny.

As to the bad history – it’s not really a “talking point” as much as it is my criticism of the Mormon faith. Jesus Christ did not come to the United States. Did. Not. Happen. But every religion attempts to “fill in the blanks” of the time before it a little, and none of them really get it right.

Using your examples – If you’d said “The Torah is not historically accurate,” I doubt very many people would be outraged by that – although you accept the OT as well so I don’t think you’d do that. Black people are (at least in the United States) predominantly Christian, so your criticism there doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Proud Rino on December 1, 2009 at 8:52 AM

There is a lot to admire about Mormons, especially their family values. However, the Book of Mormon and its teachings are not Christ-centered making the faith into a cult. Sorry but that is the reality.

highhopes on December 1, 2009 at 8:48 AM

You can only say that if you have never read the book. On the title page of the Book of Mormon it states the purpose of it is “…the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations”
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/ttlpg

If the Book of Mormon was not Christ-centered, there would be no point to it. Your “reality” is not true. The cover of most Book of Mormons say “another testament of Jesus Christ.”

Kristamatic on December 1, 2009 at 8:54 AM

Southern Christians looooooove to bash Mormons – it’s like reading “Under the Banner of Heaven” except with more virulence.

Proud Rino on December 1, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Really, I’m a Southern Christian (Presbyterian) and I don’t “loooooooove” to bash Mormons. I was a Romney supporter in 2008. I suspect what you really mean is that there are fundamentalist Christians, usually of the Baptist variety, in the South who might be construed as anti-Mormon. But that isn’t what you posted.

What you are is one of those people who see the South as one giant target for your own bias and shortcomings. In your world, the South is just one giant land of doublewide trailers, NASCAR fans, cheap domestic beer, and ignorant inbreeding clans. Pity you don’t see the area for what it really is- far more interesting than the generic blandness of LA or NYC.

highhopes on December 1, 2009 at 8:54 AM

Using your examples – If you’d said “The Torah is not historically accurate,” I doubt very many people would be outraged by that – although you accept the OT as well so I don’t think you’d do that. Black people are (at least in the United States) predominantly Christian, so your criticism there doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Made sense to me:) But I meant if you said things like: The “bad part of Jewish history” or “all the bad things that blacks did” People go insane and say you are obviously a bigot. Doesn’t matter when you are a Mormon though, people will say the most outrageous things right to your face and are shocked- SHOCKED! when you don’t agree with them.

Kristamatic on December 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM

If the Book of Mormon was not Christ-centered, there would be no point to it. Your “reality” is not true. The cover of most Book of Mormons say “another testament of Jesus Christ.”

Kristamatic on December 1, 2009 at 8:54 AM

And mainstream faiths reject the idea that Christ made Joseph Smith into his stenographer for another testament. I’m not going to get into a theological debate on a politically-oriented blog. I’m not anti-Mormon but Mormonism is not a Christ-centered faith either.

highhopes on December 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM

Really, I’m a Southern Christian (Presbyterian) and I don’t “loooooooove” to bash Mormons. I was a Romney supporter in 2008. I suspect what you really mean is that there are fundamentalist Christians, usually of the Baptist variety, in the South who might be construed as anti-Mormon. But that isn’t what you posted.

Yeah Presbyterian isn’t “Southern Christian.” You are a Christian, and you may be from the South, but you saw what I was getting at.

What you are is one of those people who see the South as one giant target for your own bias and shortcomings. In your world, the South is just one giant land of doublewide trailers, NASCAR fans, cheap domestic beer, and ignorant inbreeding clans. Pity you don’t see the area for what it really is- far more interesting than the generic blandness of LA or NYC.

highhopes on December 1, 2009 at 8:54 AM

It’s funny that people who accuse me of stereotyping make stereotypical comments about me. I’ve lived below the Mason-Dixon line for all but 2 years of my life. I’ll never leave it again. There’s a lot to love here. But there’s a lot to criticize too. I don’t think it’s intellectually inconsistent to do both.

Proud Rino on December 1, 2009 at 9:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4