« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Reverend Jeffress And Mormons

Yesterday at the Value Voters Summit, Texas Governor Rick Perry was introduced by the Reverend Robert Jeffress. This, according to the Washington Post, is how the introduction went.

2:27 pm: Texas Gov. Rick Perry is introduced by Southern Baptist Convention leader Robert Jeffress, who endorsed the candidate recently. Jeffress called Perry “the most pro-life governor in the United States of America.” He also alluded to Perry’s recent debate fumbles, saying, “do we want a candidate who is skilled in rhetoric, or one who is skilled in leadership?”

Perry came on stage to loud, enthusiastic applause.

What generated the news were remarks made by Rev. Jeffress after Governor Perry’s speech when Politico’s Alexander Burns he was asked if Mitt Romney is a Christian.

Jeffress described Romney’s Mormon faith as a “cult,” and said evangelicals had only one real option in the 2012 primaries.

“That is a mainstream view, that Mormonism is a cult,” Jeffress told reporters here. “Every true, born again follower of Christ ought to embrace a Christian over a non-Christian.”

Asked by POLITICO if he believed Romney is a Christian, Jeffress answered: “No.”

This should not come as a shock to anyone. Jeffress is a pastor and happens to believe that his faith represents the correct interpretation of Scripture. He has also referred to Catholicism as a “cult” so it isn’t like the opinion expressed at the conference broke any new ground.

There are two critiques emerging. First, that advocating voters choose a candidate based on their religious beliefs is a “test” forbidden by the Constitution.

This is just silly on its face. The fact that Mitt Romney is in the primary should be more than adequate proof to any but a dullard that there is no “test” being imposed.

The second critique is more subjective. Should voters choose a candidate based primarily upon his religious beliefs?

The fact that this question can even be asked with a straight face indicates the degree to which religion has been banished from our public square. There is nothing more pernicious about voting on the basis of a candidate’s religion than there is on the university he attended or the state in which he’s registered to vote. If anything, a candidate’s religion, and the degree to which he adheres to it, tells you a great deal about how he will approach a wide range of public policy issues.

Contrary to Politico this is no an “attack” on Romney for being a Mormon. It is a simple statement of fact that Mormons are not Christians as Christianity is understood and practiced by any other denomination. This is not a news flash. The differences between Trinitarian Christianity and The Church of Jesus Christ of  Latter Day Saints has been the subject of books. That isn’t pejorative it is simply a statement of fact. It doesn’t imply better or worse only different. Just as Judaism isn’t Christianity isn’t Islam, though they have the same roots, Mormonism isn’t Christianity despite some similar beliefs.

While Mormons are free to style themselves as anything they wish, expecting others to go along with that self-characterization out of comity is simply a bridge too far.

It is a fair decision by voters to use their own prudential judgment to decide if Mitt Romney’s religion is a barrier to them. It was a fair decision in 1960 for voters to decide whether it was acceptable for a Catholic to be president of an overwhelmingly Protestant nation with a history of anti-Catholicism. And, but for Kennedy père’s mob connections the answer would have been negative. Why is it okay to pick a candidate based on his height or the ferociousness of his coiffure or how well he performs a series of vapid debates and not on the very essence of what he believes?

What is troubling about this instance is less Rev. Jeffress’s ill-advised theological discourse at a political event that the reaction of Romney’s supporters to criticism. To date their reaction has been indistinguishable from the reaction of Team Obama to criticism in 2008. If you criticized Obama it was because he was black and you were a racist. Period. Criticism of Romney inevitably, in sort of a corollary, to Godwin’s Law, results in accusations of religious bigotry.

Just as it is a lot less than useful for Rev. Jeffress to characterize an admirable faith pejoratively it is likewise unhelpful for Romney supporters to insist that everyone agree with their view of their particular theology.

 

COMMENTS

  • txpat

    On each canadate. They will weigh them and make a choice.
    Romney’s faith bothers me.
    His faith will not be on the top of list of why I don’t support him at this time.
    I am sure others will be bothered by his faith more than I, but what percent will be guided by that we may not know.

    • JSobieski

      There is a difference between theologically correct and being a bad moral influence. If Romney believed that drinking the blood of human beings was a good thing, I would agree that his faith bothered me. Whatever the attributes of Mormonism, I don’t think there is any argument that Mormonism is actively teaching moral precepts that are actually immoral. Mormonism may be misguided in the eyes of mainstream Christianity in terms of salvation history, but those errors do not inherently manifest themselves in a person’s behavior here on earth.

      Your disagreements with Mormonism are really limited to the theological sphere, not the moral sphere. So I don’t see why Romney’s Mormonism should matter any more than Perry’s accent or Romney’s hair. Some people will vote for the better hair, that is true. If you acknowledge that Mormonism is almost as petty a candidate attribtue as that, I guess I don’t have an argument with you.

      • porkandcheese

        Because Mitt’s grandfather was a polygamist. I know my grandparents’ morals shaped my own somewhat. My grandmother took me to church.

        Romney has not been the staunchest defender of traditional marriage and several other conservative values, and that may well be because they were not prioritized by his family. His own personal life is an image d’epinal. But he is far from my ideal candidate, because he does not share my values.

        Values have a right to demand that their candidate will protect what matters to them. Romney has done a poor job of that the one time he was entrusted to hold public office. That’s the most important thing — his record. But his religion may have some bearing on his moral compass. If so, it’s a poor reflection on the LDS. Regardless, it’s fair to bring up.

    • jaol1fe

      This latest tempest in a teapot is just another distraction to shape the debate. Politico had to know how the Pastor would answer the question. He answered truthfully from his theological point of view. Had he said anything differently then he would be called a hypocrite to his beliefs. This is yellow journalism plain and simple.

      Come on people think instead of react. It was a setup type question to simply get the gotcha answer to use against Perry. Shame on Politico for this planned smear and hit piece.

      • renl57

        The media quoted Rev. Jeffress verbatim. And his answer was newsworthy.

        They didn’t quote him out of context or fabricate what he was supposed to have said.

        • jaol1fe

          Who cares what a southern baptist preacher has to say. He’s not running for any office. It is a distraction from discussing the real issues we face, you know like unemployment and a crappy economy.

          • acat

            who Jeffwhatever insulted, just for being Mormons?

            How about the over 70 million Jeffwhatever insulted for being Catholic?

            One would imagine they’d “care what a southern baptist preacher has to say” .. when lookin at the candidate he’s supporting.

            It’s stupid, and it was probably avoidable, and .. it matters because it could potentially depress support should Perry win the nomination.

            Mew

          • jaol1fe

            This story isn’t really news. It is a theological discussion and not what the majority of people care about with this economy and lack of jobs.

            If we let the candidates focus on the economy and the job situation then it highlights the fact that 0bama is an utter failure.

            I don’t care what Romney’s faith is. I do care that his policies seem to have been the blueprint for 0bama’s worst policies that have been shoved through. Just recently it’s been reported on this site about his troubling appointments.

            http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/10/07/mitt-romneys-troubling-appointments/

          • acat

            it’s not a media-driven distraction. It’s a media-driven wedge, with intent, that this idiot Jeffress brought down upon the Perry campaign for no good reason.

            Mew

    • Tbone

      bigot?

      • avgjo

        (My question is asked in earnest. Thanks.)

        • Tbone

          Except for that religion of peace that seems to embrace killing innocent people, towards which I am bigoted, I don’t care what religion a candidate follows.

          • avgjo

            other considerations, as for instance the signification of a word.

            At least you admit your bigotry towards Islam (which I heartily share). I take it you don’t use the word with the same sanctimony that the left uses it.

            Bigot as so often used today seems to be a buzzword of those who espouse censorship. I would have been surprised if that was the way you used it.

            Thanks for the reply.

      • txpat

        Bigot is a strong term, and I resent being called that.
        I am also of the Baptist faith, and I will vote for Romney if it is him or Obama.
        I think throwing names like bigot or racist is inappropriate and counterproductive to getting behind the best person running for President.

        • anjinconsulting

          To use TBone’s suggestion, the term connotates intolerance towards any other beliefs or position. Your articles clearly demonstrates that you are making a judgemnt based on your own beliefs. Having a differing opinion, especially a reasonable one founded in on a judgement of prior circumstance hardly makes you a bigot.

          I gott the impression Tbone was just trying to be “politically correct” and failed miserably.

          • runner12

            Nothing you said made me think you were a bigot.

        • bloodshy

          I mean, it’s almost as offensive as labeling someone a cultist for holding a different religious view…

          • perry4prez

            There are three separate issues raised by Reverend Jeffress’ comments.

            1. Under the Constitution can voters judge a candidate by his religion. Of course they can. The Constitution limits government powers not voter powers.

            2. Is Mormonism Christianity? No it is not. Mormons believe that God exists in flesh-and-blood form and that He lives on or near a planet called Kolob. They also believe that the godly on earth can become gods on other planets. Mormons are entitled to believe what they wish but they are not entitled to call this Christianity any more than Jews for Jesus can call themselves Jews. The fact that Jesus plays a central role in Mormonism does not change this. At best it makes it an offshoot of Christianity. This is why many Christian denominations do not recognize Mormon baptisms and require converts from Mormonism to be re-bapitzed.

            3. Is Mormonism a cult? This is a separate question – I do not call Judaism or even Islam (here I differ with Revered Jeffress) a cult even though neither is Christianity. I would say that a religion is a cult if (1) it has secret rituals known only to some believers (2) it has doctrines known only to some believers and (3) it encourages converts to exclude family members from key rituals and life decisions for example marriage ceremonies. This is why Scientology is a cult. Unfortunately Mormonism does all of these things like Scientology does.

          • SoFiMil

            And wipe your feet.

          • SoFiMil

            Not one bit.

        • bloodshy

          This site cracks me up.

          First, the story gets reported with a dozen caveats and, rather than directly quote the most damning statements by the pastor or Perry (regarding the Pastor’s remarks), you paraphrase everything in a Perry-friendly way.

          Second, there are more complaints in the comments about how unfair it is for people to use the term “bigot” than there are about this Pastor using the term “cult,” which to the average American indicates affiliation with a group of brain dead followers and murderous intent.

          Absurd.

          • runner12

            his “cult” statement, more about the assertion that Mormonism is different than Christianity. That is where the discussion went because that was what the diary was about. The cult aspect is a different question altogether.

            You may want to try reading it first before making sarcastic comments.

            For the record, I do not agree with Jefress’ assertion that it is a cult.

          • snowshooze

            Nope… my policy is to avoid religious discussions.
            I submit that as sound advice.
            Just look at the size of this snowball and the heated battle our members are waging even against themselves.
            Anything even remotely in the proximity of religion will quickly slide into a mess just about like this one did.

    • supergirl2911

      to tell everyone I support Perry because he is the best looking.

      • throwback59

        just kidding.
        Sort of.

    • supergirl2911

      to tell everyone I support Perry because he is the best looking…uh…just kidding

      • merryj1

        That exchange between Supergirl and Throwback cracked me up. Thanks, guys.

    • ronlsb

      Red State’s article on this bruha is spot on. As a Christian, everthing I do should be informed by the Bible and a desire to be obedient to our Savior, whether it be work, or play, or yes, politics. If not, I’m simply fooling myself and playing games with religion. This is nowhere prohibited in the Constitution. It’s premise involves allowing a citizen of any religion to run for office and says nothing about the criteria we as citizens can use to filter our choices of whom to vote for. And to close with a word of advice: making your pocketbook or party affiliation your primary cause for casting a vote is NOT being faithful to Christ. Scripture places much more emphasis on many other things higher than those two–the value of life for one.

  • haners

    Jeffress said: “I think Mitt Romney’s a good, moral man, but those of us who are born again followers of Christ should prefer a competent Christian.”

    The latter (born again Christian) is not automatically inclusive of the former (a good moral man).

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      Has Romney ever claimed to be a “Christian”? Plus, the word has several meanings, ie As I said in my near comprehensive column this am

      http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/10/08/2223/

      The Mormon Church claims specifically to NOT be a part of the traditional Christian Church. That’s why they formed a new church and if some Mormons were to branch off from Mormonism and add new ideas and/or add to the Book of Mormon, the Mormon church would consider them to be a cult.

      So, to be a member of the Mormon Church is not to be a Christian. Whereas to join a Catholic or Baptist church is.

      However, an individual is a Christian is they, as Mitt has done, claims Jesus as his Savior.

      Hope this helps.

      • Ann_W

        So, yes, I and Mitt Romney claim to be Christian. We try to base our entire life on his teachings. We know that he is the only Begotten Son of the Father, and the only way to Salvation. We differ from traditional Protestantism in that we think we have to try to be righteous in order to earn the salvation that Christ offers us through His amazing grace, which we could in no way do for ourselves.

        Don’t tell me I’m not Christian because I don’t believe the Father and Son and Holy Ghost are all balled up together.

        This is not a religious website so I will not debate specific points. I would have a conversation with anyone about that by e-mail, etc. This is not the place, but I will NOT continually let it stand that the good people of my faith who love their Savior are not Christians.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          But I would say that while I?m not going to judge the venality of a pastor?s intentions based on less than a full transcript and/or video for technically accurate statements, it is also true that a better judgment would have been to decline to answer the questions on Romney at a political event. A pastor?s main concern is people?s souls however. What Mitt should do is get real technical and state that it is not an attack to say he is not a Christian in the way it is meant.

          Plus, if Jesus, Peter or Paul were alive and quoted on this matter and many others or if one reads all of Christ?s sayings on Hell, he and they would be crucified anew. The main mission of pastors is people?s souls, not politics and the sensitivities of bloggers engaged in semantics. That said, the above should give pastor?s pause when they participate in politics and I would say that the pastor should have declined to answer the questions re cult and who is Christian esp immediately after Perry?s speech

          • Ann_W

            Which is what “Mormons” all over the world try to do every day.

            The different concept of the Trinity, faith without works, etc., notwithstanding, we are Christians and it is not a matter of semantics, it is a matter of daily living and loving.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Those that follow it are called Mormon and used to be proud to be Mormons and didn’t crave to be lumped in with Protestants and Catholics that he and Young called cults! google it

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            But you’re out of your element if your going down that road. I am defined by the label of Mormon as much as Christian. If you think for one moment that Mormons aren’t clear on the doctrines of the Bible you’re fooling yourself.

            If you want to bash over the context of revealed religion. I’ll be your Huckleberry!

            I don’t take shots at Protestants and Catholics for their doctrines. I would assume you’d be above that.

            :)

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            smile

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Smile

        • streiff

          While Mormons are free to style themselves as anything they wish, expecting others to go along with that self-characterization out of comity is simply a bridge too far.

          You’re right, this is not a theological site, but the fact remains that traditional Christianity is Trinitarian. If you reject that concept you have rejected the very essence of Christianity.

      • runner12

        Mormonism is not a part of the traditional Christian Church. Sorry, but it is not. I am not sure why this pastor has referred to the Catholic Church as a cult, because it is not. But that is another discussion.

        The real issue is that we live in a free country with the right to free speech. This man is entitled to any opinion he wants, even of you disagree with him. He is not a bigot, as he clearly articulated that voting for Romney if he is the nominee is by far preferable than Obama. A sentiment I think we all share.

        Heck, I think the guy may have even handed Romney the perfect argument to get Evangelicals to vote for him if he is the nominee ( ie. Obama professes to be Christian, actions don’t show it, etc.).

        With regards to Perry, the guy INTRODUCED him. Perry did not sit in the man’s church for twenty years or for any amount of years for that matter. Even if he did, big deal.

        I find it ironic that the same media who overlooked Obama and Jeremiah Wright are making a big to-do about this. These are the same people who will do a hit-piece on the Mormon Church ( as a cult ) if Mittens is the nominee.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          and the claim of cult status against Catholics is that they add to the canon.

          Only ignorant lay people concerned with semantics and not secure in their own faith get all up in arms about this, not strong adherents of each. imho

          That said, the pastor should have declined to answer the questions in that political context and if he did answer should have better defined cult and Christian.

          I give definitions of Christian INDIVIDUALS:

          1) One claims to be one
          2) One is a member of a traditional Protestant, Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church
          3) One claims to be have accepted Christ as savior (Mitt has done this)
          4) One is named Christian…smile

          To be a member of a Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist or Jehova’s Witness Church is not be Christian. One must distinquish between a Church’s doctrine vs a person’s profession of faith.

          • JSobieski

            I am certainly unfamiliar with any such teaching being put forth by any official source.

            If you have some links to share, I would honestly want to read them.

            My purpose for entering into this fray in the first place is simply to refute the assertion that any Catholic clergy goes around calling Protestantism a “cult”. I dislike assertions of equivalence—particularly when they are not true.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            ever?

            Becoming a student of Calvin was generally considered a death sentence. Now, certainly, there was enough of that going around on all sides at that time, but I’d be careful with using the term ever if you aren’t a student of history.

          • JSobieski

            We are after all speaking about a statement made this week in 2011. So maybe I should have inserted “in the modern era” if I wanted to be more precise.

            That being said, something can be considered an offense justifying the death penalty without denying the Christian status of the particular set of beliefs.

            The response of the Church to apostacies such as dualism were different in some important respects than the responses to Luther et al.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            at least, at least as to widespread use.

          • JSobieski

            That individual practitioners would say one thing or another wouldn’t be so surprising. My comments re: both sides do it presume we are talking comparable people on both sides (i.e. ministers, scholars, not a run of the mill half-hearted believer)

          • streiff

            the variious purges Catholic and Protestant princes carried out were not because they viewed the other side as “not Christian.” That simply did not happen. The issue was heresy.

            And, for the record, until the 1820s being Catholic in Great Britain made your property subject to forfeiture and being a Catholic priest got you the death penalty.

          • perry4prez

            The Catholic-Protestant split was about heresy not whether one branch was “Christianity”. In any event I agree with the below poster who says this is not relevant in 2011, today pretty much everyone agrees that all these denominations are Christians because they accept the Holy Trinity (not polytheism).

          • Doc Holliday

            I am not interested in theological debate, but from a historically accurate perspective, Catholics and Protestants have had their “disagreements”. Here is a is a link you can check out, about a recent issue (by religious standards) from the present teachings of the present Pope. Now I don’t claim he called anyone a cult, non Christian, but there is certainly some amount of criticism here. “Foxnewsstory”

            Now for a general comment to those who consider level of Christianity for voting purposes. I come at this voting based on religion issue a bit differently than some others. I say if Christianity makes you a good president, then how can we explain Democrat presidents? I am positive all modern Democrat presidents have claimed Christian beliefs, and I believe them. So, why did they suck? I think the problem lies elsewhere.

          • Doc Holliday

            here it is if i blow it again http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288841,00.html

            here it is if i get this right

            <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288841,00.html"did i get it this time

          • Doc Holliday

            .

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Catholics wouldn’t be offended by having the other call us a cult. Its a technical theological term that has been co-opted by modern culture to describe religious extremist BEHAVIOR rather than beliefs that are radically different from the “parent” faith.

            But as to voting, it is TOTALLY irrelevant. What values and policy positions one holds is what matters.
            We agree 100%

          • Doc Holliday

            I am only agreeing with this statement, I haven’t read your others in this thread (that is too anyone who might get mad lol)

            I care a lot about the meaning of words, even though I make a lot of typos at this site. I recall cult did not have the pejorative it seems to have now. Cult, sect, etc were precise religious terms.

            I also agree that historically, Catholics and Protestants would not consider the other church to be in the right, if that were not the case, then why the split? The same can be said about the many Christian denominations, if only to a lesser degree.

            I support ecumenical dialogue, but differences exist, we all should know our own denominations better. We should be able to say why we are Baptist and not Presbyterian, why we are Catholic and not, Mennonite etc. I think that would help everyone better understand their own faith.

            Having said that, if someone tells me his he Christian, I believe he is Christian. If he tells me he is not Christian, I believe him.

          • JSobieski

            The last time I entered the fray on this topic at Red State (probably in 2008), I had to persuade someone that priests don’t forgive sins, God does. The person arguing with me cited some movies that he had seen. When I pointed out that movies usually get religion wrong, I thought I made some headway in achieving my objective: making the person realize that what they thought was Catholic teaching was in fact, not Catholic teaching.

            I won’t jump back into these waters here again unless someome claims that Catholics deny justification by faith.

            As an attorney, I am kind of fascinated by the boundary of legitimate religion and cult status. There are certain issues that law is remarkably illsuited to address. Domestic disputes (the boundary between being a bad husband and a criminal husband), mental capacity (the difference between being eccentric and incompetent) and unusual religions that focus on a lot of specific behaviors (the difference between being a bit odd and being dangerous).

            Line drawing in these contexts is very difficult. Maybe impossible in a systematic way. I guess I would also add the legal definition of pornography and the standard for “obviousness” under patent law to this list of really difficult line drawing.

            Anyway, NU 21 UofM 14!!!!!!

          • merryj1

            … for why Democrat presidents suck even though they claim Christian beliefs, is a widespread leftist response to the “WWJD?” (“what would Jesus do?”) question, of “He would have (the collective) redistribute to the needy, what (the collective) deems a “fair” amount of your goods.”

          • runner12

            The pastor should have declined to comment regarding Mitten’s personal faith. Only God knows that one. If it had been about Mormonism in general, to me it would have been acceptable.

            Regarding Catholics and Protestants, after studying Western Civ in school it seems that at different points in history one or the other seemed more aderent to traditional Christianity. Both had their moments of wandering off the reservation, so to speak, and both had their not-so-great moments.

            In England in the late 1700′s/early 1800′s, it was the Evangelicals who began to claim that Catholics and Protestants were of the same faith. Individuals such as Wilberforce and Hannah More were influential in appealing to the King to repeal many of the discriminatory parliamentary acts against Catholics.

          • runner12

            In my opinion, Catholics are no cult nor have I ever heard anyone refer to them as such. I can say the same for Catholics.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            agreed totally

          • Remington_Steele

            and Romney as a Mormon, would Jeffress vote for Obama over Romney. He said “No!” Thus, his Christian comment and opinion is not absolute. We all have a bunch of reasons for how we vote, this question was designed to cause contention which is not of Christ. Typical LSM. Jeffress should have kept his comment and opinion to himself.

          • streiff

            Up until Vatican II, it would be accurate to say that the official Church position was that Protestants were heretics. As Anglican clergy can be accepted into Catholicism as ordained clergy it is sort of ludicrous to make that assertion.

          • JSobieski

            The number is much higher than 0, because if a married Anglican minister converts to Catholicism, the individual can remain a priest and remain married.

            http://atheism.about.com/od/romancatholicism/a/celibacy_2.htm

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            nope, no text

          • perry4prez

            Does one Christian denomination accept baptisms by other denominations? Today Catholics accept Protestant and Orthodox Baptisms and vice versa. This is not true of Mormon baptisms.

        • sayoung80913

          uhhh, it would be different to me if this guy was Perry’s PERSONAL pastor a la Rev Wright, but he was just some guy selected by the committee to INTRODUCE Perry and there was nothing controversial in his introduction at all. It was after, when Politico decided to try and split hairs to give Obama a break off of his Fast and Furious scandal. I personally don’t hold some dude’s viewpoints against another entirely SEPARATE person. You never know what another person will say at things like this and can’t offend the people putting on the summit by rejecting their choices of introducers. Do the Grammy’s or Emmy’s get the blame if one of their introducer’s is drunk,falls off of stage,says a cuss word or has a clothing emergency? hell no-the blame falls, as it rightly should on the person who is solely responsible. LOL,
          For those who like to condemn candidates for the words or actions of those only minutely involved with their campaigns-be very,very careful in what you do as it may be turned on you. Romney’s campaign was busted last time because one of his campaign advisers actually repeatedly(not to mention illegally) impersonated being a cop, made a phone call impersonating being a cop, and went so far as to print up silver cop badges for other campaign officials so they could use them to clear out unwanted reporters and onlookers before ole Mitt showed up. Should Mitt be held responsible? Eye of the beholder, but don’t open that door Mittens, there is ever so much fodder that the Perry campaign can use against you in that regard…..

      • streiff

        1.. The story isn’t about what Romney has called himself, it is about what his followers have insisted is the case.

        2. Sure, words have all kinds of meanings. In fact, some are stretched so far as to be meaningless. That is the point I was making in the story.

  • macbookben

    ….you are a christian if you “get” John 3:16. The rest are details, minor and major. That said, the favorable Republican candidate will enjoy his/her popularity based on leadership characteristics, and not on subscription to a particular sect of Christianity.

    • omegamale

      if you’re to believe John 3:16 and that we’re saved by faith in Christ.

      I’m not a Mormon, but I consider Mormons to be Christians with a book that doesn’t belong there. I certainly don’t think that Mormons are a danger to my faith when they’re in office.

      What is Rick Perry doing having himself introduced by a pastor who calls Catholicism a cult? Or Mormonism? Clowns like this should be nowhere near serious political leaders. At best his “vetting” is sloppy, at worst he is trying to “dogwhistle” voters because his candidacy is on the rocks, but doesn’t want his hands dirty.

      Mormons are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, why on Earth would you want to alienate such an important group of voters? Republicans should steer clear of such divisive figures.

      • macbookben

        …it would seem, is to get the support of fundamentalist Christians, mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Jews, pretty much any conservative-leaning religious groups, while avoiding being labeled as a panderer (yes, he should even campaign in Salt Lake City). Once we have a nominee, Perry, Romney, Cain, Bachman or (gulp) Paul, then our mission is to get behind him/her and defeat BHO in 2012.

      • streiff

        couthern Baptists (geography not the Convention) and Evangelicals but I have no doubt that many of them consider Catholicism a cult. How else to you explain Jack Chick’s tracts still being a profitable enterprise.

        Robert Jeffress is pastor of a mega church and is very influential. I am surprised that you are surprised that he holds these views.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          than is Fred Phelps. There’s lots of fringe crazies out there, and they do get their share of followers who will pony up some bucks to further their hatred.

          As for Jeffress, in my experience his views are typical of the greater “baptist” community.

    • avgjo

      Mormons believe Jesus was one of several ‘spirit-children’ of Jehovah, which would go against the ‘only begotten Son’ part of John 3: 16.

      I’ve met a lot of extremely decent Mormon folks, and one of my best friends was a Mormon, so please don’t accuse me of hating them. I’m just not sure if the doctrines they’re taught are in line with the NT.

      • Ann_W

        What you have been told is incorrect.

        Believe me I know about the little classes at church to educate you about Mormons. I got invited to one in HS where 16 teenagers and an adult leader told me all the reasons I wasn’t saved. I figured out pretty quickly that they weren’t “just wanting to educate themselves about my faith” as I had been told. Somewhere in the NT it says, “judge not that ye be not judged.” Sound familiar. I will follow and worship Jesus Christ in all the ways the New Testament describes, and I will allow you the same privilege. Please do not judge the final fate of my soul.

        • avgjo

          judging crap with me.

          Nowhere did I say Mormons go to hell. That’s a judgement He alone can make.

          You might wanna check out the meaning of that ‘judge not’ statement. It doesn’t mean you can’t judge things. That is ridiculous. It is a guide for judging. Read the rest of that passage. It is telling you not to be a hypocrite when you judge, and that if you are, expect to beaten over the head with it. The Bible is full of judgement and guidelines to make judgements. Ultimately, when a Christian calls something right or wrong according to the Bible, he or she is citing God’s judgement on an issue. Take it up with Him.

  • jjhlh1

    I don’t know enough about Mormonism to comment intelligently on it. I can say with certainty, however, that Mitt Romney should not be our nominee for a host of other reasons – the most important of which is his lack of honesty.

    • intensity

      ….agree. I don’t think religion should be a primary focus for compaigns, especially at the primary stage.

      But Mitt has a lot of political stuff that really hurts him, like his Romneyobamacare and record as governor.

      • Ann_W

        not religious campaigns. I don’t like Romney’s politics that much either.

    • ragstoriches

      .

  • ombd

    Why is Perry being introduced by someone who has called Catholicism a cult and whose other views appear to be, well let’s just say less than helpful to Perry … as circumstances have shown.

    Maybe Perry and his surrogates would be better served focusing on Obama and his Administration’s many foibles. After what we saw at one agency this week, there’s certainly no shortage of small miscalculations to talk about … http://www.ombudizen.com/2011/10/08/rounding-error/

    • haners

      option of winning the primaries, by rallying the faithful on religious terms.

      It’s a classic case of good cop bad cop, he lets Jeffress say his spiel about Mormonism and then Perry follows that with a line statement to the effect that he doesn’t agree with all that Jeffress said. The intended message gets through to the intended audience with a wink wink.

      • Langley

        From the WaPo article, a quote from the Pastor: ?I did not talk about my Mormon views? with Perry, he said, and ?I?m not insinuating that the governor shares those at all ? he may not.?

        Move on.

      • joayn

        ever heard.

        Seriously, what a bunch of jibberish.

        • smagar

          At least you didn’t accuse haners of having cooties.

    • Tbone

      focusing on electing a conservative rather than John McCain 2.0

    • renl57

      That’s my theory.

      Perry hasn’t exactly run a perfect campaign up till now, you know.

      This was just one more stumble in a series of stumbles by the Perry campaign.

      The only significance of it for me, is that it indicates that the Perry campaign still hasn’t gotten its act together.

      Now THAT should be worrisome.

      • gekster

        Just what did Perry do that is a mistake.

    • Kyle-MI

      The Summit choose who to introduce Perry. Perry did not have a say in it.

      • carolina

        an unintended colateral damage event?

      • renl57

        Don’t tell me that a good campaigner wouldn’t have made sure that no one associated with him could embarrass him.

      • renl57

        Don’t tell me that a good campaigner wouldn’t have made sure that no one associated with him could embarrass him.

    • streiff

      I could really care less what any Baptist minister thinks.

      But, to the point, this story was written because Romney’s backers have been pushing the story out to political blogs as an attack of Perry.

      I think Jeffress was right in his theology. There can’t be much of an argument about that. His characterization of Mormonism as a cult is off base but apparently that is the way he rolls. In the final analysis, every voter has a reason to weigh a candidate’s religion in making a decision. Personally, I can’t think of anything that tells you more about the candidate than his faith and the degree to which he practices it. This is why, as a Catholic, there was no way I was ever going to vote for Rudy Giuliani.

  • txpat

    It’s about the Rev, Christian principles vs Morman principles, and thin skinned Romney supporters.
    Perry wasn’t apart of this, unless we now hold every supporter of every canadate
    Against them.
    The vetting process is spreading to supporters of a canadate,
    Next. They will be vetting their animals.
    I can’t wait to here from Romney’s dog.

    • romansdaughter

      I am new here but txpat that is an excellent point. I was just thinking of some of the supporters of other candidates who didn’t impress me, Jimmy Carter saying he likes Mitt…Vince Vaughn liking Ron Paul and the stooges down on OWS having signs in support of Mitt and Ron. Should we disqualify them because of that?

      • acat

        especially based on the third of your examples.

        Mew

    • Ann_W

      But am a Mormon who is just tired of being told I’m not a Christian by people who have no idea and refuse to educate themselves.

      • joayn

        after asking what religion I belonged to (Catholic), that the Catholic church was evil and not true to the faith of God because we prayed to STATUES. I am not kidding. It took me about a minute to to respond since I just couldn’t get my mind around such a ridiculous statement made by a seemingly intelligent guy.

        • Ann_W

          I just looked back at my posts, I think I got a little strident, too, but it sure would be nice if people tried to learn and understand rather than just regurgitating what they think they learned.

  • mvosteen

    First I want to say that I am not a Romney supporter. I would like Cain to be the next president but I would pick any of the Rs over Obama. So president Obama claims to be a christian. Given that his brand of Christianity seems to fall into Rev Jeffress’s definition of Christian, who would Rev Jeffress pick between in his words the not real Christian (Romney) and Obama if the general election came down to that? I think this shows some bad judgement on Perry’s part. I believe this is a free country and people should be able to believe in what ever religion they wish, but a guy that wants to be president needs to pay attention to what the people around him say and do. I have heard the arguments on why Catholics are not Christian, and I would have a hard time voting for some one that thinks they are not. My wife is Catholic and I am pretty sure she is a much better Christian that I am. I am a Methodist but not much of a practicing one. If you were going to pick between her and I based on which one of us was the better Christian you would be foolish to pick me.

    • joayn

      n/t

    • http://www.Contratimes.blogspot.com contratimes

      To answer your question (which, perhaps, has already been answered), I paste this quote from CNN online:

      ___________

      “But if it came down to a contest between Romney and President Barack Obama, Jeffress said he’d still vote for Romney, although holding his nose at the same time.

      “‘I would rather have a non-Christian who at least supports biblical principles than a professing Christian like Barack Obama who embraces unbiblical positions,’ he said.”
      ___________

      That’s an interestingly nuanced point Mr. Jeffress is making, don’t you think? I am not saying it is right, but it is nearly Jesuitical in its subtlety.

      Peace.

      • joayn

        Plus, the Reverend stated that 30 million evangelical voters sat home in 2008 and Obama won by 10 million. His point, I believe, was to get the evangelicals out to vote in 2012.

  • minister_of_war

    The only question is whether or not the Church of Jesus Christ is the one true Christian faith. But believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, as is the center of the Latter-day Saint belief, & believing that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the World, as the Latter-day Saints do, is what makes a person a “Christian. Yes, there are many different types of Christians. But members of the Church of Jesus Christ could just as easily say that you were not a “real” Christian if they wanted to.

    A bigger problem with what you state though is the fact that you say that Jeffries also called Roman Catholicism “a cult”. If this is true, then Rick Perry should have known to avoid having this religious bigot introduce him at the Value Voters Summit. Anyone who would say such inflammatory things about Catholics & about Mormons for that matter should be shunned in political discourse – not embraced.

    Perry’s camp has said that they do not share Jeffries’s view that Mormonism is “a cult”, but they need to go further & now answer questions regarding Jeffries’s opinions of Catholicism. And in answering this, I want to know if Perry believes the Catholics & Mormons are or are not Christians.

    And one last point, I hope that RedState doesn?t become a place where Mormons & Catholics don?t feel comfortable visiting because front-page posts endorse the thought that they are not really Christians at all. It is beyond insulting, as is your despicable post.

    • powertothepeople

      and they are not a part of the Christian faith, period. They may be and are decent people and many of them are very fervent believers, but without getting into the entire religious debate, there are many more theological differences that excludes them from being referred to as Christian.

      As to the rest of your nonsense and pity posting, if a Catholic or Mormon is offended by a Christians words, their problem. During my days in a Catholic church due to a girlfriend, I remember their belief that they were the only true church and back then wanted the distinction between them and Christians to be vast. So why the problem now? Same applies to Mormons, was not long ago they would quickly correct you if you applied them to the same catagory as a christian and still believe themselves to be the true faith. So based on that, why would they have issues or why would we care if they have a problem with Christians saying they are the true faith.

      And no, he does not need to clarify whether or not he thinks Catholics or Mormons are Christians, he is not running for a spiritual position.

      • minister_of_war

        I just hope that RedState does not become a place where Mormon & Catholic bashing becomes something that is seen as okay.

        Like I said, since you’re not Mormon or Catholic, Mormons & Catholics could just as easily say that you’re not a “real Christian”. What you say is just plain insulting and inflammatory.

        • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

          Thank you.

          • minister_of_war

            There are certain lines in the sand where a person has to stand up for people. There are 68 million Roman Catholics in the United States & 6 million Mormons. It is beyond tiresome to have all of them attacked in their faith in Jesus Christ.

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            I did not say that this was a topic for discussion. Because it is not.

            Do you understand me?

          • macbookben

            n/t

        • powertothepeople

          that is laughable. Please point out what points were incorrect or continue to be the laughable poster of this site you have usually been.

          I know this is hard for you to understand, but if the Catholic faith claims to be the only true church and the Mormons believe themselves to be the true church, not sure how they could be offended when a Christian says the same thing. So they do state, Catholics at the beginning of every service, that I am not a real christian, so what is your point? Since I am sure you will be unable to understand that statement, let me leave you a clear example. At the beginning of nearly every service, the Catholics chant a statement that contains the words, (paraphrased) they are the one and only true apostolic church which would make all others the “fake’ ones. The Mormons also claim to be the only true church and salvation is only attainable through the LDS church. So how without being pure hypocrites could they have an issue with another faith saying the same thing.

          And I am still yet to see where there was any bashing, but I do not read between the lines like you or add in BS to make a point.

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            Stop. Now.

      • JSobieski

        I am curious as to why anyone would consider the Roman Catholic Church to be a cult given that people freely enter and leave, and all Catholic teachings are freely available to anyone who wants to read them. To me, limited ability to leave and secret teachings are the core indicia of a cult. Otherwise, what people are really talking about is merely a worldview (or salvation history) that one simply disagrees with.

        From a political perspective, I agree and don’t care about such things. From a theological perspective, I am interested in why some Protestants consider Catholicism to be a cult.

        All denominations of Christianity involve the Bible, some kind of hierarchy, and traditions. Different demoniations of Christianity give these different attributes different degrees of importance, but all Christians believe in justification by faith and in salvation through the voluntary sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

        My past discussions on RS that have touched on issues of Roman Catholicism revealed many misconceptions about Catholicism. For example, one person continuous argued with me that Catholic priests claimed the power to forgive people of their sins . . . because of scenes that he saw in movies. My attempts to point out that movies get most religious stuff wrong (particularly with regards to Christianity) didn’t seem to dissuade the person all that much.

        • powertothepeople

          not only defined by being able to enter and leave as you wish or denying the same. I never said they were a cult, simply stated that if the crybaby is going to whine about words stated by one man of faith against another, then he should also address the belief held by both Mormons and Catholics that they are the only true church. Hard to be angry at one person for saying the same thing they do.

          • JSobieski

            Every religion thinks that they have the most correct and comprehensive vision of truth. Otherwise, people would subscribe to a different faith (no rational person would pick a faith on the basis of being purposefully less correct).

            Does a Catholic think that a Protestant is missing out on some things? Sure. No Catholic would characterize a Protestant as belong to a cult.

            All Christians believe that the way to the Father is through the Son. This teaching can be interpretted in a variety of ways. However, should a Jewish person react to a Christian on that basis in the same way that you seem to react to Catholicism?

            If you didn’t believe that your faith was most the valid, most insightful, and closer to “The Truth” than others, you wouldn’t subscribe to that faith.

          • powertothepeople

            how I react to Catholicism, where do you get I reacted in any way one way or the other. I do not give a rip about theological debates or who wants to claim to be the only way. I have my beliefs, my church, and outside of a persons salvation, could care less where they pray.

            My only problem with this whole thread is the idiot who spews crybaby nonsense about Streiff’s piece, what the pastor said, and his feeble attempt to tie Perry into the guys words. He even then states that Perry must lay his own feelings out on the matter just for him. He has shown himself to be a joke many times before, but this takes the cake.

            Lately, as in the last 15 years or so, there has been a movement to “unify” all the faith or at least be accepting of each other. But this is not how it has been for most of the life of these faiths. All, and I repeat all, have laid claim to being the only true way, and to say different is being honest. The guy has a right to his belief, wrong or right or even in between, and Perry has no reason to disavow him or even clarify his own beliefs just because minister demands him to.

            I have never defined them as a cult. I may feel one or both are cults, but I have never stated that one way or the other. My issue lays with the PC nonsense MOW is trying to pander, the false facts he is using to back his assertion, and the fact that all of the faiths have claimed or do claim to be the only true faith, so on what grounds would one or the other have to be mad that another faith used the same words that have.

            Streiff made a well though point, has nothing to apologize for, the pastor has nothing to apologize for, Perry has nothing to apologize for, nor does he have to lay his own beliefs on the matter out. Just because a crybaby takes it personal does not mean everyone else should or will.

            And I still have not made my own feelings on any of the faith known, so lets keep that clarification in mind when you make your response.

          • JSobieski

            Jeffress described Catholicism as a “cult”.

            Either produce a link that shows a Catholic clergyman using the word “cult” to describe Protestantism, or take back your statement.

            That is all I ask.

          • Ann_W

            And yet somehow, you know for a fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints is the untrue church. Convenient…

            This Christian man is not saying that his church is true, which I would expect from someone who belongs to one church over others. He is saying that Mormons are not Christians. He doesn’t have the right to judge my heart when I say that I follow my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and that He is the only way to salvation. You people really grate after a while.

          • powertothepeople

            can you. Seems to be a common trait around here lately.

            Now, try reading my posts again without stupid in your way and you will be able to see I have never stated any faith is the true faith nor have I even stated what faith I belong to. I did not state those things because I do not have the desire to deal with morons such as yourself who are unable to read entire posts and simply look for key words to harp about. Plus this is not a theological site, so it does not belong here.

            Now, is somehow you are able to wipe the stupid off and have an issue with what I actually said, I would be more than happy to discuss that with you. If not, shove off.

        • http://www.Contratimes.blogspot.com contratimes

          I don’t mean to quibble, but right or wrong, there has been a definite historical perception that many Catholics do NOT believe Protestants are Christian. The whole issue of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” comes to mind. I am NOT suggesting that the Catholic Church has officially considered Protestants to be something other, but the perception has been pervasive enough that the Magisterium and sundry popes have had to speak directly to this problem. I have had Catholics say to my face that there is no salvation for Protestants. They are wrong, of course, or so I believe, but the pronouncements by the Holy Fathers were not just for Protestant ears, they were for the ears of ignorant Catholics.

          Anyhow, I guess I do mean to quibble.

          Peace.

          • http://www.Contratimes.blogspot.com contratimes

            n/t

          • JSobieski

            Particularly involving someone in the Catholic Church characterizing any denomination of Protestantism as a “cult”.

            The year is 2011. The person calling Catholicism a “cult” is minister of some prominence. What I want to point out is simply that Catholics do not characterize Protestants in the same way, contrary to what PTP is saying.

            Any Catholic saying that there is no salvation for Protestants is simply ignorant of the teachings of Catholicism. If you can find me a link of someone in the CLERGY who is alive now (or even alive within 50 years from today) saying anything close to that I would love to see it.

            I am a pretty partison Catholic as things go. I don’t know anyone who speaks that way. There is no Catholic literature saying such things, no clergy saying such things, and no Catholic scholars saying such things.

            That is my quible with PTP—the assertion that this minister is saying nothing different than what Catholics of similar prominence say is 100% BUNK.

          • JSobieski

            in the sense that the Catholic Church is believed to fully convey the truth of the Word. Protestant churches may not have the same doctrine, but if people didn’t their denomination was at least closest to “the truth” they would change denominations, right? Thus the RCC may sound somewhat pompous about other denominations, but it does consider the individual practitioners of those denominations to be anything other than Christian. At certain times of year (particuarly Easter), Catholics expressly pray for non-Catholic CHRISTIANS.

            In modern times, the RCC has never denied the status of “Christian” to anyone. The RCC has said various things about how certain Christians may not be in fully communion with what the RCC considers to the “The Church”–but that does not mean that the Church goes around questioning the Christianity of non-Catholics.

            A lot of these issues come down to nuanced language and complex topics (is anything more complex than the Trinity?). There is no doubt that the RCC puts more weight on hierarchy and church than Protestants, just as there is no doubt that Orthodox Christians place more weight on traditions than either Protestants or Catholics. However, the core doctrines of salvation (which is what Mere Christianity is all about) are quite similar. What does differ is practices, sacraments, etc.

          • streiff

            Your are really distorting it.

            that doctrine says salvation comes only through the Church, it doesn’t say that Protestants aren’t Christians. Never has. It has historically, until Vatican II, considered Protestants to be heretics: Christian brothers and sisters separated by doctrine.

          • cbs

            Streiff, is there any reason your definition here (Christian brothers and sisters separated by doctrine) could not also be applied to Mormons?

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          A cult adds to the canon and/or adopts radically different views on what is considered essential to the faith. Two of the Protestant (They left to PROTEST!) objections to the Roman catholic faith has been that the RCC deems church history incl pronouncements on faith by the Pope as equal to Scripture, ie adds to the canon and the seeming “works” salvation.

          Theologians and secure and informed adherents on both sides don’t get offended by such discussions. we trust God to sort it out!

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            violent religious extremists.

          • JSobieski

            The doctrine of infallibility (ex cathedra) is very very limited and hasn’t been invoked since 1870 (the Assumption of Mary). The role of the church hierarchy is to teach and preach, just like it is for Protestant ministers. Ex cathedra teachings are “binding” on Catholics in way that is not true for Protestant ministers preaching to Protestants, but to characterize the Pope as being equal to scripture is a bit misleading.

            There is absolutely no doctrine that places the Pope are a co-equal to scripture. The Church in the abstract sense is chartered with teaching the Word, but it isnt like the 3 branches of the US government. The Pope is more like a Prime Minister with a limited mandate, to teach and preach The Word. The Pope is not free to contradict or go counter to scriptural teachings in any way. The book of Catholic Cathecism is primarily a book that quotes and cites scripture.

            In terms of justification by works, Catholic teaching is quite clear that salvation is through faith alone. Justification by works is a common misconception that many Protestants have in part because many Catholics don’t know church teachings very well.

            I know that I will never put a dent in the way that Catholicism is typically understood, but sometimes I am inspired to try.

            Someone a long time ago did have to create a definitive list of Canon texts in any case. ;)

          • aesthete

            Good explanation. If a Pope were to (God forbid) begin teaching that Jesus was not God or other heretical doctrines, they would not be seen as legitimate Church doctrine, much less co-equal to Scripture!

      • minister_of_war

        At no time in history have Catholics not referred to themselves as Christians. Just because the Roman Catholic Church is named Catholic does not take that fact that its followers believe in Jesus Christ out of the picture. Roman Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. They also believe that He died on the cross & was ressurrected the 3rd day. Catholics believe the Christ is the Savior of the World.

        Your view that people who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ & try to follow Him & worship Him are not Christians is just plain ignorant.

        • powertothepeople

          you have no clue what my view is. I have not stated my views on the issue of faith. My only statement was to rebut your stupidity and incessant crying about something you obviously have little real knowledge about. Not too mention the fact you make a whiny ass statement about the OP comments, yet he did not attack either faith. The only issue you seem to have is the words of one man of faith that 100% mimics the words of the two other faiths. So deal with their “hurtful” words denying all other faiths Christian status, or bug off back to your silly PC world.

          And no, they have not claimed Christianity since the beginning. Nice try though.

          • minister_of_war

            I forgot that you were the true mouthpiece of God & knew everything about everybody else. I’ll try harder next time to listen to your all-knowing spiritual guidance.

          • JSobieski

            So your thesis that Jefress is just using the same words that Catholics or Mormons use is untrue.

            Calling another faith a “cult” is different than believing your own faith to constitute the fullest and most comprehensive pathway to truth.

            No Catholic clergy or lay person that I can think of has ever used the “cult” word as Jefress has used. You should either retract your statement or provide a link.

    • sethellis

      Mormons are Christians. They believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, they believe that he was the son of god, and they believe that he atoned for our sins. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has made it’s position on the matter abundantly clear. The inability of some to see the facts despite the overwhelming mountain of evidence to the contrary can only be rooted in religious bigotry.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        and NOT a political forum.

        • sethellis

          I still think that part of the original poster’s point still applies. It is up to each individual person to decide if a person’s religion is a barrier to them voting for that candidate. This becomes a problem if that person’s knowledge of a religion is based on lies. I have seen many in other places claim that Mormons believe Christ to just be a great teacher or profit like many Muslims do. That just isn’t the case.

          That is why I simply stated that: They believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, they believe that he was the son of god, and they believe that he atoned for our sins.

          That is all that really needs to be said on the matter. People can make their own choice from there.

          • powertothepeople

            you state I said something I did not. Now either be woman enough to reread what I actually stated and then come back and clear the record or admit to being very stupid and unable to comprehend simple English.

          • powertothepeople

            the phone is not a wise way to respond. So sorry!

        • Ann_W

          and I fully expect to be warned to knock it off really soon. However, others (such as yourself and this man) are allowed to just throw the bomb out there that we aren’t Christian and we are supposed to just lay back and ignore it.

          Others (powertothedumbpeople) say we have never claimed to be Christian. WE ARE Christian, as were Catholics before Protestantism even existed.

          So, you stop!

          • SoFiMil

            the other poster, however, most definitely was.

            IMHO, MBecker has always been gracious when a few posters have said things they shouldn’t, and has tried to get the discussion back to where it should be -all the while doing so respectfully.

          • Ann_W

            He just stated that Mormons aren’t Christians. That is judging a part of me that I’m pretty sure he has no idea about. We absolutely believe Christ is our Savior and the Son of God.

          • Ann_W

            My bad!

          • SoFiMil

            And he left it at that. And it wasn’t in a manner that was an attempt to subtly post his theological viewpoint. He didn’t use Romney’s faith as a venue to talk about his own doctrinal beliefs. He’s told people off who attempt to slur Mormons and called them bigots.

            I’ve long thought that a large percentage of people polled who say they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon come from the radical left who correctly or incorrectly believe that most Mormons are pro-lfe.

          • porkandcheese

            Cause that’s weird.

          • SoFiMil

            ..

          • porkandcheese

            In fact, Huckabee asked Romney this in 2007. It was reported in the politics section of the NYT then and again recently.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/us/politics/social-issues-pose-new-test-for-mitt-romney.html?_r=1&ref=politics

            The question posed by Mr. Huckabee is one of the standard sensationalistic A-bombs often hurled at Mormons by their detractors, said Scott A. Gordon, president of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, a group based in Redding, Calif., that defends Mormon theology.

            ?It?s an attack question,? Mr. Gordon said, ?because it starts with a kernel of truth and shapes it into something that most Mormons wouldn?t recognize about their faith.?

            Mr. Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and a Southern Baptist minister, quickly apologized to Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, for the question.

            IN MORMON THEOLOGY, God is literally the father of all beings, and all beings once existed in a ?premortal? state as ?spirit beings,? said Robert L. Millet a professor of religion at Brigham Young University. Jesus was God?s FIRST-BORN SON*, and everyone who came after that, including Satan could be considered the siblings of Jesus, he said.

            ?Latter-day Saints believe that all of us, Christ included, existed in a premortal existence, as spirits,? Mr. Millet said. ?Yes, Jesus and Lucifer were in that premortal existence, together. But what we need to make very clear is that Jesus was God and there was never a time when Jesus and Lucifer were on the same plane.?

            One of the most basic differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity is the conception of God. Mormons believe that God has a body of flesh and bone, in human form, and that Jesus does, too. They believe that God?s body ?is immortal, perfected, and has a glory beyond description,? as the church says on its Web site. They teach that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are independent beings, and taken together they form the Godhead.

            Mormons do not accept the traditional Christian view of the Trinity ? that God is three beings of one substance: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

            * Christians believe Jesus was God’s ONLY BEGOTTEN SON
            John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

            ALSO Mr. Millet explained: ?We do not believe in the scriptural inerrancy of the Bible. But that?s true of much of the Christian world. It is the word of God, but that doesn?t mean there haven?t been scribal errors, or things that have come down to us in less than perfect form.?

            But they believe some hayseed in upstate NY who found some golden tablets from the angel “Moroni” is a prophet. They believe that Jesus came to North America and lots of stuff I don’t believe. They’re free to believe what they like — but I don’t recognize much of it.

          • SoFiMil

            It was not even phrased as such. Then you swerve further into your agenda and call a man I revere as a Prophet a “hayseed.”

          • porkandcheese

            With proper punctuation to leave little room for confusion, and it was just a question. The Times saw fit to answer it in their politics section.

          • SoFiMil

            The last quote Mr./Brother Millet you quoted was definitely not responding to Jesus’ Christ’s divine Sonship. Jesus Christ was indeed the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. That is a basic tennet of LDS theology.

            Whatever Millet was responding to was some other question. As it says it the 4th Article of Faith in the Doctrine and Covenants, a book of scripture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

            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.

            However, there is no doubt as to the accuracy of the translation of John 3:16,

            Remember the commandment to not lie, brother.

          • SoFiMil

            Article of Faith. (Blush).

          • Bill S

            Please take further theological discussions elsewhere.

            Mgmt.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Personally I wish you’d showed up about 400 comments ago.

          • SoFiMil

            I didn’t think my comment was theological. I apologize and accept your decision. If it was because of the link, I only included it as a reference and nothing more. Again, I’m very sorry. PC quoted someone using the word “inerrancy” – which some high word power.

          • porkandcheese

            http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Is_Lucifer_the_Brother_of_Jesus.pdf
            Jesus, the Only Begotten?

            Critics exclaim: ?Mormons believe that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, yet the Bible states that Jesus was God?s ?only begotten son.? Mormons, therefore, don?t believe in the Jesus of the Bible!?

            The New Testament does indeed identify Jesus as God the Father?s ?only begotten Son.? While attempting to understand exactly what this phrase meant, however, it is important to NOTE that the title was not always intended to be taken literally in antiquity. (ACCORDING TO MORMONS) We know this by considering Paul?s statement regarding Isaac?s relationship to his father Abraham. In Hebrews 11:17 Isaac is titled as Abraham?s ?only begotten son,? despite the fact that Abraham also had a son named Ishmael.(CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THIS IS PROPHESYING THE LINEAGE OF JESUS, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD)2
            Additionally, the great first-century Jewish historian, Josephus, used this same terminology when describing the son of Monobazus (the king of Adiabene). Josephus recorded, ?[Monobazus] had other sons by other wives besides [Helena]. Yet did he openly place all his affections on this his only begotten son Izates.?3

            So, what does ?only begotten? mean when speaking of sonship in this kind of context? The Greek term mon-og-en-ace? (commonly translated as ?only begotten?) was intended to denote that a son was unique, special, and of particular endearment4?which would set him apart from OTHER sons. (TO CHRISTIANS, THERE IS ONLY ONE SON)
            Given these facts, we can ask the question, ?Could this meaning also apply to Jesus? relationship to God the Father, being unique, special, and of particular endearment, thereby allowing a belief which includes Jesus having siblings??

            Certainly.

            The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (NOT CHRISTIANS) teaches that Jesus is the spirit brother of both angels and all mankind. Before you and I were born, we lived with God the Father and our brother Jesus Christ. It is true that Lucifer was a son of God. (NOT TO CHRISTIANS) It is also understood that he became prideful and rebelled against God. In consequence of his actions and unwillingness to accept the Father?s plan, Lucifer was cast out of Heaven.

            While considering this, it should not be overlooked that Latter-day Saints believe Jesus was indeed unique and special among all of God?s children. As has been stated by the First Presidency, ?Let it not be forgotten, however, that He is essentially greater than any and all others.?5

            THIS IS WHAT MORMONS MEAN BY “BEGOTTEN” There are four key points that distinguish Jesus from His spiritual siblings:
            ?He has seniority as the firstborn.
            ?He is literally the Father?s only begotten Son in the flesh.
            ?He was foreordained to be the only Savior and Redeemer of the world.
            ?He was sinless.

            I did not lie or misrepresent anything. When I quoted a Times article about an exchange between candidates Huckabee and Romney in 2008, I was attacked by Mormons. But what I posted was factual.

          • SoFiMil

            Not reading anymore, nor responding to you.

          • porkandcheese

            And you’ve been refuted.

          • Bill S

            NOW.

          • porkandcheese

            It is unfair that you allow members to call me a liar, but I cannot respond in kind. I provided links and pertinent quotes FROM MORMONS. Everyone else here has been allowed to defend their faith, whether they are Mormon, Catholic, etc. So why not me? Why am I the one being threatened?

          • Bill S

            This theological thread went on long enough and I said “stop”. You don’t make the rules. The moderators do. My comment was aimed at everyone on this thread.

            This is the end of discussion. If you choose to continue, you do so at your own risk. (THAT is a threat)

          • powertothepeople

            I know it is hard for you to actually follow progressive threads and read what people actually write, but try.

            You state I said something I did not. Now either be woman enough to reread what I actually stated and then come back and clear the record or admit to being very stupid and unable to comprehend simple English.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          N.t.

    • retire05

      Does Romney need to denounce the former actions of the Church of Latter Day Saints? The refusal to allow blacks to reach the same height within the church as whites? The massacre of people in wagon trains?

      Perry did not pick the introduction speaker, the organization did. Perry also has no reason to denounce the words of someone else, anymore than Romney does. And although Perry has said that he doesn’t agree with Jeffress on Mormanism, you still demand more. I suggest that no response from Perry is going to satisfy you.

      • acat

        and put up a (very brief) two kingdoms answer. Something involving “Render unto Caesar” would be appropriate.

        Hint – I already know one liberal who is “concerned about Perry” because of his overt religion. Anything that even looks like sectarian bigotry that splashes Perry is going to just make that worse.

        Mew

        • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

          Brevity’s part of the reason it wouldn’t work. The evangelical movement has so successfully distanced itself from theological precision that most on the inside would neither understand a summary of the doctrine nor be willing to study a longer rationale for it, and those on the outside (present cats excluded!) would rarely have encountered an evangelical who has either articulated the concept or–witness the comments above–attempted to practice it.

          Further, the evangelical heirs of Kant are particularly ill-equipped to reference “Render unto Caesar” since they failed to sufficiently answer the anti-supernaturalist 18C liberals who ended up spawning the Wrights and Jacksons to whom the verse means simply “God gets your souls and burning bosoms; everything else goes to the IRS.”

          Finally, the Jeffress statement “That is a mainstream view, that Mormonism is a cult? is saddled with a double irony of connotation which does not help his cause. It is easily proven that the majority of reformation-rooted evangelical churches have long taught that Mormon teaching as a whole is irreconcilable with historic biblical Christianity. The first element of irony comes with his use of “mainstream”: until very recently, that term in the mouth of an evangelical has referenced the aggregate of non-sola-Scriptura churches, roughly equivalent to the liberal branches of Protestantism plus all of Catholicism. The second element, however, comes with the realization that whatever “mainstream” status evangelicalism has ever held in American life is certainly far less than it was several decades ago.

          • acat

            The “Two Kingdoms” model makes a better answer to “Why can’t government take on X role of the church” than any other I’ve run into.

            The downside is, it’s not a short study. The upside is, it’s a rather solidly thought out one so I can merely act the part of a signpost.

            Again, from the outside, I’m seeing a need to rethink the relationship between church, government, and society.

            Church seems to have allowed Government to take over many of the venues that brought it most into contact with Society – feed, clothe, and teach the poor, heal the sick, care for widows, yadda yadda .. and I end up in effect watching a co-worker and his spouse having a full-contact stuff-thrown fight that means nothing to me other than he’s going to be useless at work the next day and I might have to talk to cops and/or lawyers.

            Mew

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            It took a little digging to find a non-subscription online article to give you a bit more meat on the 2-kingdom bones than the Eberly piece, but it was worth it to find Kim Riddlebarger’s concise A Two Kingdoms Primer. Should be helpful for those on both inside and outside–including a helpful set of presuppositions. The closing paragraph is clearly applicable to the Jeffress incident:

            But the kingdom of Christ is tied to word and sacrament and the church (and its officers and members) must speak to the pressing moral issues of the day in terms of law and gospel, not in terms of the political activism found in the civil kingdom. Yes, the church must address moral issues as they are found and framed in Scripture (through the preaching and catechetical function of the church), but the church is not to engage in partisan politics, nor endorse any political party or candidate.

          • westcoastpatriette

            I intercepted it before acat got to it and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. The brevity and clarity of the article with respect to the dual roles of Christans’ within culture and the church is so needed right now. I myself am amazed at how so many Christians are unable to make the distinction between the two roles and, much to their dismay, their well-meaning activism leads them into an unworkable trap. Fascinating discussion.

            It is also ironically amusing that our friend–acat–a self-described unbeliever–seems to get it better than most.

      • runner12

        Perry can distance himself, which he already has. But those who want to use it to demonize him further just make themselves look foolish. He did not pick his introducer. Even if he did, I doubt that they had a convo before on what Pastor Jefress believed re: Mormonism.

        On a seperate note, since things are getting so heated. It seems my team the OSU Cowboys are going for the record on how many points one can score in one football game. It is 56-7 with 2:46 left in the second QUARTER. I feel really bad for Kansas. Oh well, they will pay us back come basketball season. KU basketball is just plain awesome every year.

    • streiff

      that doesn’t make it so.

      What you are saying is the equivalent of saying Muslims are Christians because they believe Jesus was a great prophet. For traditional Christians the age of public revelation closed with the death of the Apostles. As Joseph Smith lived somewhat later…

      I’m a Catholic, btw.

  • clintonformccain

    I’d pull my hair out, but I don’t have much left. Our country faces obvious and monumental economic challenges with a President who is incompetent.

    Why in name of whatever god you worship, are we talking about painted rocks and school vaccinations and tuition at Texas community colleges and Mormons.

    I DON”T CARE ABOUT MORMONS or ANYBODY ELSE’S FAITH!

    The Republican candidates need to STAY ON MESSAGE!

    Sorry for the rant, but it’s day after day day allowing the MSM to tie the candidates to these circus side show issues.

    • trutexan

      nt

    • explodinghead

      nt

    • msctex

      . . .as opposed to October 2012. I’ve never experienced a Presidency which so felt like it should already be over, but here we are, with another year left to endure. All these arguments are only to be expected, and it is good we are getting it all out of our systems before we must present a united front against a genuinely desperate foe.

    • SoFiMil

      ,

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      we are about to be washed down the cesspool of history and so many people are stuck on stupid.

  • clintonformccain

    if Rick Perry or anyone else running for President thinks my MOTHER is a Christian. Why cares? Has anyone seen the unemployment rate in the United States? Does anyone know what the federal deficit this year is?

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    I have no issues at all electing a CONSERVATIVE LDS member as POTUS.

    As an evangelical Christian and a licensed American Baptist preacher, I am continuously offended by this particular organization. I really wish candidates would boycott it.

    We are electing a President, not a pope or President of the SBC.

    • clintonformccain

      Is a net-negative for the Republican party. It’s like handing talking points to the media gift wrapped on a silver platter. They are always gonna find some hard-shell preacher who will be glad to give them an incendiary quote that can be used to paint the Republican candidates as crackpots.

      Same ridiculous stories, year after year after year.

      • JSobieski

        Political forums are different than religious forums. The Value Voters Summit should decide that they are either predominantly political-moral, or primarily theological-moral.

        The option of being both theological and political is doomed to fail, as man cannot equally serve two masters.

      • avgjo

        Social Conservatives, and the VVS is important to a lot of those folks. You might view it as a dilemma for GOP candidates, but that’s the way it is.

        Social conservatives are often told they have to hold their noses for a fiscally conservative candidate. Those fiscal conservatives who want to hold on to their money may have to do the same sometimes.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          that you’ve got totally out-of-touch jerks like Jeffress making stupid statements that get attached to our candidates and suck all the air out of the room.

          And God Bless Bill Bennett for his rebuke of this fool.

          • Remington_Steele

            I clapped when I heard Bill’s statement. I’m glad Romney gave him cudos too.

        • runner12

          NT

        • acat

          I would like to see what happens if they get ignored.

          Seems to me that, when Social Conservatives got “ignored” by the GOP nominating McCain, *they* showed up. It was the squishies who stayed home or voted for the “historic” candidate.

          Mew

          • avgjo

            I hate to tell you, I know a lot who stayed home when Bush ran against Gore because of the drunk driving incident (which was stupid of them, BTW). And we all remember how close that race was.

    • aesthete

      I’m not electing the Archbishop of the Americas — I’m electing the President. Mormonism from my perspective contains theology which does not qualify it as a part of orthodox Christianity, but there is nothing within the religion which disqualifies an adherent from being a great conservative, a quality citizen, or a good public official.

  • sadams

    Just my opinion, but Perry is vulnerable to this kind of “guilt by association” as a result of his highly public participation in evangelical events. I’m not saying this is wrong, per se, but many Republicans are not evangelical Christians, and I’m worried that they are going to be turned-off bigtime by this. Other socially conservative candidates in the past have been attacked in this oblique manner as well, but Reagan and G.W. Bush could shake them off pretty easily; I’m not sure if Perry can pull this off, particularly given his general inarticulateness in debates on other points of controversy. Don’t know if it will be fatal (I hope not), but I think this helps Cain bay another 5 points or so in the polls. We’ll see.

    • acat

      You know, people who are at church on Christmas or Easter Only.

      Every denomination has some, they show up once or twice a year, usually with their significant other or a parent, they put a couple bucks in the plate, and that’s the extent of it.

      Worse, this plays right into the hands of liberals looking for a wedge issue.

      This is going to hurt, and unfortunately there’s not much that can be done directly to make it go away.

      Mew

      • JSobieski

        The term “cult” is a pejorative. At a political forum of values voters, the word “cult” should be used as frequently as the word “Hitler” should be used in political ads.

        I really don’t care what Jeffress or anyone else says about Catholicism. But to those Protestants out there, I can assure you that I have never in my entire life heard a Catholic refer to a Protestant denomination as constituting a cult. I went to Catholic schools for a good portion of my life, and never once did I hear such an utterance.

        Peace!

        • westcoastpatriette

          and appreciate your kindness throughout the debate.

        • sadams

          it’s the cumulative effect I’m worried about. It’s obvious the Perry campaign is concerned about this issue because Perry is directly contradicting the good Reverand. I think Perry is continuing down the slippery slope here, unfortunately.

          • intensity

            …to the White House!!!

          • sadams

            but it’s not looking too good at the moment. Still, it’s a long campaign season.

          • intensity

            …is that Perry is the only one with enough resources out there to compete with Romney and then Obama.

            After Bachman, Santorum, Huntsman, Paul, Ginrich,and eventually Cain drop-out, it’ll be Perry vs. Romney.

            Then the games will begin.

        • porkandcheese

          It’s a dog whistle, but it’s not the end of the world.

    • retire05

      You do know that Cain was there, and spoke, right?

      If guilt by association is a game changer for you, you need to rethink Cain and his apparent [stealth] association with Romney who he backed in 2008.

      • sadams

        I said I thought he would benefit from this latest fiasco.

  • tercel

    Whether Romney is a Christian or not is not really our call to make but he is not even true to his own faith. Mormans are and have always been pro-life. Not pro-choice when running for Gov of a blue state and then pro-life when running for the Republican primary. If he is not true to his own faith, he is not going to be true to the promises he makes to the voter.

    • minister_of_war

      he would not do anything as Governor of Massachusetts to push his pro-life views on a pro-abortion electorate. Or more accurately, he promised no changes, whatsoever, in legislation involving abortion or other pro-life issues. This is why as Governor of Massachusetts Romney vetoed legislation to fund research on embryonic stem cell research. He also vetoed part of RomneyCare that made co-pays for abortions in the state only $50. Whether or not the legislature overrode any of these vetoes is not Romney’s fault or responsibility.

      I’m not sure if it’s the job of anybody else to decide how true to his or her own faith anybody else is. That’s kind of a thing between God & that person.

      • romeg

        in defense of an indefensible practice.

        What about the rights of that unborn child?

        Romney cannot even call the practice by its correct name. “The Right to Choose” is an abbreviation for “The Right to Choose to Kill my unborn child” solely because those who support it are not willing to admit that they support the right to choose to kill their children.

        Whether a subject was to Live or Die was a choice that the Caesar’s and other despots throughout history have exercised. It is not a choice exercised by presumably enlightened human beings of the 21st century.

        • SoFiMil

          I like to add to the dribble of others that’s it’s not okay to kill a baby in private or public.

        • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

          nt

      • SoFiMil

        Just about everyone is “personally” pro-life. Romney at least at one time was a Relativist. If he’s truly converted to pro-life principles, I welcome Romney to the cause.

        I find anyone who is pro-life for political expediency worse than those who are honest (and wrong) and support laws allowing abortion on demand. Mrs. Romney donated money at one time to Planned Parenthood. If she’s now a pro-lifer, I also welcome her to fighting for the unborn and others who cannot defend themselves.

        And if it matters to you, MOW, I am an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

      • retire05

        Romney was quite pro-abortion as governor. Just reseach his previous comments about the issue. He stated, quite clearly, that the decision to allow women to murder their unborn children was one of their beliefs, not the government.

        Romney only became pro-life when he decided he needed to run to the right of John McCain.

        If you are pro-life, you don’t subscribe to the “I’m pro life but it’s none of my business if women kill their unborn children” meme.

    • Ann_W

      We are VERY pro-life. And I don’t agree with Romney politically, so he’s not my candidate. However, the cult and “not Christian” things have got to stop. They’re just going to rip the coalition apart.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        google it
        I’m not offended because I understand that Mormons have a separate religion and that’s cool.

        • Scope

          and he added that over the last four years the mormons and the christians have been working together on the life and marriage issues. Perkins said he didn’t care what Romney’s positions were in the past as he is pro-life and pro-marriage today. Wonder where he will be tomorrow.

    • Remington_Steele

      I disagree with tercel saying “Romney is not even true to his own faith”. Maybe on a personal level, but you need to understand more about the LDS church first. There may be some LDS that disagree with me as I am just a lay member, but for those that are confused about the LDS religion’s position on abortion I give you my opinion on the matter as a former clerk and seminary teacher:

      1. If you are a member of the LDS church and you counsel, persuade or push abortion personally to anyone, you’re standing in the church is at great risk and you will be called to a disciplinary council where your membership may likely be removed (excommunication).

      2. If you are a politician which allows or votes for abortion laws, the church usually allows you to vote according to your conscience in your representative role. The 11th article of faith states, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them dworship how, where, or what they may.” Thus in making laws that represent the people, the church may try to persuade Harry Reid to vote against abortion, yet it does not affect his standing in the church when he acts poorly in his role as a politician. At any point Harry Reid breaks rule #1, he’s out of the church. God will judge Harry as He will for both roles, the church will judge him for role #1.

      3. The church will continue to support and promote good values as it did in Prop 8 in CA, but it will not force it’s members in their representative roles, only personal roles.

      This is why Romney has had multiple views on abortion as a politician, but as a member in good standing he was a Bishop and a Stake President (leader of a combined congregation of 5,000).

      Many probably feel this is a horrible way to run the church, but the church requires personal responsibility for actions and allowing for the free choice of others. Yet, it will work very hard to persuade those opinions without challenging the standing of it’s political members.

  • joayn

    It’s in transcript form, with a CNN reporter and Wolf Blitzer. I don’t have a problem with what the reverend said, it’s the forum that’s the problem.

    The only person I hold accountable for Rev. Jeffress’ opinions is Rev. Jeffress.

    http://www.lvtsg.com/imho/2011/10/rev-robert-jeffress-i-believe-evangelicals-need-to-go-with-rick-perry/

    And P.S. It seems Herman Cain has learned his lesson – no more insert foot into open mouth!

    • SoFiMil

      .

  • wacowboy

    First of all, Jeffress fell for an obvious “gotcha” question by the politico reporter. While his answer certainly didn’t come as unexpected, there were about 100 more diplomatic ways to answer the question. If Perry were to be the nominee, he will need the vote of the thousands of Mormons. Regardless of a person’s stand on the LDS religion, not a good idea to refer to the group as a cult.

    Secondly, a person’s religious belief certainly is PART of the picture which primary voters need to consider. This isn’t strictly because a certain religion makes better leaders than another, but a person’s religious beliefs certainly shape their character.

  • Tbone

    Second, anyone who holds what some supporter says about some other candidate against the supported candidate is a completly dishonest fool.

    Third, anyone who has a problem with any Christ focused faith better get the mote out their own eye and stick it in their mouth.

    • SoFiMil

      Thanks.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      Couldn’t agree more

    • streiff

      I think I have the right to use any metric I wish to judge a candidate and I don’t have to justify it to anyone.

      I don’t think labeling some tens of millions of Americans who vote their faith as bigots because they, rightfully, don’t see Romney as sharing that faith is a winning strategy.

      I suspect in the end that Evangelicals of all types will support Romney if he gets the nod, but Jeffress makes, I think, a valid point. We aren’t at a Romney v Obama stage yet. We’re picking a candidate.

      • sadams

        If you said you would never hire a Mormon, or let your kids go to school with Mormons, I think most people would conclude that you are a bigot. I know that your actual position is very nuanced, but that is going to be lost on a lot of people, including many Republicans who haven’t been focused on the presidential race yet but who are going to hear the headline only of this story and say: “oh, Perry hangs out with religious bigots”. The best thing that can happen for Perry is that this whole thing will fade from the headlines, but I’m afraid it won’t because the MSM now has a green light to bring it up over and over again.

  • sunshinek67

    stayed home last election cycle refusing to vote for John McCain according to Jeffres. Obama won the popular vote by 10 million. One thing is pretty obvious, if Romney were to get the nomination, the Republican base is not going to be excited about him. Mass hysteria is what put Obama in office last time, remember? Rockstar. While his amp has been unplugged, Obama still has 80% of his Democratic base that is solid in his corner. Latinos are going to be a forceful voting bloc this next election, many of whom identify independent. To defeat Obama, Republicans are going to have to get a nominee that the base can rally around, and truthfully evangelicals constitute a very significant portion of the base and a candidate that does not chase the Latinos away. Period~

    • Ann_W

      Thanks for laying that out. We’ll just go on laboring behind the scenes. We’ll vote and send in money, and we’ll go shoulder to shoulder on the socially conservative issues, but we can never be president.

      If an evangelical votes Obama over Romney, if he’s the nominee, that would be a very destructive thing for this country.

      I don’t even think Romney is that great a candidate, but someday maybe a Mike Lee will run. You folks need to rethink your priorities.

    • acat

      The conservative evangelicals showed up for McCain.

      The moderates stayed away or voted for the “historic” candidate.

      I recall seeing cars with Obama bumper stickers in church parking lots.

      Perhaps Jeffries is a decent pastor, I’ve no way to judge, but he’s a blithering idiot when it comes to politics.

      Mew

      • westcoastpatriette

        He’s a pastor…

        Ever hear the saying that to a carpenter, everything looks like a nail?

        To a pastor, every election is grounds for a sermon.

        Oh, well. I tried.

        • westcoastpatriette

          See, I can never remember canned jokes.

          I think the line is “If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

          My bad.

          • acat

            Small confession, when I’m not sure of the wording of a canned joke, I’ll google it first and make sure. I’m not that good with words, I stand on the shoulders of well-indexed giants….

            Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            You’re one of the best witty, commenters at RS. And I don’t think you google all of it–some of it is an “acat’s original.”

          • acat

            A prime rib and a bowl of cream, now….

            Seriously, I don’t google all of it, not even most, but .. when I know perfectly well that someone else said it better, I look it up. And then, if appropriate, I give credit.

            Mew

    • porkandcheese

      “To defeat Obama, Republicans are going to have to get a nominee that the base can rally around, and truthfully evangelicals constitute a very significant portion of the base and a candidate that does not chase the Latinos away. Period~”

      The way the Republican candidates went after him on the Texas Dream Act of 2001 was not good optics. I think the “heartless” comment will help him in the general, because many Hispanics will agree. Punishing children for the parents’ mistake is heartless, especially when they work so hard to give back to society.

  • blogforceone

    Will re-elect Obama.

    • streiff

      a values-free campaign?

      • Ann_W

        When people use religion to get brownie points. If Perry is the superior candidate, Jeffress should have said that, instead he tried to delegitamize a large group in the conservative coalition because of their religion, because he thought Perry would benefit from it. That’s the problem.

  • txpat

    And the lazy voters that only get they’re info from the media bias will give Bo another term.
    Don’t follow the pied piper, research the candidates from several sources and make an informed decision.

  • HaroldHutchison

    To be precise, the pattern that shows poor preparation. It was worrisome before the debates. Now, we have a case where, for whatever reason, his staff either surrendered control over who would introduce him, or did not thoroughly vet who would introduce him. Those two are the best-case scenarios, in which Rick Perry’s preparation for the presidential campaign was incomplete and (pardon if this violates the TOS) half-assed.

    The other option is that Perry is trying to dig his way out of the hole his poor debate performances have created by using the Mormon card. If this is the case, then Perry may win in Iowa and South Carolina, but it will leave a bad taste in some mouths – that is much worse news.

    Folks may want the “not Romney”, but they need to be sure they don’t upset Romney’s supporters. Keep in mind, the pro-Romney supporters have the option of sitting out elections and shutting their checkbooks. That is not the sole province of the Value Voters Summit attendees or members of the Tea Party.

    • acat

      Seriously?

      Mew

      • Scope

        is what Harold means. Facts and details don’t take up any space in Harold’s mind.

        • acat

          Oh wait.

          Mew

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          nt

      • HaroldHutchison

        But he IS ultimately responsible for his staff’s performance – be it superb or poor. He’s the one who hire and fires the staff ultimately. If he is not hiring the people who do the advance work, he hired those who hired the advance work.

        His staff’s job is, among other things, to make sure he is prepared for debates AND to make sure that kerfuffles and controversies like this don’t happen.

        Yet we have three horrible debate performances, and we now have a tiff over whether or not Perry is trying to play the Mormon card while still keeping his denial that he is playing said card plausible.

        Personnel is policy. Right now, Perry’s looking like someone who either does a poor job of hiring competent staff, or he hires people who do a poor job in selecting staffers. Which of those look better to you?

        It’s the same logic behind asking tough questions about Van Jones working in the Obama Administration as Green Jobs Czar, or Eric Holder as AG. Ultimately, the President hires or fires these people, or he’s hiring those who do the hiring and firing.

        If Perry does this poor a job with personnel decisions now, what is to lead me to believe that his ability to judge competence and/or character will improve should he become the 45th President of the United States?

        • acat

          What’s the link between this alleged pastor and the Perry campaign?

          As I understand it, Perry didn’t pick this guy, and Perry’s staff aren’t – or *shouldn’t* be – responsible for whatever he says.

          Are you *seriously* claiming Perry should have muzzled Jeffries? Perry’s people should have had someone interfere with the flow of Q&A from the media? For an event Perry was a guest at?

          Mew

        • Scope

          vote for someone else. You are not here in any way or shape to promote whatever candidate you are supporting. You are here to do nothing but try to convince others that Perry is just one big idiot.

          Again-

          Don’t. Vote. For. Perry.

          Take two aspirins, you will fell better in the morning. Or perhaps Pepto would do the trick.

          • jimmyg

            Rick Perry’s campaign signed off on the choice of Texas pastor Robert Jeffress to introduce the governor at the Values Voter Summit, Family Research Council head Tony Perkins told POLITICO.
            Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65467.html#ixzz1aEhCrmm2

            Instead of talking about what Rick Perry said at the VV summit, we are talking about this pastor, who is prominent in the Dallas Tx area, and what he said about Gov. Perry’s chief competitor’s religion. This was easily avoidable, but Perry, rather than step around it, stepped into it. Perry’s performance thus far has been miserable. His staff of “eggheads” may have been great in Texas, but the competition must have been bush leauge. He is the bigs now. A good staff would have seen this coming and got Perry as far away from this Pastor as possible.

            This diary has turned out to be about religion, but it should be about politics, and how Perry is not good, on the national scene, at the gam e of politics.

          • acat

            Seriously. How should Perry’s people have kept this guy from stuffing his wing tip down his gullet?

            Should every campaign now have someone on staff to act as an intermediary between the media and completely unrelated organizations?

            Should the Romney campaign be answering questions for the LDS church?
            Should the Cain campaign be answering for the NAACP?

            You’re reaching to pin this on Perry. It’s not a medal, it’s {excrement} so it’ll probably stick, but .. it’s a long reach to say the Perry campaign is responsible.

            Mew

          • jimmyg

            This pastor introduced Perry to the VV crowd. Perry’s people signed off on this guy. If they had simply googled his name, they would have found that he has some radical views, just ask Pastor Jeffress, he’ll tell you, in fact he will tell any reporter who asks him. The job of a candidates staff is to protect him from guys like Jeffress.

            As I said earlier, this is reminiscent of John McCain-Rev. Hagee, a totally unnecessary distraction which was easily avoidable.

          • acat

            And while this {excrement} will stick to Perry the same way Hagee stuck to McCain, and while the Perry campaign did sign off on this doofus, I’m not convinced.

            Who picked him, and out of what lineup?

            Mew

          • jimmyg

            if the Perry staff had a do over, do you think they would have allowed this guy to introduce Gov. Perry to the VV summit? As Erick has stated, Perry is a regional candidate, in a national race. He, and his staff have to start thinking ahead, and nationally. As of now they are thinking of how things have played out in the past in Texas. It is not working;

          • acat

            the best of the possible choices?

            I agree that it’s a problem. I disagree with blaming Perry’s staff for not muzzling this guy after, and since I don’t have all the details (unless you’re inside the Perry campaign and can state, on the record…) I won’t blame the staff for an outsiders’ idiocy.

            Besides, Scope directed you to a simple option. Don’t vote for Perry.

            Mew

          • jimmyg

            I said that a sharp staff who had minimally vetted Rev. Jeffress, would have not let Rev. Jeffress introduce Gov. Perry to the VV summit. It is Gov. Perry’s staff who are responsible for this mess.

          • acat

            I see.

            Who would have replaced him?

            Keep in mind, he was apparently selected by the summit, not the campaign. All the campaign could do was say aye or nay.

            Would the next guy have been worse?

            Mew

          • gekster

            You are against abortion.
            Some of your friends are for abortion.
            Difference of opinion.
            You are invited to give a speach.
            One of your pro abortion friends is asked to introduce you to the crowd.
            They introduce you, and you give a speach to a receptive audience.

            After your speach, some reporter asks your friend who introduced you what they think about abortion, and they say that they are pro choice.
            The reporter wrongly reports that you are for abortion, since this person is for it.
            Nothing could be further from the truth, but some guy named jimmy now thinks that you are for abortion.

          • jimmyg

            As a result of this unforced error we are talking about what Rev. Jeffress said after Gov. Perry’s speech, rather than what Gov. Perry said during his speech.

          • gekster

            If you want to talk about the speech, then talk about it.
            The more you bring this issue up, the more it gets talked about.
            Any one at anytime could have change the topic on this thread.
            I myself have tried to avoid this topic all day, but alas, I finally succumed.
            And what I posted to you, well, I’ve been wanting to say all day, but resisted.
            Let’s just say I saw it convenient to post it now.

            (and my friends use a small g) ;)

          • Scope

            From everything I’ve read, Perkins said that “someone” recommended that Jeffries introduce Perry because he was a supporter of Perry. Who is the recommender? Not known by anyone. Perkins said the Perry camp “signed off on it”, what does that mean? Jeffries said that he was invited by Perkins. Perkins has already been on record saying that Mormonism is not a Christian faith.

            So VV sends an email to the Perry camp saying you are scheduled to speak on Friday, Oct. 7, at 2:30 PM. Pastor Jeffries will introduce you. Please confirm. The Perry camp sends back a confirmation of the slot for Perry.

            I have no idea if Perry knows/knew anything about Jeffries, but Tony Perkins, and the event planners must have. The leftist media knows the controversary about Jeffries, and is waiting to interview him after the speech. He says, yet again, that Mormonism is a cult, and that Romney is not a Christian. Tony Perkins believes that Mormonism is not a Chriastian religion.

            If this proves anything about Perry, it proves that he believes in the freedom of speech, and more importantly he believes in the freedom of religion.

            Those that are not Perry supporters will go to any length to use any non-issue and try to blow it into a major issue against Perry. You have been one of them.

            Vote. for. someone. else!

          • jimmyg

            nt

          • Scope

            freedom of speech, and freedom of religion?

            If Perry or his camp were religious bigots, they would have come out and said no way no how can we allow this person to introduce me, he has made incindiary comments about Mormonism. How would that have played for Perry being for religious freedom? If Perry’s camp said no way no how, would that have been seen as a slam against Romney because of his religious affiliations?

            Please answer that question. Do you believe that Perry, or his camp should have interjected themselves into a question of a particular person’s ideas of religion. Please remember that the president is the president of the whole and entire country which includes, Christians, Mormons, Muslims, and every other religion thrown in the mix.

          • Scope

            How about Cain’s comments that he wouldn’t have any Muslims in his administration? Isn’t that religious bigotry? Why isn’t he being thrown under the bus for that? Those words came directly out of Cain’s mouth. Perry never uttered a word against Mormons before he did say now that he doesn’t believe that Mormonism is a cult. Should any presidential candidate say any religion is a cult?

            Hey wait a minute, are you a religious bigot against Mormons by your accusations?

          • jimmyg

            I googled ” Perry Jeffress and supporter” and obtained 49500 results. This story has feet because Gov. Perry is a top tier candidate. At the time Cain made his comments no one was paying attention. With this kind of thinking Gov. Perry is not going anywhere except the direction he has been headed the last several weeks. The rest of your accusations are not worthy of reply. I only noted that someone screwed up allowing Rev. Jeffress to introduce Gov. Perry. I pinned the blame on his staff, not Gov. Perry.

          • Scope

            and of course the Perry pastor story is out there everywhere, but what sites are on the story? Daily Kos, Politico, the NYT etc. I already checked that out earlier today.

            If you think for a nanosecond that Cain’s Muslim comments are going away any time soon, you are more than just a little naive. Yup, his comments were months ago when most were not paying attention, just as his clearly lack of any foreign policy bona fides. When Cain was asked his opinion on the “right of return” issue, it was high and hot in the news at that time, and he appeared to be the deer in the head lights moment.

            This is how it works in politics jimmyg. Cain has no elective office record to judge him on. Now that he is top tier, what do you think that he will get a vetting on? All of the statements that he has made since jumping into the race mostly. Then many will also go back to his run for the Senate, and his little known run for the presidency in 2000. He will not escape the scrutiny that all top tier candidate have. I promise, and would put big bucks on a bet that Cain will now get an analt like he never has before, and, he will be found to be lacking. He will also be found to be a flip flopper on some issues, just as his favorite candidate has been.

          • defenseconservative

            … but this time I agree with you 100%.

            Cain has not been vetted until now. That’s because, until recently, he was in the single digits or the low teens in polls, so nobody of consequence paid attention to him.. He was not considered a viable candidate.

            Now that he’s a top tier candidate, he will be carefully vetted in a way he has never been vetted before. And if anything incriminating is found, he will never be able to get elected dog catcher, let alone President.

          • streiff

            the ujnforced error is the decision by Mitt Romney’s camp to use a simple factual statement to be turned into a “Perry supports bigots.”

            What Romney’s camp has decided, rather unsurprisingly given his record, is that a lie is a valid attack.

            What Jeffress said was, in the main, the truth. He was a little harsher than he needed to have been but he was 100% correct from any theological perspective.

          • jimmyg

            The story is that a Perry supporter is a bigot. He stated that the Mormon religion is a cult. I know little about the Mormon religion being a Roman Catholic, but I did not know that “What Jeffress said was, in the main, the truth.”

          • HaroldHutchison

            Look, I know how Mormons tend to be viewed by a portion of the Religious Right. Part of the territory. I am not offended by that. Par for the course.

            What worries me is the pattern of poor preparation that has emerged surrounding the Perry for President campaign. It’s like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell all over again. They may win a primary, but they will be unable to close the deal in the general.

            Angle’s disaster of a campaign got us six more years of Harry Reid. O’Donnell gave the Dems a free ride in Delaware. A repeat of that in the presidential race would be a disaster for the country, and not just because it’s four more years of Obama.

          • acat

            Perry’s people have done?

            Jeffwhatev was chosen by the conference, not Perry. If not Jeffwhatev, who?

            While I can see that Perry’s people need to be issued Droids or iPads and told to google or bing everyone who introduces Perry for a speech, I’m not sure just what else, in this situation, could have been done.

            Do you know that the next guy in line was better?

            Mew

          • HaroldHutchison

            “While I can see that Perry?s people need to be issued Droids or iPads and told to google or bing everyone who introduces Perry for a speech, I?m not sure just what else, in this situation, could have been done.”

            The above quote is the key. Why hasn’t Perry done that? If he is this haphazard running for President, what assurance do I have that it will change if he is President?

            Why don’t you explain that to me?

          • acat

            Who, if not this guy, would have been giving the introduction?

            Would that person have also had a history of problematic statements?

            Scope has made it clear that Perkins, who runs this summit, has his own history of statements regarding Mormons.

            Perhaps the only winning move was not to play.

            Mew

          • joayn

            I guess the Perry camp should be flogged for not somehow anticipating that the good Reverend Jeffress, after he introduced Perry, would somehow get waylaid by a reporter and give HIS OWN OPINION on evangelical beliefs.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      make these statements after the speech. What he said is orthodox belief among most all Christian doctrine on the matter . Maybe they should have asked that he not speak to the press, but this man is very prominent in Texas and the SBC.

      • jimmyg

        Gov. Perry’s staff should not have signed off on this guy. This is a staff problem,, a political problem, that has morphed into a religious problem..

        • Scope

          living in your own mind. It has no basis in reality. Now, let’s hear your next critique of Perry and his team. I’m sure you can predict the future. Will he be against Asains next? Maybe those from Latvia? How about the Poles?

          The laughable thing about some of you here posting what you do about Perry is that you choose to have no grasp of facts and details, but will run your mouths about every manufactured “controversy” created against Perry that any leftist or Rovian comes up with.

          You convince no one, but dang it if you are not trying.

          Don’t. Vote. For. Perry.

          It really is that easy.

  • Scope

    Hahahahahahahaha.

    • acat

      If Luap Nor won it’s likely meaningless *as a poll* but it’s interesting to see who spent how much.

      Mew

      • Scope

        VV Straw Poll

        Paul
        Cain
        Santorum
        Bachmann
        Perry
        Romney
        Gingrich
        Huntsman

        • acat

          is how far up the list Cain places.

          I do hope he didn’t spend too many of Caesar’s coins to persuade folks to his point of view.

          Mew

          • Scope

            at Cain’s placing really, he is newly married and enjoying a honeymoon of forgiveness for whatever he says and does. I’m not really surprised at Santorum’s placing given the venue. I guess that would be likewise for Bachmann, the venue. Even with the pastor faux story Perry still beat out Romney. How many wives has the Gringrich had?

          • chihank

            Perry has dropped in the polls due to the piling by the media and by other GOP candidates. Romney remains untouched. Santorum. Bachmann, Paul, and Cain are bashing Perry, but leaving Romney alone.

            Cain, I believe, will fall in the polls once he becomes more heavily scrtunized.

          • Scope

            that I had much respect for Cain because he was staying above the fray, not attacking other candidates, and showed a very positive face. Now that he has decided to jump on the piling on battle, he will no longer be an innocent, and will get the same treatment. If the rock story had any truth or valid accusations to it, then fine, but Cain knew it didn’t but in essence sold his soul to the devil to knock Perry out.

            The one good thing that seems to be happening is that wherever you go around the web, you are seeing more and more people waking up to the fact that Romney is being protected by the media and the other candidates. Heck the leftists are treating him like a star. That tells me something.

        • clintonformccain

          Is it better to win the Value Voters Straw Poll? Or lose the Value Voters Straw Poll? :)

          I’m thinkin’ that Perry and Romney probably hit the sweet spot in today’s balloting!

          • clintonformccain

            That Herman Cain seems to be tapping into the “I’m mad as hell, let’s show ‘em by nominating Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle” mood of the Republican base.

          • Scope

            I don’t know if I was as clever in my thinking of it with the comparison you made back to angle and O’Donnell, but I do agree. How many times have you heard some saying that Romney and Perry were being shoved down our throats, and they are just the establishment choices. Some really don’t think that having someone without any political experience is a positive. I’d like to see how that works out when they have to work through the political party minefields. Cain always had his way when he took over companies, and it was his way or the highway. I think he’d feel like he was struck on the head when the Congress went against his wishes. Many say Cain was/is not a protest vote, ha, that’s a laugh.

    • runner12

      It seems that there are more social conservatives with a libertarian streak than people thought :) . Either that or the RP people flooded the poll.

      But RP? Really? I am a Socon with a strong belief in limited government, but RP has some really wacky beliefs and I woukd never support the guy in a primary.

      If he were the nominee….gulp… I would be forced to make a Hobbsian choice. I would probably pull the lever for him with nose plugs. But I am praying that is a nightmare scenario I never have to face!

      • Scope

        again tomorrow on the Sunday’s. I’ve heard it on the radio now at least 10 times.

        The good part of it all, it moves the conversation onto someone who really has no chance, and gives the others a breather from all their scandalous words and positions, manufactured by the media.

        • acat

          who will actually win the nomination.

          If they have to use him as a smokescreen, could they at least set him on fire?

          Mew

          • acat

            Ron Paul set on fire.

            I have no particular problem with Ron Paul wasting his remaining time and money chasing a nomination he cannot win, I merely despise most of his stated and held positions. (wide difference between those…)

            I do, however, have a problem with the cynical way the media is using Ron Paul – with his tacit approval – to avoid covering Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Mitt “Waffles” Romney.

            Mew

        • runner12

          It seems the people at the VV summit are questioning the results that RP won
          “fair and square.”

          Here is the link http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/08/ron-paul-wins-value-voters-summit-straw-poll/.

          • acat

            Their poll means precisely {excrement}.

            Mew

  • deVere

    James G. Blaine was on the the podium with the Reverend Samuel Burchard who denounced the Democrats as the party of Rum,, Romanism,, and Rebellion. Blaine made no objection, and lost enough Catholic votes to give New York’s 36 electoral votes and the Presidency to Grover Cleveland by a margin of 1047 votes.

    Rick Perry should take care not to associate with bigots.

    • streiff

      Don’t you think it is rather insane to expect a Baptist minister to lie about something this blatantly obvious.

      I really find it incredible that you are calling Jeffress a bigot for having the moral courage to speak the truth. From the perspective of a traditional Christian, a Mormon isn’t a Christian because of the wide variance in what the two faiths believe.

      As I say in the story

      While Mormons are free to style themselves as anything they wish, expecting others to go along with that self-characterization out of comity is simply a bridge too far.

      • deVere

        If the Reverend Jefress wants to participate in political meetings he should stick to politics and moral values, and avoid any discussion of theological doctrine.
        If he is unable to do that, he should stay home.

        The replacement of Barack Obama with someone much better is a national emergency. As Winston Churchill once observed during another time of dire emergency, “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” Maximum Republican unity is needed at this time of national emergency, and anyone who interjects extraneous religious controversies should be excluded from Republican political meetings.

        • runner12

          While I do not think he should have commented about Romney as a person not being a Christian, the fact he said Mormonism is not Christianity is hardly a non-mainstream view.

          Maybe he could have been more savvy, but then again he is a pastor not a politician.

    • SoFiMil

      He didn’t say that Romney had a lower intellect, etc. because of Romney’s belief. In fact, he said Romney was a moral, upstanding man.

  • center77

    because their are a number of people who will not vote for a Mormon. I am willing to bet this mostly comes from evangelicals. If Romney wins the nomination, he starts with this huge handy cap. I’ve never known one christian (I am one) that has not called Mormonism a cult. I do not even care or believe this, but when I was finding my faith, I did look into Mormonism. Some of the things I’ve heard really scared me, a lot. Any ways, when I watch Fox news, I know they are shilling for Romney, they want people to keep hearing the word steady, and calm so they think Romney is doing good.

    Romney is in trouble if conservatives pick one candidate. I watched a Perry town hall on his web site, and Perry did awesome debating a guy on climate change. Its my hope, once he does good in a debate, people will stop supporting the empty suit Cain. I cannot believe conservatives are going to do the same thing liberals did with Obama, elect someone who has no idea what he is doing. He speaks good, so what, the man has no idea how to run anything. He supported tarp and bank bailouts. At Bain capital, Romney got them a 10 million dollar loan forgiveness from the government. Romney made 4 million on the same loan. How is he going to run against Obama all the issues conservatives care about when Romney is guilty of all of them.

    Think about the way Romney had fired so many people. Look up Edward Kennedy’s un-aired ad, you will see how Obama will win against Romney. I wrote about it yesterday, Romney is very weak against Obama. Cain will get clobbered because he is an empty suit. I liked him, but I’ve done research, there are many red flags, bad ones.

    • SoFiMil

      Care to actually give a number? You’re policy analysis of Romney was good enough. Stick with that. That being said, if Romney’s the nominee, I will Coe for him. Will you vote for Romney if he’s the nominee? And you need to branch out you circle of acquaintances. You mean to tell me you’ve *never* known a Christian (and for the sake of argument, to include Mormons) who hasn’t said Mormons are *not* a cult? I know good Christians of various dominations who’ve said Mormons are a cult, and I know others of the same subset who say Mormons are not a cult. I’m not making a theological argument either way here, but come on! Branch out your circle of Christian friends.

      • SoFiMil

        1) Fat finger – I’ll vote for Romney.
        2) For the sake of argument, Mormons are not Christians…

    • porkandcheese

      It’s a bad one. He has never stood up for conservative principles, and he never will. He sounds like a Democrat running this time, but just assumes that because he ran in 2008 he is somehow conservative enough. Does he know he lost? It seems he thinks he was just waiting in line for his turn.

      I would vote for Huntsman in a heartbeat. Especially if he had never opened his mouth. He has a great conservative record, and I don’t hold his having worked for the Obama administration against him. Quite the contrary, I prefer his form of bipartisanship to Romney’s and respect his unique foreign policy credentials.

      But I really find Romney intolerable as a candidate and as a person. There is no difference between him and Obama at all.

  • chihank

    Reverend Robert Jeffress is blunt in attacking Romney. Huckabee attacked Romney in subtle, yet effective ways.

    Jeffress should have said, “I would vote for a pro-life Mormon over a pro-abortion Baptist. Where does Romney stand yesterday, today, and tomorrow?”

  • johnt

    Anybody? Ever? Ok, we’ll pass on that one. Did Burns ever ask The O what was the attraction to a roaring, vile, obscenly racist church, and for twenty years at that.
    In any case Jefress should have kept his dumb mouth shut, the media filth are only interested in religion when atacking republicans.

    • streiff

      sad but true. All you said is true but none of it is relevant. And this story has become relevant not because of the media but because Romney backers have circulated it as a way to attack Rick Perry.

      This unfortunately places a lot of us in the position of taking on an issue we would have ignored.

      I soccer it would be an “own goal.”

      • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

        How many poll points is playing the victim card worth?

  • eldstenorge

    Whether you want to agree with it or not, Mormons are Christians and accept Christ as their personal savior. Just because it may not be exactly how evangelicals want it to be, does not mean it is not Christian or truth. This Pastor, and Huckabee, seem to be like the Pharisees who rejected Christ, even though they knew he was to come, and had him murdered. These say evangelical types had Joseph Smith murdered because of their fright of the growing LDS faith and an extermination order issues by Gov. Lilburn Boggs of Illinois, that if the Mormons did not leave Missouri and all the land and property, they would be exterminated. An American order to exterminate a people? A lot can be said on that. Then, Gov. Ford of Illinois promised Joseph Smith and his brother safety, if they would turn themselves into him. What good was that promise when a mob at Carthage, Illinois stormed the mail and murder both Joseph Smith and his brother. Again, American justice at its best. Mormons are overwhelmingly Republican and conservative, in fact, the evangelicals thanked the LDS Church for all its work with Prop 8 in California. How kind of them. They also had Mitt and Ann Romney speak at their Justice Sunday events, sponsored by evangelicals, to bring attention to the appointment of judges who adhere to “original intent” of our Founders. I guess it is alright for us to give money, to give time, to speak when told to, but it means we have to go to the back of the bus because be are not good enough for anything else. We are appreciated only when called upon by the powers that be in the evangelical movement to do their bidding for them. Well, let me ask, why on earth would any Mormon, a huge block of Republican voters, go to the polls and vote for an evangelical? Because we know all of us working together can bring this country back to the way the Lord gave it to us. That is why.

    • streiff

      While Mormons are free to style themselves as anything they wish, expecting others to go along with that self-characterization out of comity is simply a bridge too far.

      Evangelicals had zip to do with any of that as the movement hadn’t started by the time of the founding of LDS.

      Bujt to the point we aren’t discussing your politics here. Mo one, at least me anyway, is saying Mormons are bad people or they aren’t conservative. Neither is the case.

      What we are discussing is the stink raised by the press, about which I could care less, and by Romney’s supporters on the Jeffress statement. As I said, he tosses the “cult” bit around too much for my taste but theologically he is 100% correct.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Joseph Smith organized the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on April 6, 1830 in Fayette, New York.

    Smith claimed to have been lead by an angel to a set of golden plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon, published in 1830. Smith also claimed to have visited with the risen Jesus Christ. After the initial visit, Smith continued to receive revelations from Christ. These revelations – not the Bible of the Christian church – provide the foundations for the Mormon beliefs. For example, on July 12, 1843, Smith received a revelation that allowed polygamy.

    “Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body and that man’s destiny is to evolve to God-hood.” The Mormon teaching is: “As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become.” I am pretty sure that contradicts classical Christianity.

    Mormons also distort the doctrine of the fall of man. They reject the doctrine of salvation by faith in favor of a salvation earned by works. The Mormon church also has previously claimed to be the only true church because its leaders continue to receive divine revelations. This pretty much contradicts the belief in the early Christian church that divine revelation in the form of Scripture ended with the death of the apostles.

    The Mormon church also supports proxy-baptism for the dead and celestial marriages. We have yet to do those two ceremonies at my local baptist church.

    • acat

      Seriously.

      This is a sectarian fight being given political overtones and being cheered on by the Libs and the Obama machine.

      If you don’t care for Mormons, don’t vote for Mitt or Huntsman.

      If you don’t care for Dems, shut your pie hole.

      Mew

      • runner12

        Kipling was saying not true. If you do not think the Leftist media will bring this up if Mittens is the nominee, you are mistaken. To pretend that this is not an issue is to ignore the big blue elephant in the room.

        Instead of ignoring it, we need to come out with a solid narrative. IMHO, we should be honest that many mainstream Christians do not believe that Mormonism is a part of the traditional Christian faith. That belief does not make them bigots.

        Then follow up with the question “Does this group of people (of which I am a part) thinks they are better off with Obama as President?” If my fellow Christians are even remotely sane, they will answer in the negative. Then you ask, “If Mittens is the nominee, wouldn’t you rather vote for a Mormon who is much closer to Conservative principles or Obama who claims to be Christian and is a radical neo-socialist?

        I pray that the answer is Mittens. I know it is for me.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          Nt

        • acat

          this diary.

          Kipling is taking the opportunity of Perry, not Romney, being embarrassed by something said by someone not connected with any campaign to bash Mormons.

          I agree that the media will take this up. *Let them*, it just shows their bias.

          There is no reason for us to show ours.

          Discussing purity of candidates is one thing, offending a group of rather conservative voters over a sectarian disagreement is, to this cat, indefensible.

          Mew

          • runner12

            Mormons. Although the last paragraph contained a little too much snark to be called civil.

            In this diary, the differences between traditional Mormonism and Christianity did become a defacto topic, right or wrong. So to me, it is not out of line to acknowledge some of the differences provided it does not get too theological.

            As Conservatives, we need to be open enough to allow one another to disagree without calling one another a bigot because he/she disagrees with us. Not that you did, acat. But others either have or cheered those who have.

            I disagree with Mormons in this area and always will. But that will cause me to shun or be unkind to them nor will it prevent me from standing right beside them to defeat Obama and the Left.

          • runner12

            I meant that it will NOT cause me to shun or be unkind to them. Good grief, how embarassing!

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Nothing I posted is untrue. I stated simple Mormon beliefs and showed how they differed from Christian doctrine dating back to the first century.

            Since when is a simple statement of the truth considered bashing someone?

            Perry has no reason to be embarrassed by a statement made by someone unaffiliated with his campaign, especially since the statement is true. Perry handled it well by saying that he did not consider Mormonism a cult. He does not, and should not, equate it with Christianity.

          • acat

            I was specifically referring to your use of your evident protestant-christian definition – as jeffwhatever did – to insist that an entire group, a group that I’ll note tend to be at least somewhat conservative, and who tend to vote somewhat reliably, i.e. exactly the kind of people we want voting for whatever candidate the GOP fields in 2012 – that their religion does not meet your standard.

            And you then expect them to vote for Bachmann, Cain, Paul, or Perry?

            It’s a bash. That you can’t see it from inside your worldview says something.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Simply stated Mormon doctrine and how it differed from Christian beliefs. Did not pass any judgement on it whatsoever. They do not have to meet my standard. But they cannot expect everyone to bow when they attempt to redefine themselves.

            What Protestant-Christian definition? Where did I distort Mormon doctrine? Correct me or move along. It becomes tiresome when you make the same allegations without proof.

          • acat

            definition of christianity while Mormons insist on another.

            Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hanare Kirishitan, and so on insist that they’ve got the right of it, and you’re mistaken.

            Again, I’m in no position to judge who’s right and who’s wrong, but I can say that spilling a sectarian argument into the realm of politics is not wise, and neither is continuing to argue a *religious* point on a political board.

            The only one you’re helping is Obama.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I stated Mormon doctrine dating from the 1830s and Christian doctrine dating from the early church fathers and supported by church councils and creeds down to the present. I simply showed how the two differed radically from one another.

            To say that the two are compatible and in fact the same is simply a lie.

            I am not willing to buy into theological relativism so Romney can feel more mainstream about his Mormon faith. Why he wishes to disguise his beliefs is a question he will have to answer?

            As streiff has said, the MSM, Romney, and his supporters have elevated the issue from the religious to the political realm. I am simply going where the issue was raised.

          • acat

            Clearly, the Mormons believe themselves christian.

            QED, they’re using a definition that is at odds with the one that you claim to not be using.

            I’m not asking you to do anything, kipling. I’m just witnessing the latest example of the GOP et al snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            The Mormons can claim anything they want but it does not make it true.

            If by definition of Christianity you mean a statement of beliefs, then yes the traditional western view of Christianity – contained in the Bible, supported by the early church fathers, confirmed by numerous church councils (even Catholic ones), and held by most of those who call themselves Christians today – differs from that offered by the Mormon church.

            No one is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We are still in the primaries. Let us deal with these issues now and choose our candidate wisely. Sticking our heads in the sand as you recommend will surely give victory to Obama.

          • acat

            The definition that you now accept you are using does differ from the one the Mormons are using. Glad we’ve got that straight.

            Understand this. All pastor jeffwhatever has done by making this an issue is help Obama by weakening not one, not two, but *three* of our potential candidates.

            Go ahead and claim it would have come up anyway, but that’s only true if Huntsman or Romney won the nomination. Now, it’s stuck to Perry, and will be until election day.

            Do you really think you’re going to “deal with” a sectarian disagreement that’s over 100 years old in 3 months?

            Whose head’s in the sand, again?

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            The whole point of the original post was that Mormon beliefs and the traditional beliefs of Christianity are different. I have never claimed otherwise. What is your point here?

            Once again you repeat yourself. The issue will have to be dealt with between now and the election. I am beginning to wonder if you head is not in the sand but actually somewhere else.

          • acat

            I give up.

            None so blind as will not see the damage that they do.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Every time you lose on substance you start to whine about how we are going to lose the election to Obama in 2012 unless we all conform and become your little kittens.

            Conservatism is not about conformity to your ideal. In fact, it is not about you at all.

          • acat

            Seems to me the only ones making an argument that it’s “their way or the highway” are you and the right rev. Jeffwhatever.

            Get over yourself.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You are the one who always demands that people tow your line or we will lose in 2012. You said it with Mitch Daniels, you continually beat social conservatives with it, and now you use it here.

            You need to come up with a new catch phrase. Change it up a bit. The my way or we lose line is getting stretched.

          • acat

            You’re out of line here, kipling.

            I’m not demanding that you do jack or {squat}.

            I’m stating what I think is going to happen, now that this is “in the water”. I had hoped that Red State wouldn’t break out into a sectarian battlefield, but .. c’est la guerre.

            You’re welcome to show me why Jeffwhatever didn’t just step in it up to his eyeballs…. or why Mormonism would have been a major factor for Perry before today… or to keep dredging up your errors of the past.

            Rather than refute any part of that, though, you first insisted that you didn’t have a yardstick, and now are accusing me of trying to force all of Red State to march to my drum.

            Thing is, I don’t even own a drum, let alone have the desire to see anyone march to my playing. I’m interested in increasing individual liberty, not forcing anyone to go along.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Your title implies that you are not demanding that I fall in line.

            Yet, the first line of your content then complains that I am out of line and thus attempts to compel me to get back in line.

            Your remembrances of our discussion are rather fanciful.

          • acat

            with your trip down memory lane and decide to address the facts.

            I’m not demanding that you stop your trip, mind. I now have a morbid curiosity about how long you can ignore that your fellow traveller has made a bad situation worse.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            My original post stated the facts, which neither you nor anyone else has ever disputed.

            I have also addressed your desire to hide from the Mormon issue. It is now impossible. With Obama and the MSM, it was never possible.

            If you have nothing else to add of substance, I suggest you take a trip.

          • acat

            The impact of Mormonism on the 2012 presidential race had been, prior to Jeffwhatever opening his pie hole, limited to whether evangelicals would stay home in sufficient numbers to thwart either of the Mormons running, Huntsman and Romney, should either win the nomination.

            The impact now includes whether enough Mormons are offended by Jeffwhatever’s incredibly foolish statement and associate it with the Perry campaign to thwart him, should he win the nomination.

            This was not the case prior to the foolish statement, except as noted above.

            Thus far, kipling, you’ve been defending Jeffwhatever, to the point of lying about whether you’re using a specific definition of christianity, and have utterly failed to address the increased scope above.

            Further, you’ve continued to insist that this should be easily resolved, while failing utterly to see the offense you’ve given to others in this thread.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            First, I have not offered a definition. My original post simply stated traditional Christian doctrine and the doctrine held by the Mormons. It is incompatible. A point you have not refuted. Nor have you showed where I erred in what I posted. So far all you have done is result to ad hominum attacks and outright lies.

            Second, Jeffress needs no one to defend the remark or the substance contained therein. He was asked a direct question and he gave a direct answer. The answer is an accurate statement. Mormonism differs radically from Christianity. The two are not the same. You have not demonstrated otherwise. I have. Either deal with reality or stop whining and go peddle your relativism somewhere else.

            Third, Jeffress’ comment will impact the race. I have never disputed that. The point on which I disagree with you is on your rather far-fetched belief that Mormonism would not enter the race at some point. It came into play in 2008 and I am sure plans existed to make it an issue now. I am sure the question to Jeffress was a deliberate question. It is better to hash out the issue now rather than wait for the Mormon issue to emerge in the general.

            Fourth, your cowardly ad hominum attacks are tiresome. I rather doubt you would have the brass to make such comments in person. Yet, you seem perfectly willing to tell people to shut their pie hole and then call them liars when they do not jump through your hoops – a rather cowardly practice even for a cat.

          • acat

            Prior to Jeffwhatever swallowing his foot.

            I will also repeat that, as a non-member of either sect, I am in no position to judge whether the definition of christianity you choose to use is right, or whether the definition the mormons are using is right.

            I can, with authority, say that it’s a sectarian issue, and that Jeffwhatever has brought it into the political sphere for no good reason.

            You have yet to refute that.

            Go ahead. I’ll wait.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Romney seems to be trying to use the issue to his advantage at this point. He and his supporters used it in 2008. What makes you think he would not have tried to do so again this year, especially if he was about to exit the race? streiff is making the same argument below. Why don’t you go and pester him for awhile?

            You have no authority to decree what may or may not enter the political arena.

          • acat

            is that Romney is *using the Jeffwhatever* statement.

            What I asked you is, *prior* to the Jeffwhatever statement and assuming Huntsman and Romney lose, how does Mormonism enter the race?

            My point is, regardless of what definition of chrisendom is correct, the only way *prior to this event* that it entered politics was if Huntsman or Romney got the nomination. Now, though, it’s here to stay.

            As one of the more vocal supporters of Jeffwhatever’s statement, I call on you to explain why this is wise.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            streiff made the point that Romney used the issue in 2008 to his advantage.

            Here is the quote from streiff:

            “Romney?s supporters are using his Mormonism as a club to attack his opponents. It didn?t work against McCain. It probably won?t work this time.”

            That is how it enters the race.

          • acat

            You have yet to answer how the issue entered the general election without Huntsman or Romney to bring it along.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            If it entered the primary – as Romney, his supporters, and the MSM intended from the start, then it would naturally carry over to the general. The MSM narrative would be that conservatives oppose Mormonism and thus rejected Romney. Since Romney seems to be pursuing the same argument to garner votes, the narrative could be supported by Romney’s own words.

          • acat

            Show me where, after Romney was out, once it was McCain vs. Obama, that Mormonism showed up *at all* in the 2008 cycle.

            Still waiting.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            We are talking about 2012. I cited 2008, as did streiff, to show that Romney uses the issue to his advantage. Obama did not need to use it against McCain. McCain committed political suicide on his own. Obama will use it in 2012. He want dirty his hands but the MSM will carry his water.

            You know this as well as I do. You have just lost the substance of your argument and are now pandering to your ego. I have neither the time nor the inclination to banter words with someone who knows better but is too egotistical to admit it.

            I am sure you next post will contain many insults written bravely from the safety of you little kennel. We will all be impressed and marvel at you as the lord of your own litter-box.

          • acat

            preferring to make this about me, rather than about the political acumen (or lack thereof) on display, I’ll just keep going.

            You have not refuted that this would not enter the general *unless* Huntsman or Romney is the nominee.

            You have further not refuted that this now will enter the general if Perry is the nominee.

            You have failed to defend the indefensible, kipling.

            Do have a nice day.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You argue that this would not have entered the general unless Huntsman or Romney were the nominee. At the same time you argue that it will now hurt Perry if he is the nominee. I think you have answered your own question. As I have done in the past three posts.

            You continue on because that is what you do. You are the king of running a discussion off the rails and then demanding that others jump through your hoops.

          • westcoastpatriette

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            just
            want
            to
            see
            how
            nar-
            row
            I
            can
            make
            this
            col-
            umn.

          • westcoastpatriette

            ..

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Good show!

          • acat

            Not
            conceding
            the
            point.

            Mew

          • SoFiMil

            I’m always having to look up the spelling if the man’s name. No more worries. Problem’s solved!

          • acat

            Also realized I’d gotten it wrong a few times.

            I’m a cat, and we invented lazy.

            Mew

          • acat

            Also realized I’d gotten it wrong a few times.

            I’m a cat, and we invented lazy.

            Mew

          • acat

            with your trip down memory lane and decide to address the facts.

            I’m not demanding that you stop your trip, mind. I now have a morbid curiosity about how long you can ignore that your fellow traveller has made a bad situation worse.

            Mew

      • streiff

        both the press and Romney supporters have grabbed the completely non-controversial statement by Jeffress that Romney is not Christian and have tried to use it as a club to beat Rick Perry.

        Therefore, digging into whether Mormons are Christians, at least as the body of tradition Christians would describe them, becomes not only an issue but very important.

        If they are, then Jeffress is an idiot. If not, then Romney’s backers who are pushing this story are idiots. I vote for the latter.

        • acat

          First, the “are Mormons Christians” thing, which I’m going to ignore because I have no dog in that fight. As far as I’m concerned, it has as much impact on my life as whether Edison or Tesla figured out how to light up the suburbs. The lights come on when I can find the switch. Don’t matter beyond that.

          The problem is, now that this club is in the arena, it’s going to be used to suppress turnout whether the nominee is named Huntsman, Perry, or Romney. So far, Cain has had the sense, from what I’ve seen, to let it alone.

          That’s the “shut your pie hole” part of my statement above. It’s a *theological* issue, or a *sectarian* one. It should have been a minor stick with which to beat Huntsman and Romney at most.

          This preacher has managed to give it much more weight, sharpened the point, and tossed Perry into the arena to boot.

          Colour me disgusted with the whole VVS pageant.

          Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            To have no dog in the fight, you sure like to comment and tell others to shut up.

            Romney and his Mormon faith will be a campaign issue. The MSM and the Democrats have always planned to use it as one. How it is handled will determine whether or not the nominee can beat Obama. It may not matter to you but it will matter in the election.

          • acat

            with you morons who can’t figure out how to keep a sectarian fight out of the political arena.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You have no substance in your responses. You simply call names and accuse me of trying to bash Mormons by simply stating their beliefs. It is a political issue, whether you like it or not.

          • acat

            I’ve said it was a small issue applying to a couple candidates, Huntsman and Romney.

            Now, though .. as streiff pointed out, it’s a much larger issue.

            Exchanging a minor issue for a major one is foolishness. I suspect you would agree with this, except that you’ve got a position in the issue.

            I stand by my statement.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            Neither will those of Protestants and Catholics.

            However, religion has not proven to be very useful when it comes to predicting the future behavior of public officials. Keith Ellison is strongly pro-choice, despite being a Muslim. The Congress is chock full of professed Christians, all of whom have radically different politics. Harry Reid is LDS, but manages to support almost nothing that the LDS holds dear.

            Why is it crucial for us to drag this out into the public square time and again, when the two Mormon candidates have records which we can use to evaluate them, and which are of much greater use when it comes to predicting future behavior as a public official?

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            nt

          • runner12

            the Romney campaign wants it to be. They could have quelled this quickly, but they desire to fan the flame. Not a good strategy.

          • aesthete

            but there would be no story without a pastor who made a statement that had no bearing on the Presidential race. Romney appears to be using this for political gain, but gasoline is added to the fire the more people insist on making the theological differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity a topic of political debate.

          • Scope

            “However, religion has not proven to be very useful when it comes to predicting the future behavior of public officials.”

            So all those stories about Obama and his Black Liberation Theology preacher Rev Right has had no usefulness in predicting his future positions as president? Coulda fooled me. Seems not many don’t believe that Black Liberation Theology has it’s roots in Marxism. What is the most often attachment to Obama, Marxism, no? I guess all those made up stories were just hype.

          • aesthete

            Tell me that Barack Obama professes himself to be a Christian, and explain the theological differences between Christianity and other world religions, and I won’t have the foggiest notion what he will or will not do as President.

            Tell me that Barack Obama is a Marxist (or at least, a fellow traveler), explain the differences between Marxism and other economic systems, and I will have a much better gauge on how Obama will comport himself as President.

            Tell me what Obama has done as a public official, and I will have a much better understanding of what he will do in office.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            The Marxist beliefs held by Obama are intimately tied to his religious beliefs – Black Liberation Theology. You cannot fully understand the one without understanding the other.

          • aesthete

            Barack Obama has been sympathetic to socialism since a very early age; he has been associated with Rev Wright only since the beginnings of his political career, at which point he was middle-aged and his political beliefs were developed. His Marxism quite clearly led him to Black Liberation Theology, not the other way around.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Nor does it matter what led to what. Obama has embraced Black Liberation Theology and that theology determines how he views the world. He is supported by other adherents to BLT and it determines how they view the world.

            BLT contains elements of Marxism but BLT is not your classical textbook definition of Marxism. BLT adds the elements of race and religion. If you miss that, then you miss some facets of Obama that may be essential in defeating him and restoring what he as destroyed.

          • aesthete

            I don’t see anything that Obama has done that I would not have predicted from an atheist, Buddhist, or Jewish socialist, all of which can be found among Obama’s supporters. I also fail to see how attacking Obama for his connection to Rev Wright was a stellar strategy last time around…

          • acat

            are the similarities to Suhatro. I’m wondering just how predictive grade school can be…

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You don’t see it that way because you discount the role of religion in politics and among people. You are a secularist and it means little to you. But to other people, it means more than political alliances.

            Whether you see it that way or not, other people see it clearly and you and I must meet them where they are to deal with it.

          • aesthete

            things about the priority that I place upon my religion.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You don’t discount the role of religion in politics and among people?

            So your religion plays a huge role in your politics?

            I was not questioning the priority you place on your religion. I was questioning the priority your religion plays in your politics.

            I also noticed that you did not challenge the assumptions. You just asked me not to make them. I will not.

            Feel free, or not, to elaborate and disabuse me of those assumptions.

          • aesthete

            both in how I behave and with how I see and interact with other people. It informs my political views. FWIW, I’m most emphatically not a secularist: if you’re aware of Ravi Zacharias’ teachings at all, I’m strongly in favor of pluralism, or what he calls the “marketplace of ideas”, wherein people of all faiths can openly discuss and evangelize their religious beliefs without fear of censorship. I believe that Christianity, as the religion which most keenly distills and communicates divine truths, will win in such an ambient — it has won in environs much less favorable than a free and open forum, and it will continue to do so in the future.

            What I do not, and have never, believed is that a mere declaration of faith in some denomination or religion’s creed tells us much about a politician or a person, at least in the US: sad to say, but the vast majority of those who claim to be Christian do not live their lives accordingly, and it is very difficult to distinguish any sort of difference between the average “Christian” in America and his atheist counterpart. Is a car mechanic less likely to overcharge me if he has a Christian t-shirt? Is someone on the street less likely to be arrogant, or more likely to make amends when he’s wronged someone, or more likely to be chaste in his or her relationships with the opposite gender, if they claim to be Christian? Unfortunately, the answer to those questions in my experience has been no. I have been a Christian for many years, and it’s clear to me that cheats, liars, and thieves exist both within and outside of the church, and they have since the very beginning. (For goodness’ sake, a man who slept with his mother was a regular member of the church in Corinth when the Apostle Paul was writing to them!) People are imperfect, inconsistent, and generally don’t pay much attention to their religion: it’s a decorative fixture for most, not something impactful. Again, I wish that were not the case, but it is so — and I choose to deal with that reality when talking politics, rather than an idealized picture of what people should act like if they claim adherence to a given faith.

            Compounding the problems with extrapolating future behavior or ideology from faith declarations is the fact that the Bible really says very little about politics, and nothing about ideal political systems. Fact is, the Bible is God’s message to mankind, not to mandarin-kind: God is a monarchist, and there’s only One who He has found fit for the job of ruling over all of creation. Everyone and everything else has been a stopgap, second-best solution at best, and a trainwreck at worst. Theologians and thinkers much smarter than you and I have grappled with and come to radically different conclusions on what a Christian role or take on politics is supposed to look like; I personally subscribe to the Two Kingdoms model and can Scripturally argue my case for it, but it is far from the only conclusion which committed Christians have reached.

            For this reason, I could care less what a politician calls him or herself: it’s often not until I truly know a person that I can really get a feel for his faith and politics, and whether he or she is a person of integrity. It is of little comfort to me that all of the Presidents who have brought on the mess we’re in have laid claim to the label “Christian”, and there is little in Clinton, Carter and Obama’s faith declarations to make me vote for them over, say, a conservative Buddhist or atheist. Pres Bush and Obama are, as far as I can tell, Christians who value their families highly. Was either man a good President? In my opinion, the answer to that question is no. A candidate telling me that he is a Christian, goes to church on Sundays, etc. is completely meaningless: there is a long tradition of politicians pandering based on religion, and as I said before, even sincere declarations of faith do not tell me much about political beliefs. Instead, I value the one thing that a politician cannot completely fabricate: a record of accomplishment. I’m pragmatic, and a politician’s record tells me much more about him than the statement of faith of the church he goes to: it tells me what this person does when placed in a position where he can forcibly take away peoples’ hard-earned funds. With that in mind, I do think that discussion of a candidate’s faith is a distraction: when anyone can lie about their faith, or twist it to agree with their views on politics, then it has lost meaning and import, and that’s where we’re at in the US.

            I take my faith seriously, and while I won’t hold it against you that you unintentionally slandered my faith (I assume it was unintentional, anyways), I was nonetheless offended, as I’m sure you would have been if I’d claimed something about you and your deeply-held beliefs without knowledge. Next time, I would request that you ask before asserting that I am a “secularist”, and that my religion “means little” to me.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Anyone can construct a facade whether in religion or in politics. One has to look at the record.

            You however stated that an understanding of BLT is not essential to understanding Obama. I disagree. I have met many BLT adherents and they are very serious about their religion. Perhaps Obama does not hold those beliefs but many of those he appeals to do.

            I did not slander your personal beliefs. A secularist is someone who separates his religion from other areas of his life – business, politics, etc. If you are not a secularist, then I take your word for it. However, it is a little ironic that you then accuse everyone else of being either frauds or secularists in your post. I have often heard the two kingdoms model used to spiritualize such secularism.

            Regardless, I apologize. Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with your assessment of the marketplace of ideas and I am familiar with Ravi Zacharias.

      • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

        The MSM has already elevated Romney and his Mormon faith as a campaign issue. They are currently using it in the primary campaign to bash Perry and help Romney. They will use it in the general to attack Romney in an attempt to drive a wedge between him and social conservatives.

        Sweeping it under the rug and pretending it does not exist is not the answer. In fact, it is political suicide for the GOP. Romney needs to deal with the issue in a coherent fashion. Right now the MSM is bashing Perry and Romney plays the victim. It will win him no favors in the long run.

        The way to deal with the issue is openly and honestly. We have to be very clear on meanings and definitions. Mormonism is not a Christian denomination. The beliefs are simply incompatible. Romney and his supporters will win no fans by trying to distort their own religion for political gain.

        The purpose of the post is not to attack Mormonism but to demonstrate that the uninformed meme that Mormonism is just another form of Christianity is incorrect. Let us not kid ourselves and lie to one another.

        As to your statement: “If you don’t care for Dems, shut your pie hole.” It is very unbecoming of someone to use such provocative language in a forum meant for discussion of the issues. You do yourself a great disservice.

        • acat

          the issue was a weak branch with which to slap Huntsman and Romney.

          It is now a strong rod with which to further beat on Perry, but that will be used to bash Romney should he win the nom.

          That is my point. This was a minor issue. It is now a significant one.

          I find your insistance that we beat out a sectarian issue in the middle of a political campaign to be doing a great service … to Obama.

          Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            When Romney ran last time, Hollywood developed a movie about a Mormon massacre of pioneers traveling west to release during the campaign. What makes you think that the issue will not be used again in the general election.

            Obama wants Romney as the nominee. He is not a conservative and, when it suits their purpose, the in-depth analysis of Mormonism will begin. A Romney nomination will ensure it. Better to deal with it now than to wait.

          • acat

            Seriously, it’s hard to tell.

            I stated above that this would be an issue for Huntsman and Romney. It would have *remained* in the primary – Romney’s answers on it appeared satisfactory or at least adequate for the general.

            However.

            Now that Jeffwhatever has stepped on his {tongue}, this issue is going to follow not just Huntsman, not just Romney, but also Perry. Worse, if any of them win the nomination, this will be used to suppress turnout in the general.

            This is not “dealing with it”. This is picking a sectarian fight at a rather high potential political cost.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You claim the Mormon issue would have remained in the primary. What guarantees do you have of that? What makes you think that Obama and the MSM would allow the issue to stay out of the general election?

            Why do you think the MSM brought it up? They will use it to beat Perry now – with the assistance of Romney. But in the general, they will use it and Romney’s own words now to turn the tables and try to separate him from the conservative base. They want Romney as the nominee because they consider him easier to beat than the others.

            You may stick your head in the sand if you want to. You can cry all day long that it is a sectarian issue. But the simple fact is that it is now a political issue and will continue to be throughout the primaries and the general. Just as Obama and the MSM planned all along. Sticking our head in the sand and yelling “na, na, na” is not a political strategy. It will not make the problem go away.

          • acat

            Yes, that Romney’s a mormon would have come up in the general, to limited effect.

            First, the ratio of folks who won’t vote for a mormon to general election voters is even worse than the ratio in a primary. It’s non-zero, but .. I’ve known people who won’t vote for non-Irish candidates, regardless of the party. Voters are impure, it’s just how it is.

            Second, there are plenty of pragmatic arguments, “are you better off today than you were when we elected Obama?” or “Do you believe Romney will appoint pro-life justices?” that could be applied if needed.

            As I’ve not been near a beach in months, I’m a little confused about the whole head-in-the-sand business. Do you know how hard it is to get wet sand out of fur?

            From my point of view, it looks like a pastor who should have known better – or perhaps did know better – took a shot at a group who are needed in the general, even if they don’t quite look and talk and believe like you.

            Let me ask you, kipling. Where do you stand on GOP outreach to Hispanic Catholics?

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            So far you have told me to shut my pie hole on several occasions. You have called me a moron and accused me of being intentionally obtuse. You have called me a Mormon basher. And you have said that I have singlehandedly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Oh, and according to you I am also a closet Obama supporter.

            And now you have the audacity of whining about me zinging you on a line you set yourself up for so easily. Please.

            As to Hispanic Catholics, I stand firmly in favor of reaching out to them. You have read my stuff and should know that I have constantly urged the GOP to reach out to them by emphasizing the connection over social conservative values. The same for the African American community.

            I have no problem reaching out to Mormons and building political coalitions but I am not going to adopt theological relativism in pursuit of a “let’s all get along” strategy.

            The degree of impact Romney’s Mormon faith will have in the general will depend on how he handles the issue now. If he uses it as a club to beat his opponents, it will not go well with him in the general. I may still vote for him over Obama but I cannot sell him as effectively knowing that he is a fraud.

          • acat

            I have lost sufficent respect for you to be offended by you. A little repulsed.

            You appear to be cheering Jeffwhatevers’ choice to drag his religion into the realm of the political and use it as the yardstick by which all others must be judged. Here you are, repeatedly declaring it a good thing.

            If you really don’t see that this increases the potential for voter suppression via discouragement in the general, then I can’t say I’m surprised by your reaction.

            Had this not happened, and had Mitt or Huntsman been the nominee, some hardcore evangelicals who “won’t vote for that mormon” would have stayed home.

            Can you tell me that, after this, there won’t be some Mormons who “won’t vote for Perry” because of what Jeffwhatever said? What percentage of over 5 million votes were just lost?

            I do hope your vision isn’t that narrow, but your replies on this thread to others lead me to not hold my breath.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You have done nothing but hurl accusations and insults at me since I made the original post. I missed the fact that you once had respect for me. I was distracted by your repeated command to shut my pie hole and accusations of Mormon bashing.

            You repeatedly descend into these attacks with anyone who disagrees with you and then dare claim to be offended when someone responds in kind.

            Ever time someone differs from you, you started crying about how that disagreement will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. You did it in the Mitch Daniels discussion and you are doing it now. You provide no substance only allegations and pouting about how, if we would only all be like acat, then we would win in 2012. You demand uniformity or you unleash your wit and snark. Keep it. Demand unity and play the victim but I am not playing along.

          • acat

            for cause to be offended ?

            Regarding the Daniels discussion, kipling, he’s got a better fiscal record than anyone in this race, and arguably an equal pro-life record. Thanks to you and the trucers, though, he’s out, and we’re now choosing between the leftovers. Should I thank you for that?

            In the case of Jeffwhatever’s foot-swallowing act, an issue that would only have mattered in the general if Romney wins the nomination now affects Perry as well, and you agree with Jeffwhatever! Pardon me if, given your track record, I don’t jump on *your* bandwagon.

            Get over yourself and look at the bigger picture.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You want a conservative movement that looks like you. We cannot disagree with you or stress our individuality and issues without you whining about losing in 2012.

            Daniels made his own mess and lost any chance at the nomination. Funny how you blame Jeffress but Daniels gets a pass when he makes a much larger blunder.

            You don’t need to get on my bandwagon. You are your own parade.

          • acat

            You’re repeating the same hogwash in both, so … assume I copied and pasted this stuff in here too, ‘kay?

            Mew

          • runner12

            wife’s past indiscretions dragged through the mud by the mainstream media. A move that I respect, although I happen to believe their attacks would have largely backfired.

            It had nothing to do woth the truce comments. Nothing.

          • acat

            it’s a bit beside the point. Y’see, kipling insisted that the truce statement made Daniels personna non grata, despite his having one of the best conservative – both fiscal and social – records of anyone looking at throwing a hat in the ring.

            Further, I don’t accept that the strong negative reaction to the “truce” statement, both here and elsewhere around the conservative blogosphere, had nothing to do with Daniels’ ultimate decision.

            I respect his decision to put family first, and I believe he’s sincere about it. I hope that, should the Stupid Party manage to win the white house, whoever we nominate has a slot for Daniels at OMB or Treasury or otherwise. He’s a talent we should not waste.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            Nobody in elected politics understands Medicare and Medicaid better than Mitch. Assuming we can get some patient-driven structural reforms, he is best situated to implement them in a way that will make capitalism look good.

          • acat

            (nothing further)

          • runner12

            Even if Mr. Jefress had not made this comment, this issue would have been brought up by the Left in the general if Mittens became the nominee. You know it would have. They probably already have hit pieces on Mormonism on stand-by as we speak. By that time, we may have been caught off guard.

            I actually think having this convo now is a good thing, provided that it ends with us all agreeing that no matter what our differences are we can all agree that Obama has got to go. Even Mr. Jefress made this point, something that has been entirly lost in this discussion. The man said he would vote for Romney if he were the nominee!

            Acknowledging these differences is important now because only then can we move on. Our meme should be that despite our strong disagreements on this issue, we are UNITED in defeating the Left.

          • acat

            if Huntsman or Romney were the nominee.

            Now, it splashes Perry as well.

            Mew

          • renl57

            In the general election, Dem attacks on Romney’s faith would:

            a) Be discounted by the vast majority of conservative Christians and conservative Mormons, who don’t take direction from Democrats;

            b) Easily backfire. *President* Obama would be open to the charge of violating the separation of church and state by having his operatives raise questions about Romney’s faith. The liberals’ harping on “separation of church and state” would be turned back on them.

            The difference here is that the Values Voters Summit is a significant part of the *Republican* coalition. Ann_W isn’t going to consider anything that Obama’s lefties say abojut her faith, because she knows what their true agenda is. But she sure cares about what Christian conservatives are saying about her faith. And the implication from some folks here and at the VVS is that when it comes to running for President, Mormons today are still where blacks were 40 years ago: No matter what your stand is on the issues, you can’t get elected President.

          • runner12

            the craftiness of Team Obama. No, they would do a hit piece on Mormonism, Obama would play the God card and ” reach out ” to Christians, especially more liberal ones. Jim Wallace (ugh) would be leading the charge.

            He did it in 2008 and it worked. As much as it makes me sick to say, many Christians voted for Obama. Whether they would be dumb enough to vote for him again I highly doubt it. But if the Mormon issue comes about it may give him another opening.

            To compare Mormons to the struggles of Black Americans is a little offensive. The wariness of people towards Mormons in high office has to do with what they believe, not who they are. By your definition, people would be bigoted if they had questions regarding a Scientologist being President ( not that I am comparing Mormonism to Scientology in any way ). The point is that belief systems matter to people in elections, right or wrong.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      All except for your 4th paragraph…

      I do accept those teachings as they are laid out in our scriptures, in every other paragraph.

      What you don’t seem to understand is that this isn’t the place to hash out dogmas, doctrines, dichotomies, or diction.

      Go tell your pastor how you stuck it to those Mormons on a conservative blog!

      • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

        How is a simple statement of the facts equated with sticking it to the Mormons? If I have misstated the point, then correct me. But don’t accuse me of being biased when all I did was demonstrate how the meme “Mormons are Christians” is a falsehood. Why would you want to build a campaign on a falsehood.

        Romney would run his campaign on such a falsehood. His whole conservative persona is a falsehood.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          Your 4th paragraph is not a statement of facts, its your opinion, and its not even an educated opinion, or you wouldn’t have written it.

          As for Romney, I don’t believe he’s running a “CHRISTIAN CAMPAIGN”… He’s running a campaign for POTUS. Get over yourself if you can.

          As for the meme “Mormons are Christians”… well ipso facto…that’s debatable isn’t it?

          Please see my current diary for more discussion.

  • sunshinek67

    the point. Correct me if I am wrong, it wasn’t McCain’s faith that kept evangelicals home, it was his record in the US Senate on various issues, and was seen in 2000 as the more liberal-moderate choice for Republicans. However, in a match-up with Obama he still received 74% of the evangelical vote.

    God is first in my life, I attend a multi-ethnic non denomination church every week as a servant leader. I love people. As a sociologist, I think your statement that Mormon’s can never aspire to be President is a terrible one. For me, it is Romney’s record on social issues that I care about, and some of his destructive economic policies in the private sector and as Governor that roils me.

    Evangelicals do not get excited about candidates that have flip-flopped on abortion or stem cell research. Doesn’t show strong conviction. 7 year Presidential candidate Romney has famously switched his positions a number of times on key issues, some of which have sided with liberal positions. Evangelicals just do not trust him. I totally disagree with Jeffress if his message was to say that evangelicals will not vote for a candidate for the sole reason that their faith is Mormon. There are bigots everywhere, same person mouthing off bigotry in evangelicals out of one side of their mouth are on the other side mouthing off derogatory language against Texans, or southerners in general.

    • Ann_W

      But I just reread your comment, and it still sounds like you’re saying that evangelicals won’t get excited about a Mormon, so a Mormon candidate wouldn’t work. We’ll just stay in our place behind the scenes.

      Maybe I’m too sensitive about this issue, but here we are always supporting conservative candidates and causes, working hard, never having a problem with candidates being evangelicals, and then you find out just how much these people despise you. The message I’ve heard loud and clear on this thread is that most evangelicals don’t trust Mormons. Funny, my Mormon friends and I don’t spend 2 seconds disliking evangelicals. I just don’t get it.

      • porkandcheese

        Why when you know his record is unpalatable to evangelicals, a large voting block of the Republican party? You could have Huntsman in the race, but for some reason the LDS has lined up behind Romney hyping his inevitability. It makes no sense to me that the Mormons have a favorite son in the race and have proposed everything from changing the primary calendar to attacking their own through endorsements and polls from Huntsman’s state. I find it hard to believe that the governor who won reelection by 80% in a red state would lose by such large numbers to Romney, if it weren’t for religion. Don’t Mormons say that Huntsman is a “jack Mormon” while Romney was a bishop? You have your own litmus tests, and your religion distorts your politics just like everyone else.

  • rechts

    Instead of working to take down Obama in 2012, we’re here fighting some kind of new version of the Thirty Years War.

    • gekster

      or wait till the primaries start.
      I say let’s do it now.
      That way when the primaries do start, we just might have a clue.

      • SoFiMil

    • streiff

      who can beat Obama.

      To date no one has really challenged Romney on anything and his supporters, as I state in the story, have started using “bigotry” as a get out jail free card for him. It has to stop.

      They have also… check the diaries about a “litmust (sic) test” and you’ll see that Romney supporters have glommed onto the statement by Jeffress as a way to attack Romney.

      My intent is to shut these people up.

      • Ann_W

        Jeffress clearly played the Mormon card to get more support for his slipping candidate, and then Perry said Jeffress, “knocked it out of the park”. It is very clearly Jeffress letting Christians know that it is their duty as Christians to not vote for Romney. You are totally twisting that.

        Where are the Romney people pushing the “bigotry card”? When I look up the stories on this I see the WSJ, Huffington Post, Politico and others– where are the ones where Romney is using it as a get out of jail free card? These outlets would have covered this story anyway. Are you saying they only ran the stories because the Romney people sent them the story?

        These outlets are running the story because Republicans are actively trying to grab defeat from the jaws of victory. Everyone loves a good train wreck. The average Republican now polls a win on Obama. But apparently it’s not good enough to let the primary play out, this idiot pastor, and now you, are trying to rip open the fault lines in the conservative coalition. This should be played out on politics and I would be happy to see Romney lose on politics. But you and Jeffress are making this about religion. Perry should be able to win on policy ideas and record, why does this guy need to tell evangelicals that to be good Christians they won’t vote for Romney?

        • runner12

          been called a bigot for saying Mormonism is not a part of traditional Christianity. You just called the pastor an “idiot.” So apparently civil disagreement has flown out the window.

          You assertion that the Perry campaign did this on purpose is ludicrous and not based on any facts whatsoever. Also, just because Mr. Jefress says something does not mean that all evangelicals will snap their heels and obey. I have never even heard of the man. Each person will make his/her decision based on their own conscience, something no one can control.

          As for me, I believe that Mormonism is not in line with mainline Christianity. Will that stop me from joining forces to defeat the Left? No. Will it keep me from voting for Mittens if he is the nominee? No. Do I still think Sen. Mike Lee is one of the best in Congress? Absolutely.

          Agreeing to disagree is a hallmark of maturity.

          • aesthete

            I am happy to work alongside good, conservative people like Ann W and Mike Lee without conceding my theological beliefs on what it means to be a Christian.

            (That said, I do believe that there are Mormons who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior, just as there are Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc who have done the same — in my view, such people are a bit confused, but no less brothers and sisters in Christ for it :) )

          • Ann_W

            Yeah, I know you all are good people, It just gets a little old to be told over and over that we aren’t good enough to be president. I wish it was Mike Lee running for presidency, then it would really show what’s religion and what’s politics.

          • streiff

            because Romney is not a strong candidate in a GOP primary. Because of this inherent weakness, you’ll note he can’t break out of the 25+/-% range, he has to be the last candidate standing in order to win. IOW, the GOP will get behind Romney when everyone else is out of the race.

            With a conservative like Mike Lee, it wouldn’t come up mostly because HE wouldn’t have to try to use it to attack a rival.

          • Ann_W

            That’s why I called him an idiot. I didn’t say Perry’s campaign did this on purpose, I said that Jeffress did. And that was in response to streiff insisting that Romney’s people are trying to use this to their advantage. That’s the bogus part, the media would cover this ridiculousness regardless.

          • streiff

            been conscious during this campaign can’t have failed to see the obvious: Romney’s supporters are using his Mormonism as a club to attack his opponents. It didn’t work against McCain. It probably won’t work this time.

            Sorry your feelings have been hurt over this but you really need to get over it. This is not going to go away because every time anyone accuses anyone of anti-Mormon bigotry I’m going to pull this same subject out again.

        • SoFiMil

          The Mormon thang didn’t come up till after Perry’s speech. When I first heard the news from the MSM, I had the same reaction as you. If Perry’s introduction did include the Mormons are not Christians line, Perry’s “he hit it out of the park” line would of caused me to drop Perry. And IMHO, Jeffress did hit it out of the park introducing Perry.

        • streiff

          1. Read the story and then you can stop making stuff up.

          2.Read the diaries and see whose supporters are making a big deal of this.

          Jeffress’ reason for his statement to Evangelicals is covered in the story. He believes that given the option between a moral Christian and a moral non-Christian, Christian voters have an obligation to vote their faith.

          • Ann_W

            Including you writing this diary. I’m not a Romney supporter, but you guys have been throwing this out and throwing this out, and I’m just sick of it, and I’m not going to let it go by unanswered. By their fruits you’ll know people, why don’t you all just let it go at that instead of poking and jabbing at Mormons all the time.

          • streiff

            doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. I’ve noticed from your posts that your immediate answer to anything you don’t understand, which apparently covers one helluva lot of waterfront, is that it either doesn’t exist or it is wrong.

            I am answering it and what I’m telling you is that either 1) you are shooting your mouth off without any basis fo knowledge at all or 2) you are a shill. Because the words had hardly left Jeffress’ mouth when Romney operatives were sending it out.

            To cut to the chase, no one is really interested in your uniformed opinions. This is not your blog and you don’t vote on what is posted here. If you don’t like it, ignore it or leave.

          • Ann_W

            You clearly are more established on this website, but I’m not dumb. Please reveal your evidence, I’m interested. I’ve looked at all the ways this story got out, I’ve looked at many different sources and never seen anyway that Romney’s operatives have been pushing this story, as you continue to insist. Where’s your evidence?

            The pastor was talking to a “gaggle” of reporters, so that’s how the story got out initially. No one had to push it on them, the reporters were there. One story said they contacted Romney’s campaign, and they had no comment. Romney’s website doesn’t mention the story. So your repeated claim that his operatives and minions are pushing this story just doesn’t make any sense.

          • SoFiMil

            Ann. I value your contributions to RS. As an outsider, if I may, your point well, as did our friend streiff. Let’s let this one go.

            Shalom.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Presented as a service for the contextual entertainment of those who are currently busy reloading (and assuming–which may be a stretch–the capability of the same to be thus entertained.)

    Great post, Streiff, although many of the comments have done little more than sadly illustrate tendencies that some of us have long warned against.

  • Scope

    that the leftist media tells you who they fear the most. Some want to excuse that away and say that they can only sway voters if you believe what they print and say. Look at some of the comments on this thread, and you would have to agree that if some of the comments are honest, the leftist media poop is working on them.

    Obama is sinking like a lead baloon, not only in the polls, but even some of the die hard leftist are now writing about the reality that Obama has proven he is not capable of leading much of anyone. Some hate that he hasn’t gone far left fast enough, and far enough. Others that were willing to give him a chance have hit their heads on the wall because we are not only not better off than we were with Bush, we are actually in a world of big time hurt, and there is no plan to find any way out. For them reality has hit home.

    By now everyone knows the Perry rock story. Some have just ignored that they actually doubled down on their Perry attacks the next day, citing their own slanderous article as evidence that Perry has now been outed as the racist that he is.

    Today the WaPo prints a story that many are now giving Romney a second look, because they interviewed two dozen peopleat the Values Voters summit who said they are seriously considering Romney now.

    Look at that fluff article about Romney, and about how he is now the GOP’s best thing since sliced bread. This coming from the same garbage rag that produced the Journolisters.

    Because the libs are now panicking because they know their der leader has little chance at re-election, they are supporting the next best thing to Obama. God forbid a horrible terrible conservative wins the presidency, and destroys their socialist, big government goals.

    Sorry, but there is much to be believed about Rush’s media prognostications.

    • JSobieski

      So while the lefties might let you know who they fear, their own assessment of who is dangerous and who is not is just as likely to be 180 degrees wrong as left wing policies.

      Since when are lefties right about anything?

      • Scope

        correct was not the point in any way. The fact that the lefties own so much of the media, and consistently try to sway the narrative, and so many are so willing to fall for their narrative was my point.

        If the leftist media had no effect, then why did the Perry rock story grow the legs it did. If the leftist media had no effect on the story of who introduced Perry at VV, then why has it grown the legs it has?

        An interesting piece I read recently posited that when someone is charged with racism, it accomplishes one thing, no one can see into someone’s mind and heart, and leaves the question of doubt in many minds. Are they really racist in their thinking, but, for other purposes deny they are really racist because no one wants to be charged with racism, especially with politicians who are required to be diverse in their thoughts and policies. There is never any real proof of what is in someones mind and heart.

        Because you choose to believe that some things don’t or shouldn’t exist doesn’t mean that everyone follows your same way of thinking. Not everyone, or probably the majority, aren’t at your level of what is your purity in thinking. For you there are logical ends to what should or shouldn’t be, but, the majority of the citizens are not seeing things in such black and white terms.

        The leftist media majority unfortunately does still hold much sway even though so many are apparently so woken up. In many cases it’s the volume and not the content. If you say something that is false often enough, it becomes the truth.

        • JSobieski

          I get very nervous when I hear people make the implicit argument that X is the best candidate because the lefties fear X the most.

          Palin supporters made that argument alot.
          McCain supporters made the argument alot.
          O’Donnell supporters made that argument alot.
          I remember Fred Thompson supporters making that same argument in 2008. I even remember Phil Gramm supporters making that argument in 1996.

          Given that lefties lie at least half the time and are wrong around 90% of the time, I think paying any attention whatsoever to who the lefties fear is an invitation to error.

          I just don’t want to see lefties influence who people vote for in primaries.

  • pantera

    Mormons are Christians,they’re mormons.
    A cult is a counterfeit Christianity. A false religion doesn’t pretend to have anything to do with Jesus.

    That’s the modern definition he using.

    • Ann_W

      Check and check for my LDS faith. Get yourself informed.

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        But I do have one question. Why is it that others are required to use your definition? Why are they not able to define their faith with their own, whether you agree with it or not?

        • Ann_W

          nt

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            for theological discussions or definitions.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            ..no..text..

  • Kyle-MI

    Romney faces a very tricky choice here. How hard does he push for Mormons to be accepted as Christians? If he pushes too hard there is a danger that he turns the relevant question from “Is is OK for a Mormon to be president?” into a referendum on “Are Mormons Christians?” If the second question become predominant many people (mostly evangelicals) who are originally accepting on the first question will change their minds.

    If the Democrats, liberals, and MSM really wanted to undermine Romney they would push very hard on the Mormons as Christians issue and try to force Romney to choose between his spiritual beliefs and his desire to be president.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      Mitt should not and I don’t think has demanded that he be called a Christian. He has simply said that Jesus is his savior.

    • streiff

      They are simply incapable of doing anything else.

      • Scope

        to the fact that Christians are being demonized and persecuted in many parts of the world, and even here with the leftists? This question has perplexed me, and I would love any thoughts on this you may share. I don’t know if it has any relevancy.

      • Kyle-MI

        But I don’t think it will be just his minions. As the argument gets more oxygen from the press, it will be difficult for Mormons to keep the pressure to defend themselves to a minimum. This could turn into a mutually assured destructive fight between Mormons and evangelicals within the conservative movement. It could well overcome the best efforts of Romney and/or Perry to keep it in check. The press doesn’t have to bait the candidates if it can find enough proxies to bait.

      • Ann_W

        It wasn’t Romney, or his “minions”. He has tried to avoid religious issues because he knows it blows apart the coalition. It was the pastor, and now you, who are fanning the flames because the numbers favor Perry. But guess what, it doesn’t do conservatives any good in the general.

        We are always the good soldiers sending in the money and supporting the candidates, no Mormon wants to keep hearing this over and over. Romney was correct to say that the language was “poisonous”. Look what it’s doing here on Redstate. We are people that agree on 95% of issues, but for the sake of getting evangelicals on board with Perry we now have a wedge hammered in at a place that neither side is able to compromise on. Romney didn’t do that. Perry should win on politics. On politics more Mormons are close to him than Romney. But I guess we’re not pure enough for you all.

    • SoFiMil

      And have the left be called out. Make them answer the own attempt to divide. “So, Kos Kids, are Mormons Christians?”

    • renl57

      Any Democratic elected official who takes a public stand on whether Mormonism is Christianity is suddenly going to find out that “separation of church and state” cuts both ways.

      The Obama campaign might find some surrogates in Hollywood or elsewhere who aren’t associated with Democrat politicians or the Obama 2012 campaign to raise that issue. But that’s as far as it could go.

      And that doesn’t go far. That movie in 2008 about the Mountain Meadows Massacre didn’t have much effect on anything. I’ll bet most folks don’t even remember the title of that movie anymore.

      Plus the recent Gallup poll shows that the fraction of voters who wouldn’t consider voting for a Mormon is about one-fifth across the board: One-fifth of Republicans, one-fifth of Democrats, and one-fifth of Independents. Hence it has little relative effect.

      • Kyle-MI

        Which I admit is easy to do because it is a subtle one. Most people are OK with a Mormon (and a number of different other religious people) holding office. These people are tolerant of other beliefs. That means that they can disagree with the beliefs but can live with the people and even vote for them. If the argument, however, turns into a battle over acceptance then Romney will loose a sizable chuck of evangelicals. A sizable number of evangelicals cannot accept Mormonism as Christian.

        We are not at that point, yet. The argument is still about tolerance and so Romney is still in good shape. However, the polls cannot determine what will happen if the fundamental basis of the argument shifts. There is no way you can poll something like that.

  • sedentaryactivist

    I am not wanting to vote for a Mormon. Sorry if some of you consider that bigoted. I don’t believe they are Christians, either. They don’t regard Jesus in the same way that Catholics, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians do. Jesus is rather important in Christianity.

    I would vote for Mitt if there was no other option besides Obama. I hope it doesn’t come to that. He’s a lib who has moved to the right to get the nomination.

    Another issue to consider is the way Mormons see the US Government. They see a special and unique role for Mormons in the future of the USA. I won’t bore you all with it, but it mixes politics and religion in a way that would make most people shiver. Google “the white horse prophecy” for more information.

    • haners

      The true colors of the Romney-bashers come out…

      • sedentaryactivist

        Perhaps it’s the magic underwear that turns me off.

        • SoFiMil

          ….

          • SoFiMil

            As I alluded to in my comment yesterday.

  • bonnman

    And so when I consider the character of the candidate, its a big unknown. I need to decide how much that unknown shapes my decision.

    • clintonformccain

      They don’t smoke. They go on missions. And BYU usually has a wide-open passing attack. Beyond that, who cares? Sheesh, I don’t care if a candidate is a witch if he or she can beat Barack Obama in November 2012.

      • bonnman

        Dismissing people’s concerns, particularly in politics, is foolish. Romney obviously has an issue he’ll need to address.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          into this is what is foolish. No, it’s stupid.

          And, for the most part it’s mental masturbation. Please note that the posters here who have the biggest theological problems with LDS have all – at least to my limited reading of the threads – said they’d vote for Romney in the general. Case closed.

          • bonnman

            A choice of a moral and ethical system which guides our lives and decisions. Examining a politician’s religion can be extremely important. We all should have learned that after listening to Jeremiah Wright’s sermons.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            There is a vast difference between arguing about an individual’s moral and ethical system and arguing about their religion.

            Bill Clinton professes to be a Christian as does Jimmy Carter. How do you like their moral and ethical systems?

            I haven’t heard a word about Romney’s moral or ethical foundation, unless you count his flip-flops on life, etc. He’s a good guy and I would imagine he’d be a great neighbor. A “Christian”? Well, there are serious theological issues related to the answer to that question that have nothing to do with his morals or his ethics.

            It’s interesting that we get our panties in a wad over Romney’s LDS affiliation and we, as a nation, give Obama a pass because he says he’s a Christian and yet his life is about as self-serving and amoral as one could be.

            Frankly, religious affiliation has pretty much exactly nothing to do with moral or ethical functioning.

          • bonnman

            next you’ll tell me that islam is a religion of peace. if you believe that religious affiliation has nothing to do with moral or ethical functioning you can go peddle that to the political correct crowd but no one buys that except the loony left.

            I don’t particularly have a problem with Mormonism. But Romney’s choice of that particular religion can be scrutinized, just as any other choice in his life reflects who he is and the decisions he might make as President. If Romney was an islamic fundamentalist you’d give him a pass on that and not scrutinize that decision? Give me a break.

          • JSobieski

            The argument about Mormonism relates exclusively to theological doctrines. To date, nobody has suggested that the moral system of a Mormon is any different than the moral system of a Christian.

            Similarly, Catholics and Protestants have disagreements on some theological constructs (such as the doctrine of transubstantiation) but if someone can show how these differences manifest themselves in moral and ethical systems, I would love to hear it.

            Just because religions have a lot to say about moral systems does NOT mean that everything they teach relates to morality.

            Theology overlaps with morality, but either can exist outside the other. Moreover, not all theology manifests itself in a moral code. For example, non-belief in the Trinity has an impact on salvation, but does it impact one’s moral code?

      • snowshooze

        nt

  • Getting_Back_to_Basics

    And this diary is slyly fueling it. Does it matter AT ALL whether one denomination thinks another denomination is sufficiently orthodox for the second denomination to be known as a Christian? I don’t see how it matters from a faith perspective and I certainly see how it matters from a political perspective.

  • deVere

    Rick Perry should run as far away as he can get from these Christian ayatollahs.

    This election is about rescuing the USA from Obama, not deciding the correctness or falsehood of anyone’s faith in God.

    • runner12

      who do not believe Mormonism is not a part of Christianity to the radical Islamic cleric in Iran?

      Wow, just wow.

      No one is bashing Mormonism here. People are just saying it is not part of traditional Chrstianity, something that Mormons of the past have said.

      Look it up.

      • deVere

        to people who inject religion in politics where it does not belong.

        I don’t care what your opinion of Mormonism is, and I find it offensive and destructive that you think it is a legitimate issue in this election. Obama is all smiles about this stupid debate.

        I’m not a Mitt Romney supporter, because of his Liberalism and flip-flopping. I really don’t care if he’s a Mormon, Protestant, Catholic, or a Jew, as long as I believe that his oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United Sates will come first before anything else.

        • runner12

          does or does not belong? Or better yet if it does at all? Religion does enter politics, whether you like it or not.

          By the way, your comparison of people you disagree with to a murderous, intolerant regime is every bit as offensive as calling Mormonism a cult. In fact, it is even more offensive. That is a tactic of the Left, not Conservatives.

          For the record, I do not desire for it to be a big issue in the election. But it is. To say otherwise is a lie. The Romney camp is not helping the issue to die down either by claiming that anyone who thinks Mormons are not a part of mainstream Christianity are bigots.

          The best thing to do is for everyone to quit name-calling those who disagree with them, agree to disagree, and move on to unite to defeat Obama. That sounds like a rational approach, doesn’t it?

          • JSobieski

            Does theology have a place in politics? I think not

            The First Amendment should not be a wall of separation between religion and state, but maybe it should be a wall of separation of theology and state.

            Religion is the shared zone between morality and theology.

            Morality relates to behavior and thus morality is in the proper scope of public policy.

            Does theology have a place in politics? I think not

            Theology relates to metaphysical constructs that motivate our behavior and shape our aspirations—does government have any role in theology? The theology of a person is only relevant to the extent that it impacts their morality.

            This debate on Mormonism illustrates that there is no dispute as to the moral code of Mormonism. All the fighting is about theological constructs. This kind of fighting is clearly unproductive to politics as an across the board tax increase is clearly unproductive for the economy.

            I should add that if a moral rule cannot be justified by a non-theological reason (i.e. if the only basis for a rule is “God says so”), Constitutional self government won’t work because public debate will simply be two sides arguing about what God wants.

          • runner12

            England, has no place in politics. Many wars were fought using religious differences as a motivator of people to line up behind a certain party. Thus our Founding Fathers devised a Constitution without a state-sponsored religion and one that allows all people to worship as they please. A very wise move.

            My point was that a person’s religion, whether we like it or not, influences people’s perceptions of a person when they run for office. Thus in this instance, religion and politics do mix. You cannot seperate a person from their faith entirely because their faith undoubtedly influences them to some degree (ie Obama and Rev. Wright). Those degrees obviously vary from person to person of course, but the influence is there.

            I must admit I find it odd that you pounced on my first line and misinterpreted it. Yet you said nothing about my last line which is a call to agree to disagree and move on.

            This diary has already hit over 400 comments. I think we have hashed out all that we need to and are now moving into the non-productive phase. I do not plan on having an in-depth conversation on what role religion plays in politics on this thread.

          • JSobieski

            I only argue points that I am in disagreement with. I focused on your first sentence because that is the sentence that I was in disagreement with.

            The point that I was trying to make is simply that religion is can be divided into two components, a moral component and a theological component. If something is purely in the theological sphere, it seems like that aspect is irrelevant for the purposes of public policy.

            Put another way, whether someone things murder or theft is morally wrong is critical to evaluating them as elected officials. Whether or not they believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation is irrelevant to public policy.

            Unless someone can point to some aspect of Mormonism that is inconsistent with Christian morality, the question of whether Mormonism is a subset of or distinct from Christianity is irrelevant.

            Theology is only relevant to the extent that it impacts morality. In the political realm, we should ignore theological constructs that do not impact morality. I believe that this is consistent with the conduct of the Founders.

            I was as polite as possible in making my point.

          • runner12

            in Jsob. You cannot deny that people look at someone’s faith when choosing a candidate. You can argue all day long that should not be, but it does not change reality. This was my point.

            I am not arguing philosophy or how we should view things, I am stating how they are. I just sense that you made many assumptions based on one statement and even my clarification did not keep you from spinning a different narrative.

            I hope this clarification will suffice.

          • JSobieski

            I don’t know too many people who vote for a candidate based on religion. If that means I hang out with a smart crowd, I’ll take it.

            I think people are better at compartmentalizing different things than you might think. A lot of people voted for Clinton thinking that he was a hound dog and not particularly trustworthy.

            JFK won his nationwide race. Lieberman received a lot of votes as VP. I think voting on religion is overhyped. It is also something that we should find disappointing in the same way that we would find people voting for Obama because he is black to be disappointing.

            I operate in the realm of the real world. I find it interesting that we have people here at RS (I am not talking about you) who get mad when DeMint won’t denounce SS as unconstitutional while at the same time saying “shucks, you know people vote based on religion”.

            So its like we accept the non-ideal when it benefits it our side but then ache for the unrealistic ideal when it suits us.

          • runner12

            vote for people based on their religion, but that their religion influences people’s perception of them.

            For example, several Christians voted for Obama simply because he sounded good and threw in the God card. This is sad, but true.

            The Left demonizes people of faith who run for office, and there are people who will not vote for them because they view them as “too religious.”

            Can you honestly tell me that if a Muslim ran in 2012 that his faith would not effect people’s perception of him?

            This is reality. This is human nature, ven if we do not like it.

  • snowshooze

    All those stated here, Mormon, Catholic and Protestant, at the very minimum lay down a blueprint from which we should live a decent and honorable life. I need not be lectured on polygamy either.
    This is divisive, destructive and pointless.
    Let’s find something worth discussing. Theology is for church and those who study that stuff.

    • streiff

      the real issue, though, is the way the Romney camp is using this comment by Jeffress as a way of attaching the bigot label to Rick Perry. As they would say on “Law and Order”, he opened the door to this line of questioning.

      • snowshooze

        I have seen first hand, the church members nearly come to blows over internal politics, theology, money, events…
        Within one single group.
        And I have seen the various factions of a church become absolutely vile in their relations toward each other. Baptist Vs Baptist, Lutheran Vs Lutheran….
        And when it comes to the infighting between the Lutheran/Baptist/Catholic/Mormon… see the Irish..
        It really gets dirty.
        This is so emotionally charged, it is difficult to enter into an adult conversation about it.
        Every religion has the view that only it is the valid religion, and everyone else is agoing to hell.
        Anyway…I saw you responded to my statement, I have to recommend it as good solid advice. I scarcely talk religion, even amongst church members.. or especially amongst them.
        So, I pretty much stayed out of this 350+ pissing match.
        The Democrats will laugh their butts off at this.
        Religion here is being used as a divisive weapon, not as intended.
        ” Wind ‘em up… watch ‘em go…”

  • eldstenorge

    What you have seen done the last two days here has deeply hurt many people. It does not show the charity or kindness of the Savior. My dear wife, an LDS convert from the Wesleyan Church cried because it hurt so bad. She loves her Savior very much. She wrote the following, if I can get it pasted properly, as I am no computer expert:

    I am a wife, mother, grandmother, daughter, sister and aunt. As a member of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints, I am also a CHRISTIAN.We believe in God, the Eternal Father and in his son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. We believe and testify that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary,and that Jesus called the 12 Apostles to assist Him in teaching the people that it is only through Him that mankind might be saved and have eternal life. He walked amongst the people and healed their sick, the lame, the blind and taught that He was the Way, the Truth and the Life for all who would believe and follow Him.We believe that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, who is our Savior, that all mankind might be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, as He taught during His mortal life. We enthusiastically claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and ALLOW ALL MEN THE SAME PRIVILEGE, LET THEM WORSHIP HOW,WHERE OR WHAT THEY MAY.

    We seek for opportunities to serve those around us, no matter what their beliefs and faith are, and in doing so we believe we are following the example of our Master, even Jesus Christ.

    • snowshooze

      And thank you for you response to my other posting.
      I see here we are on the same page, it is very sad to see so many projecting their belief, correct or not onto others and passing judgement.
      We stand together in the belief that the right of all Men to worship freely is inalienable.
      This entire thread was meant to highlight the weaponizing of Religion, and quickly degraded into a bit of as mess.
      I was afeared I would shoot my mouth off too hard and get thrown out of here—again.
      Thanks for your understanding and patience.

  • clintonformccain

    If we beat this dead horse any longer, we’ll be arguing about how many Mormons can dance on the head of a pin. Good grief. Other than a few theology students, a crackpot Elmer Gantry wannabee or two, and the media looking for something to use against Republicans, NOBODY CARES whether Mormons are Christians or not.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    In the first place he is simply wrong to say that every christian ought to vote for a christian over a non-christian, that is crap.

    I know a whole lot of Christians who are not competent enough to water a garden much less run anything.

    Second, protestant, catholic, mormon, even orthodox Jew, there once was much division between us, but now in days we are like brothers because we all oppose radical leftism and the baby killing machine that is the Democrat party.

    We need to drop this garbage, I don’t much like Romney, but his Mormonism is the least of it.

    • weyland

      What, so the reform Jews get the boot, because they do not share your values? Is this about religion or societal norms?

      • renl57

        Part of the problem I see, is that too many folks choose (pun intended) to make a case against abortion and same-sex marriage based on religion.

        There are moral and historical arguments to be made against both that would not depend on religious specifics.

        Part of what has made America such a great country is that there were shared “American” values, despite one’s own religion. Many Orthodox Jews now celebrate Thanksgiving, for example.

        We should be able to talk about what “Americanism” means–and how liberals are busy dismantling it–without bringing religious arcana into it.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        socialism, abortion, and stupidity is not a part of our coalition.

  • OccamsRazor

    I do enjoy the way Perry hits however. It’s a start.

    • porkandcheese

      NT

  • Teapartier

    I am not a Romney supporter or a Mormon. I have not seen one instance of this quote “it is likewise unhelpful for Romney supporters to insist that everyone agree with their view of their particular theology.” It’s because it hasn’t happened. Do you think if Mitt was elected an army of Storm on Mormon Troopers dressed in white shirts, black pants, and tie, will descend upon the suburbs of America, knocking on doors and asking for a moment of the door openers time?
    I haven’t noticed any campaign slogans that say “vote for me and get ten wives”. The only thing Mr. Romney has said about Mormonism ,is that he is a Mormon.
    There are plenty of other issues to pick on Mitt about

    PS. Mormons make up 1.9% of the U.S population. I don’t think they will “take over” if Mr. Romney is elected.

    PPS.Besides Polygamy, I do not think there is anything wrong with Mormon values. No Jihad, Hi-jabs, Sharia , martyrdom, or, stories of 72 tortured virgins (Especially in KSM’s paradise}.

    • streiff

      There are two points to the story.

      1. Empirically, Rev Jeffress is correct. Mormons may call themselves Christians but, from the standpoint of a traditional Christian (Trinitarian and the age of public revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle) Mormons are a different religion.

      2. It is perfectly fair for voters to factor this into their voting decision.

      The subsidiary point is that this story has been spread by the Romney camp as a way to attack Perry.

      Your post, is exactly what I was talking about. Any criticism of Romney, or in this case mention of a very obvious fact, gets his supporters yelling bigotry just like Obama’s yelled racist in 2008. It isn’t going to work.

      • SoFiMil

        ….but you know where that may lead you. : )

        FWIW, for the most part I agree with your original diary. I don’t think Romney’s playing the aggrieved Mormon card nearly as much ad he was 4 years ago, but I do believe he’s playing it. And he could have easily ended this whole kerfuffle on Friday.

  • throwback59

    .

  • gekster

    how could anyone know that a reporter would ask a gotcha question
    and how this individual would answer.

    Another thing, you should read through all the comments.
    everything that could have been said about this has already been said.

  • renl57

    Every time I post anything here, there is a caveat: “Be respectful, or be banned.” And that’s good.

    But calling each other “morons” and “idiots”, as I’ve seen a few folks here doing, is stretching the bounds of “respect.”

  • sedentaryactivist

    It might not matter that Mitt is Mormon.

    It also might matter a lot.

    If the south is filled with redneck fundamentalist Baptists who will never vote for a Mormon than conservatives (whose goal is to oust Obama, of course) had better pay attention. If the Baptists aren’t excited about the candidate to the point of wetting their pants than they might stay home and watch reruns of Little House on the Prairie on election day.

    All this blather that we “don’t fight about religion” sounds so nice (and liberal, BTW), but we had better pay attention. This little kerfuffle is a good way for us to estimate the reaction of the electorate to Mitt’s Mormonism – that’s the real story here. It’s not about the theology at this point: it’s about the vote. That’s why I earlier commented that I don’t “want to have to” vote for a Mormon.

    This is going to be a close, hand-to-hand, take-no-prisoners, nasty, street brawl. The libs will hold nothing back. We need to look at every single possible negative and positive for every candidate. Like it or not, there are a lot of folks who don’t like Mormonism. How that affects the vote is the issue. We should pay attention to it and not dismiss this as something that doesn’t matter.

    Same goes for Perry’s religious views. If he takes a hardcore evangelical position, the Catholics might stay home and play bingo. Don’t think about how it affects your religious POV – think about the results at the ballot box.

    • SoFiMil

      Why the slander and (incorrect) inference that Southern Baptist “Rednecks” are bigots?

      • sedentaryactivist

        I was trying to be an equal opportunity offender.

        That’s kind of the point. It doesn’t matter which religion we choose to pick on. We need to look at the electoral fall out because beating Barak is the issue. We need a candidate that will be the most acceptable and, more importantly, one that will energize voters.

        Mitt isn’t that candidate.

        • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

          running on the Republican ticket would excite us enough to vote against 0bama. All he/she would have to say is, “I do not believe in redistribution of your hard-earned money,” and he would be in the Oval Office so fast your head would spin.

          • sedentaryactivist

            Just kidding!

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            I love that the media (and some of the candidates) are trying to use religion as a wedge issue in the process. I have a liberal friend who used to like to make fun of Sarah Palin’s religious beliefs (my liberal friend is a Methodist), and I pointed out to him that her religious beliefs were no more “nutjob” than his own–at which point I gave him several examples of his own religious irrationality. The only religion that cannot be mocked is agnosticism, because their only belief is a healthy, scientific skepticism. Even atheism can be mocked: they have faith (but no proof) that God does not exist. It still involves an irrational belief system.

            But to answer your implied question, yes, I will vote for Huntsman in November, 2012 should he be our nominee. You may remember the liberal slogan “anyone but Bush;” my slogan this election is “anybody but 0bama.”

          • SoFiMil

            NT

  • kaheo

    Mormon values & believes rely heavily on revelations that their 12 apostles receive directly from God. Until 1978, they did not allow minorities to become priests, but a revelation came through from God and they then began to allow minorities to become priests if they wanted. Romney subscribes to this religion. This was the same way they got rid of polygamy. Most non-Mormon Christians do not believe that God would flip flop on major moral/social issues – implying that Mormon apostles hide their guilt and wrong-doing behind these revelations. These non-Mormons will definitely be voting in 2012 and are greatly influenced by the beliefs of the candidates they support and thus it will be an issue!

  • levinfan90

    Mormonism is a ‘cult’, in that they are a religious sect arising out of and distinct from orthodox Christianity. How is Mormonism NOT a ‘cult’, as compared to Catholicism or Protestantism? Its no different than the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It doesn’t mean they aren’t nice people, or don’t have conservative views (they do). It just means that theologically they are not accurately defined as Christians. Unless one defines Christianity so loosely and widely that a hate-filled, racist, black liberation theology preacher like Reverend Wright is ‘Christian’. Pastor Jeffress also sees the Roman Catholic Church as a ‘cult’, in how it branched off much later on from the original body of believers whom knew Christ and followed His teachings in the 1st century, and how it became a human institution which treats human tradition and sinful human figures, like the Pope, as almost on par with the Messiah Himself. Believing that there is no way to be saved but through one MAN, the Pope, and his appointed leaders worldwide, is certainly cult-like. Catholics would obviously disagree and argue that they are the true Christians and Jesus established the RCC. That’s fine. But people are really thin-skinned if they get really unhinged by one evangelical pastor’s theological views. I’m a Bible-believing evangelical myself who tends to agree with Mr. Jeffress, theologically. But in regards to electing Republicans, someone’s theological waywardness doesn’t matter to me at all. As long as they are conservative, I will support them. And I’m sure almost all of the people on this website who don’t particularly love Mitt Romney have that opinion purely out of their distrust of his word and the inconsistency of his conservativism. No Mormon-’hating’ necessary.

  • BigRedConservative

    Religion and politics shouldn’t be mixed. Some of what’s going on upthread sounds like the sort of discussion that should be going on at an ecumenical synod or philosophical symposium. Not at the most important website for conservative thought in the USA.

  • David123

    Read Romans 10:9 and Romans 14. Our Mormon brothers believe the King James Bible is divinely inspired and true. Therefore they hold the core Christian beliefs common to other denominations.

    Some Mormons find it extremely hurtful to be labeled as not-a-Christian, and unChristian is generally used in a critical or insulting manner. It would be best to avoid saying that Mormons are not Christian.

    By the way, Obama’s pastor essentially said that we, as Americans, should all roast in eternal Hell. That is far more insulting, and a far worse curse, than anything discussed in this thread.

    No circular firing squads!!!

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      and last I checked, theology isn’t one of the reasons Redstate is here.

      And, as it happens you are patently incorrect in your theological assumptions. If you want to debate this theologically – and you won’t fare well based on the limited commentary in this post – take it to a theological site.

      • snowshooze

        So I’m comment #397 and probably have the most relevant statement out of them all.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          nt..

          • snowshooze

            After we get done killing off all these Infidels, Atheist’s, Barbarians and Heathens, we might be able to develop this site into something worth discussing.maybe even allow a touch of humor…if anyone is left… mbecker…hmm…funny name…German?.HERETIC!!!

          • acat

            Sooner or later, they’ll get here, truncheons swinging.

            Mew

  • SoFiMil

    ;

  • sunshinek67

    start a discussion on Perry’s Iowa trip? I posted the following on several news sites hoping to get feedback (negative or positive)

    Love (sarcastic) how certain reporters from top news sources, WAPO or Politico, Huff…take your pick, have spun the Iowa trip to be Perry’s immigration problem getting bigger. I did a little research after the first two negative titled articles yesterday and came to the conclusion that I prefer to dig into Iowa’s newspapers online and get the REAL story about what went down. Sure, you can find hecklers and disgruntled folks at Perry’s events, easy to spot with their Romney shirts and take just these folks and extrapolate that “problem” with everyone in attendance to create the illusion to the outside viewer that folks are defecting or running away from Team Perry.

    The media did this to George H W Bush in his re-election campaign. Television screens were filled with Bush and a few surrogates or chosen supporters behind the podium while he spoke and then in the next segment you see Bill Clinton in downtown Chicago amid thousands and thousands of folks to listen to what he had to say. The illusion was clear, Bush was “surrounded” by just a few supporters (when in fact he had many) and Clinton was the newest rockstar. The media is doing this now with Romney, they want Romney because they know that Obama is going to clean him out on that debate floor and in the general, as Romney is going to be another McCain, unable to excite and ignite the base. How can Romney sound convincing as the better alternative to Obama when in fact, he has agreed with Obama on every single issue in his career at some point in time. Romney has been to the left of left…left…left of center…center…right of center…right….and right of right. It is confusing. Obama and Obama-Lite.

    When you get down to the heart of the matter, when you dig deep into the political soul, you find that Rick Perry is really a good guy, with compassionate conservatism and has more economic successes than failures in the large state of Texas. You also know if you have met him or dug around in his record, he has a strong record of conviction. I realize this is mostly a liberal board, and I love that as an independent. An independent that happens to be pulling for Rick Perry. Team Perry 2012, sunshine in Texas

  • govreaganfan

    Everyone knows Romey is going to capture the nomination by default (good or bad). Why make statements now that will have to be walked back later?

    Cult, False Religion, whatever; just gives others ammunition against the future Republican candidate.

  • Right_Again

    I wasted on this blog and the comments.

    • acat

      You’ll get an itemized bill showing the credit when you check out.

      Mew

  • reaganbuckley

    nt

    • gekster

      Elaborate.

    • snowshooze

      He only spoke the truth from the perspective of that religion.
      He cannot lie. He was drug into a direct question. He had to answer.
      Ask the Mormons about the Baptist’s
      Like I say, anything, even n the fringes of Religion cannot be discussed in an adult manner by most.
      Remember, a majority of the wars of the world were justified with one religion or another.

      • eldstenorge

        Baptists are good people, just sometimes a little to judgmental. But, being a convert to the LDS Church, I also see a lot of that judgment here as well. My son sent his two children to a Baptist preschool in Burkburnett, Texas. They were absolutely wonderful people. My son is a pilot in the Air Force and one of his buddies died in a plane crash. That Baptist Church did daycare for the LDS members in this tragedy. They fixed the meals, etc. Very, very, very good people, who were very good to our family, not like Rev. Jeffress or Gov. Huckabee at all. Now they are in another state, and again have their two children in a Baptist school. Teaching morals and christian principles is so much preferable to what our children are taught in the Godless public schools. The know the family is LDS, said they have had LDS children there before and that we are welcome. God bless them. They are good, conservative, patriotic, Christian people and accept us.

        • snowshooze

          The point is that you would be drawn in by this tripe.
          You should know that Religion is a very personal thing.
          And so far as Jeffress… look down a couple posts to ” Listen to the man” and if you did, you would think him a good and decent man …
          He explains it all quite clearly, and I am pretty sure the Mormons agree with the technical differentiations. I have attended several churches, including both of these.
          Religious intolerance is a tool, a wedge and a divisive tactic to divide the race. It is promoted and celebrated by the left and the MSM.
          To participate is to lose. Most wars are based or supported by non other than Religion. As a basis or excuse. It is the cheapest and easiest excuse to kill someone and take their possessions.
          And I know personally far too many Religious people who are all too willing to participate.
          Look at the infighting just here at RedState.
          It is an embarrassment.

          • eldstenorge

            I agree.

    • powertothepeople

      I thank God that the aforementioned D-Bags show themselves to be illiterate when it comes to the constitution and have no bearing on real discussion.

      • acat

        That’s .. really rather sad. True, but .. sad.

        Mew

    • snowshooze

      http://www.therightscoop.com/pastor-jeffress-defends-mormonism-is-a-cult-comment-hits-back-at-bill-bennett/

  • jgs23

    Your bias is evident on its face and is replete with the (il)logical contortions usually reserved as currency for the left.

    Jeffress did not give a theological discourse. He bluntly asserted that Romney’s religion was a cult as a matter of “mainstream” fact and that Christians should not vote for a “Non Christian”. Romney’s assumed softness on social issues is a function of his political views and running for office in MA, not his religion.

    As one example, the LDS church took a lot of heat in CA for its very active role in supporting Prop 8. Romney’s pro-choice stance when running for governor is a minority view in the LDS church.

    Are there other issues more central to Christian orthodoxy that I am missing? No.

    strieff, what then, exactly, does Romney’s religion imply about how he might vote on a range of issues?

    • snowshooze

      That is the accepted view in that Joseph Smith was merely a man, and Jesus is the son of God. The Protestants do not honor the word of man over the word of God. That is the technical difference.
      I would bet that Jeffress will get out and vote, no matter the choices presented.

    • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

      ?Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body and that man?s destiny is to evolve to God-hood.? The Mormon teaching is: ?As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become.? I am pretty sure that contradicts classical Christianity.

      Mormons also distort the doctrine of the fall of man. They reject the doctrine of salvation by faith in favor of a salvation earned by works. The Mormon church also has previously claimed to be the only true church because its leaders continue to receive divine revelations. This pretty much contradicts the belief in the early Christian church that divine revelation in the form of Scripture ended with the death of the apostles.

      • snowshooze

        It sounds like there are more completely taken in by this diversion than there are that can see the clear light of day.
        This is weaponized Religion.
        It has nothing to do with God, it is a tool to divide.
        Played at the lowest level.
        I guess I am not embarrassed, merely disappointed. .

      • jgs23

        What am I to do? Ignore the fact that 99% of Mormons line up with with evangelicals on social issues, ignore all other credentials and qualifications, and vote for the best mainstream Christian candidate I can find? Why?

        • jgs23

          I am LDS. I will also say that I am not offended by the fact that many Christians do not consider me to be a Christian. Further, I think that I have enough self awareness to acknowledge the fact that the LDS church doesn’t, in a lot of important ways, walk and quack like the other mainstream Christian churches.

          I am offended by the notion that some Christians would assert concern about voting for an LDS candidate and quickly retreat to an argument on theological differences to obfuscate the fact that they cannot articulate a cogent argument based on what the candidate might do. The objections are generally rooted in half formed fears and suspicions that cannot be formulated into any picture of a worst case scenario, much less a realistic one.

          Finally, I’ll say that I don’t support Romney because he is LDS. I would have voted for Fred Thompson had I lived in a state where the primary mattered in the last cycle. If Romney weren’t in the race, I would support Gingrich, Perry, Cain, and Santorum before even taking a look at Jon Huntsman.

        • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

          You do not have to do anything. We are dealing with differences in belief, not value. My point is that we can not deal with the issue by covering it up with a theological and historical falsehood.

          While it is legitimate to vote one’s faith, every individual must make that decision on his own.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          is totally irrelevant to whether or not they are part of the same religious group. That is a question of where they line up on theological issues, period. And therein lies the problem.

          Go find a candidate that lines up with you on the issues that are important to you and vote for that candidate. Personally, Romney is unacceptable to me in the primary because of his record as governor of Massachusetts, RomneyCare, his seeming apatite to solve problems with the hand of government and his disdain for reducing the size and scope of government.

      • SoFiMil

        I’ll even grant than many/most? Christians believe the LDS church is not a Christian church. News flash. He’s a Reverand and was asked a religious-oriented question, which he answered, and very respectfully. The real disturbing thing for me is why do you insist on repeating his and your opinion ad nauseum? I heard ya, okay? Let’s move on to politics.

        • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

          I have to repeat myself because dunderheads are continually arguing the point and promoting a historical and theological falsehood.

          If there is an error in anything I said, then point it out. Otherwise back off. Perhaps you should be more disturbed by the fact that some would attempt to distort a 2000 year old faith to make it more politically correct and acceptable to the MSM. Or does that So in you name not mean what I think it means?

          As to moving on to politics, if you have not noticed, Romney’s Mormon faith and its relationship to Christianity has become political – whether you or I like it or not. How we address the issue will determine whether or not it impacts the race. Right now Romney, his surrogates, and the MSM seem to be using it to bash Perry and garner support. He is thus making it political. We cannot just stick our head in the sand and pretend it did not happen. Nor can be distort either Mormonism or Christianity in an attempt to make the issue go away.

          • SoFiMil

            So it’s pointless (and outside the scope of RedState blog) for you to spew your reasons why members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christians. Fine, I heard you. All your add-ons, however belong somewhere else. For me, that’s where you cross the line.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            One of the questions posed to Jeffress by the MSM was whether or not Romney was a Christian. It was that exact question and Jeffress’ answer that brought on the controversy.

            My comments fall in line with the discussion started by streiff. I assume, for consistency, that you have also spoken to him about the issue. The article he referenced this morning goes along with everything I have said.

            As to crossing a line, I am not particularly concerned about where you draw any lines.

          • SoFiMil

            to get into particulars about specific denominations or doctrines. If you must, confine yourself to only the reasons Reverand Jeffress gave for why Mormons are not Christians. Otherwise, give it a rest.

            You clearly have a religious agenda, and have come nowhere near the three points of the diary. I have not given one reason whether Mormons are or are not Christians, and will not. I could easily (in my opinion) refute your he said this, and she said that dribble, but won’t, as this is not the proper forum.

          • Aaron Gardner

            streiff has listed the two main points below. I’ll quote him here on the first point which relates directly to what Kipling is commenting on.

            1. From a theological standpoint, Mormons are not part of traditional Christianity. I?m not interested in what they believe or what they consider themselves to be, I?m only making the point that Jeffress?s opinion is correct. I have nothing for or against Mormons, as such.

            The comment can be found here.

            If this is something you don’t wish to engage in, then don’t. That said, you don’t get to dictate to Kipling which portions of the article he is allowed to comment on. Understood?

          • SoFiMil

            Not arguing with you, although I’d appreciate your response. I won’t reply to any explanation you may choose to give. This will help me in the future. I’m assuming if I responded to kipling’s specific theological reasoning, this would be theological and not keeping with RS posting rules. I thought it would be appropriate to say the same to kipling. Thanks.

            I see a huge difference between what Jeffress and streiff said, and kippling’s approach.. That being said. I’m sorry and will sit out the remainder of this diary.

          • gekster

            the scroll bar gets smaller than the mouse pointer, enough comments have been made, and I refrain from commenting, unless I feel it really really important to make a point.
            Or get a smile.

          • SoFiMil

            : )

          • Aaron Gardner

            In fact you claimed that this repetition was your primary contention. I don’t see why you think that Kipling should not be allowed to stand up for his, and Jeffress’, opinion by providing evidence to back up said opinion.

            I also don’t see why you would then later claim that it is the opinion itself that you find inappropriate for discussion.

            Politics, and in turn political discussion, encompasses much more than just policy initiatives. We take all things into account, from character to experience and even, as distasteful as you may see it, religion. Attempts to stifle debate about this are counter intuitive.

            I don’t object to you and Kipling debating this, what I object to is the attempt to stifle that debate.

    • streiff

      I’m only saying two things

      1. From a theological standpoint, Mormons are not part of traditional Christianity. I’m not interested in what they believe or what they consider themselves to be, I’m only making the point that Jeffress’s opinion is correct. I have nothing for or against Mormons, as such.

      2. The second point is that it is completely legitimate to vote your faith.

      Are there issues more central ot Christian orthodoxy, of course there are.

      For the record, there is no evidence Romney would either defend marriage or oppose abortion, he did neither in Massachusetts.

  • Adjoran

    talking about “basing votes primarily upon religious belief” – he’s gone beyond that and stated that a Christian could not in good conscience vote for a non-Christian (among whom he numbers Mormons, although they consider themselves Christians) over a Christian opponent.

    Of course that’s not the sort of state-imposed “religious test” prohibited by the Constitution, but it is a very bigoted viewpoint. It accepts corruption and immoral conduct by a self-professed “Christian” over an upright life and superior experience of any “non-Christian” (as defined, apparently, by Jeffress). That’s just stupid.

    Some say the Lord never sends Southern Baptists to hell, though: in His Mercy, He knows the poor souls in hell are suffering sufficiently already.

    • snowshooze

      Nope.
      Jeffress stated the technical interpretation. He is absolutely correct.
      He did not state that he was making the call…nope.
      That call has been made a long time ago. This is not news.
      Mormons are off on their own gig. So what.
      And then the Yoyo’s went ballistic.
      And you also are sucked into the overall distraction because you cannot see that it was engineered to create a rift within the party.
      Just another fish on the line.

    • gekster

      If you can see that in his statement, I can only assume you have a public education.
      What kind of Maroon are you.
      You are seeeing things that are not there.

    • streiff

      He never implied that one should vote for a Bill Clinton over a Mitt Romney. He’s clearly saying that if you have two candidates, equally moral and qualified, a Christian is obligated to vote for a Christian. One may disagree with him but it is very difficult to say he’s wrong if you consider you religion as any more important that your preference of automobile.

  • snowshooze

    ” Ive said that in interviews, if it were a choice between Mitt Romney and Barak Obama, that I would vote for Mitt Romney. But I believe in this primary season, those of us that are evangelical Christians ought to look at a number of criteria, and certainly, and certainly, we would prefer someone who embraces historical evangelical Christianity over someone who doesn’t.
    I’m not making some terrible slanderous coment about Mitt Romney personally, I’m saying what Christians, historically have said for a long time, and that is Mormonism is not a historical part of Christianity”
    —– Jeffress. Verbatim.
    What on earth is wrong with that? You gotta bad batch in?
    Are you all hallucinating? Get real.
    This is straightforward, honest and transparent.
    And yet so many of you insist that you are the biggest Yoyo on this blog.
    Well, I have a whole box of gold stars, and beyond that, you have to settle it amongst yerselfs.
    Have any heard a more reasonable or articulate statement?
    Nevermind.

    • streiff

      John Richard Neuhaus does the best job of discussing the subject of Christianity and Mormonism.

      • Aaron Gardner

        This passage is particularly apropos:

        Asking whether Mormonism is Christian or Mormons are Christians (a slightly different question) is thought to be insulting. “How can you ask that,” protests a Mormon friend, “when we clearly love the Lord Jesus as much as we do?” It is true that St. Paul says that nobody can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). But that only indicates that aspects of Mormon faith are touched by the Holy Spirit, as is every element of truth no matter where it is found. A Mormon academic declares that asking our question “is a bit like asking if African Americans are human.” No, it is not even a bit like that. “Christian” in this context is not honorific but descriptive. Nobody questions whether Mormons are human. To say that Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists are not Christians is no insult. It is a statement of fact, indeed of respect for their difference. The question is whether that is a fact and a difference that applies also to Mormonism.

        The question as asked by Mormons is turned around: are non-Mormons who claim to be Christians in fact so? The emphatic and repeated answer of the Mormon scriptures and the official teaching of the LDS is that we are not. We are members of “the great and abominable church” that was built by frauds and imposters after the death of the first apostles. The true church and true Christianity simply went out of existence, except for its American Indian interlude, until it was rediscovered and reestablished by Joseph Smith in upstate New York, and its claims will be vindicated when Jesus returns, sooner rather than later, at a prophetically specified intersection in Jackson County, Missouri.

  • avagreen

    What has that got to do with his being a good candidate or not?
    I’m not a fan of Romney, but this is beyond silly to suggest that because he’s Mormom, or a Baptist, or a Methodist, or a Catholic, of 7th Day Adventist that somehow this reflects upon his reasons for being a candidate?

    WTH?

    • circlegranch

      An off-the-cuff comment by a Christian pastor has skyrocketed to the top of breaking news. Why? The media wants us to get embroiled in this irrelevant discussion because it serves a useful purpose for their end-game. If you want to play their game, keep talking about it. The sooner the blogs move on, the sooner it goes away. Romney, Bachmann and Cain have obviously all consorted on how to respond and they are basically united in their comments. They come across as having taken the high road and their current enemy, Rick Perry, is the bad guy. When MSNBC is out defending Mormonism, or any form of Christianity, you know there is an agenda afoot. This morning, Chuck Todd asked Ray Sullivan, Perry’s communications director, if Perry is going to stay in the race. They clearly are hoping he’ll drop out ASAP. They have coronated their pick and others in his path to the nomination are a continued distraction. This entire spin is now yet another easy way to paint Perry further into a corner with the intent that he never gets out. An unsuspecting pastor that took the identical position about the Mormon religion as all other Christian demoninations have for generations paved the way for another way to quickly take out Perry and get him off the radar. What Mitt should realize is that his faith will return as a problem for him once he gets the nomination. The media will want Evangelicals to question it next summer and they’ll trot out women that claim to have been victims of polygamy and more. This is a media ploy and we can take the bait now or just wait till Mr. Romney accepts the nomination. The media thrives on dissent and argument in two key areas: race and religion. Both hot button issues are necessary for the media to frame the debate and drive votes in one direction or another. Race and religion are pillars they use time and again to build fear, division, uncertainty and splits in party unity. The pit blacks against whites and Jews against Muslims. It’s how they roll.

      This goes away when we get back to the issues that are destroying our country like a metastisizing cancer. At some point, Americans have to broaden their perspective in terms of how we regain control of our country. We attack and fight and demonstrate against our government and our elected officials but we fail time and again in taking the powerful media to task. We get played every single minute of every day because media hacks define the debates; they create the news they want us talking about and they shape, form and meld our brains into robotic states of numbness. Stop playing their games, turn your questions and attacks–at least some of them–at program directions and flood email boxes of the talking heads that we allow to invade our homes with their propaganda.

      • avagreen

        and agree. I didn’t make my remarks clear enough which was essentially the same as yours.

        This is not a newsworthy story, but it has been made one for the very reason you suggest……to indirectly smear Perry because of some offhand remark made by a minister. Which kind of remark I have heard since childhood, but now has baloooned into some feast of “gotcha” against Perry and this minister.

        What a freakin’ waste of time and effort.

        Why does the MSM (and Fox now) fear Perry so much they have to create news to besmirch him?

        For the very reason you’ve stated.
        Sheesh! I tire of the idiots who make this type of thing, news, and those that fall for it.

      • Common_Cents

        The liberation of the American people from the leftist media. It would do the world more good than any liberation of any one people.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          No Text is the best text.

          • Common_Cents

            And actually make it a priority? Most of our side still sucks up to the media instead of challenge them and call them out.

            Gingrich gets it. Cain did well against Lawrence O’Donnell the other day. It’s starting to happen. When challenged, the lame stream media gets even more desperate and foolish.

  • avagreen

    “viable candidate”

    Majoring in Minors here.

  • Vaughn Harold

    Christianity is not?.
    a religion
    a church
    a baptism
    a birthright
    a doctrine
    a moral law
    obedience
    membership

    Christianity is simply?.
    one God
    one Man, Adam
    one Commandment
    one Sin
    one Judgement
    one Penalty, Death
    one Promise
    one Faith
    one Savior
    one Work
    one Forgiveness
    one Spirit
    one Way to Eternal Life

    And yes, being a real Christian does matter when electing a POTUS. Yes we need someone who understands how the economy works, but we also need someone who walks in true humility before their Creator for the decisions they make as POTUS.

    • JSobieski

      Most dictionaries would define religion as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of existence.

      If Christianity is not a religion, I would love to hear what is.

      • Vaughn Harold

        Christianity is God’s only plan for the salvation of mankind from Sin.

        And yes the term “religion” is anathema. Just study exactly what Jesus condemned the most.

        • JSobieski

          Any set of beliefs dealing with salvation is religion. If something is based on metaphysical revelation, it is religion.

          Jesus did condemn hypocrites who followed the letter of law without trying to follow the intent/heart of the law. Jesus spoke out against those focused on the appearance of religiousness, however he did not attack the word religion itself in the way that you do.

          If you want to say that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion, I respond that certain beliefs must underscore such a relationship and that those beliefs in the English language would be sidered “religious” beliefs.

          There is no evidence that Jesus have engaged in such sophistry. There is no evidence that Jesus used terminology in ways contrary to their standard meanings at the time. Nor is there any evidence of Jesus spending a lot of time defining terms.

          Bottom line: I understand your point, but conclude that it is unecessary sophistry that gets in the way of your point.

          • Vaughn Harold

            This was not a reference to their hypocritical lifestyle. It was a statement directed solely at their religious organization and how it blinds people from seeing the true way.

            To define the term Christianity as a religion minimizes it’s transcendence over all other belief systems. It is not just another belief system; it is God’s only way based on physical evidence.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            you’re in way over your pointy head.

            Go find a theological forum to make this argument, and if there are actual theologians there, you’ll come away a bruised and humbled man.

          • Vaughn Harold

            thing I know Jesus Christ changed not only my life, but it changed how I go about getting things done in this life. Religious indoctrination is an anathema.

            And yes I stand by my original point that the real character of a man is just as important as his abilities. It takes both to make real change in this world.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            You are wrong about your definitions, as in ignorant. Go learn something about theology and the definitions of words.

            And, your statement about religious indoctrination is pretty close to heresy. That one you can take up with Peter, Paul, Luke, Matthew and the rest of the 12 who gave their lives to indoctrination.

            Oh, and professing Christianity is not a good indication of character in a politician. I would take a Druid with conservative political beliefs over either Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, John Kerry or Al Gore – for starters – all of whom are professing Christians. Oh, and just to even the political score on that account, toss in Santorum, Bachmann, Palin, and Romney.

          • Vaughn Harold

            indication of character. I said walking in the fear of God is.

            I’m also aware of how words lose there original meaning over time.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            And that is a phrase that has lost all meaning in broader society, including within the Church.

            In order to even attempt to make the argument you seem to be trying – and failing miserably at – to make, a solid understanding of both history and theology are necessary. It’s pretty obvious you have neither.

          • JSobieski

            Beware the leven of the Pharisees was an admonition, but it was NOT inherently linked to any type of “organization” nor inherently limited to any type of “organization”. The admonition was specific to their spiritual behavior and spiritual life AS INDIVIDUALS and the results of such behavior, not an affiliation with any kind of groud.

            How very ironic that your entire argument about Jesus is premised on the individual’s relationship with God, but in this one and only instance, you interpret an admonition by Jesus to go beyond the God-individual relationship–and instead focus on an organizational affiliation that you don’t read into other scriptural citations. Is there any other teaching of Jesus that you would extrapolate to going beyond the God-individual relationship?

            It would be far more consistent for you to say that Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their individual relationships with God and having absolutely nothing to do with their “religious organization” given the overarching “Christianity is a relationship, not a religion” point of view.

            If you don’t believe someone exists, it is pretty near impossible to have any kind of meaningful relationship with that person. If you don’t believe in God, there can be no real relationship with God. Ergo, belief in God is a religious belief in the English language.

            Calling Christianity a religion is simply consistent with the word “religion” in the English language. The idea that a particular belief system is a subset of a universe of belief systems, rendering them all equivalent in some way is a non sequitor.

            No rational person would conclude that belief in Jesus is somehow equivalent to another belief system simply by referring to such belief as religion. The transcendant nature of the Word is the Good News itself, not whether or not it is characterized as a religion.

            Go ahead and carve out Christianity from the word “religion” if you want, but its just going to get in the way of expressing what you want to express and reaching those who see things through a conventional English terminological framework.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            as usual

          • Vaughn Harold

            with God, but God’s relationship with man. It is this relationship that forms the foundation for Christianity. Religion has and always will be based on man finding a way to have a relationship with God, and therefore the reason why religion is anathema. To many people follow a religion with the false sense that they are right with God. This was what the Pharisees were promoting.

            I understand your point with terminology,

          • Vaughn Harold

            Your comment “instead focus on an organizational affiliation that you don?t read into other scriptural citations”. There are plenty of scriptural citations that deal with organizational affliation both in the old and new testaments.

          • JSobieski

            then all human beings are Christians, and the word “Christian” is of absolutely no value. Moreover, since Christianity is all about God’s relationship with us (your view) faith has nothing to do with Christianity. For Christianity to have anything to do with faith, it must have something to with the human being side of the relationship, which is contrary to … your view.

            Defining words in this way is contrary to the purpose of language itself. It reeks of transforming your particular view of faith into a language that is literally incomprehensible to anyone else, which to me is more indicative of a “cult” than anything else.

            Christianity is open book world view. Anyone can read its books. Academics as well as believers read, analyze, and write. Religions that get into “cult” status are the ones that aren’t open, can’t be subjected to comprehensive/analysis by outsiders because so much of language means something totally different than the words do in normal every day usage.

            The use of such “unusual” definitions is contrary to a lot of things that are good.

          • Vaughn Harold

            Unable to be saved apart from the Spirit of God working through the Word of God, in the heart of a man. Faith is the acknowledgement of this truth that God promised and provided a Savior for my lost condition.

            “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”

            This is God’s relationship with man, and the response that man should have to that relationship.

          • JSobieski

            Of course all human beings are sinners.

            Your definition of Christianity means that everyone is a Christian. If you think that is a sensible definition, you will find few who agree. If for no other reason than the economy of words, your interpretation of what it means to be a “Christian”.

            Man is called to respond to the relationship. Yet, you define Christianity solely based on the God side of the equation.

          • JSobieski

            So what is so magical about the word “religion” (a word that Jesus didn’t use) that it excludes “the response that man should have to that relationship”.

            Seems like a perfectly sound definition of religion to me.

            Religion—man’s understanding of the response that man should have to God.

            This definition is far more consistent with the English language than defining religion so obtusely that it somehow excludes “man’s understanding of the response that man should have to God”

            If you don’t like organized religion, fine. The idea that any kind of affiliation with any other individual somehow negates the aspect of man responding to God is extremely convoluted.

    • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

      precisely who, among all former and current Presidents, has met your qualifiying condition of “walk[ing] in true humility before their Creator for the decisions they make as POTUS” ?

      • Vaughn Harold

        He feared God, more than man.

        • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

          .

          • Vaughn Harold

            George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc. I’m not a history buff, but I do know enough that our founders desired that the leader of this country walk in the fear of God. It is our leaders that did not walk in the fear God that have wrecked havoc on this nation.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Their “relationship with God” as you’ve defined in your little screed is absolutely up for argument.

          • Vaughn Harold

            nt

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            It’s a matter of history, deal with it. But deal with it on a theology blog.

          • Vaughn Harold

            every election.

            Just because you don’t agree with me, deal with it.

          • acat

            because you’re doing a dreadful job of making them clear.

            Mew

          • Vaughn Harold

            leads to works based theology, Christianity is not works based, it sole foundation is the very work of God through His Son Jesus.

            Its works based theology that is creating so much division amongst believers. I’m so sick of the titles that true believers use, this must change.

          • JSobieski

            There is nothing inherent about religion that makes it works-based.

            Your use of language is puzzling.

            You imply the term “religion” and “organization” in the scriptural verse about the Pharaisees. No reason for the assertion—you just put it there.

            Now you imply a “works-based” limitation in the term “religion”.

            I can see why you are so frustrated. Instead of trying to change what words mean, why not just use words to say what you do mean.

            If you want to say that Christianity is not a works-based religion, I would agree with you. There is NO Christian denomination that teaches justification by works.

            I really do suggest that you will be more effective if you stop trying to change the definition of words. Just use words to convey what you want to convey.

            It is far easier to distinguish Christianity as a non-works based religion than it is to say that Christianity is not a religion.

            Jesus did not instruct us to use the confusing terminology possible. There is every indication that he used words as they were commonly understood at the time.

          • aesthete

            with the use of a single sentence: “Christianity is an orthodoxical, rather than an orthopraxic, religion.”

          • Vaughn Harold

            the term Christianity can not and should not be grouped under the term religion for by doing so we allow it to be just another way people believe in God. It is not just another way to eternal life, it is the only way.

            I understand that this makes no sense to unbelievers, it’s not supposed to. My comments are directed to believers who are disturbed by the comments addressed in the original diary.

            One other thing, it was the world that gave believers the title Christian. We would do well as believers to heed Paul’s advice in Corinthians and not allow titles to define us, it should be the love that we have one toward another.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            And as far as making sense, it probably ONLY makes sense to unbelievers who will read it and say “Oh.” and move on, because they too are ignorant. And, if you’re trying to offer salve to “believers who are disturbed by the comments addressed in the original diary”, you totally missed the mark. Oh, and just which “believers” would those be?

          • Vaughn Harold

            no text

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            1Cor 1:10-17: I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe?s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, ?I follow Paul?; another, ?I follow Apollos?; another, ?I follow Cephas[b]?; still another, ?I follow Christ.?

            Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don?t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel?not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

            <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201&version=NIV"from the NIV verse notations removed by me for ease of reading.

            This particular passage was directed to the members of the church in Corinth and dealt specifically with leadership problems within that church. It had – and has – absolutely nothing to do with our dealings outside the church, nor on issues relating to secular issues.

            In the context of this particular diary, this passage is absolutely not applicable because, first of all, this diary has nothing to do with church leadership, and second, the reason for the actual argument is that there is an ongoing discussion relating to whether LDS are actually “within the Body of Christ” and thus this discussion relates to those who are considered by many to be “outside the faith”. I’m not arguing that point one way or another, rather pointing out the substance of the argument and that Paul’s commentary is in no way applicable.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Ephesians 4:5 — One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

            Ephesians 4:
            11 And he agave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

            12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

            13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

            14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

            15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

            16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

            17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,

            18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their dheart:

            19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

            20 But ye have not so learned Christ;

            21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

            22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the bold man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

            23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

            24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

            25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

            26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

            27 Neither give place to the devil.

          • JSobieski

            Is calling the Bible a “book” somehow a statement that the Bible is no different than a phone book?

            I use the word “art” to describe the utterly unviewable drawing of a 5 year old child as well as the great art works of history.

            Is calling the Mona Lisa “art” somehow reducing it to the level of chicken scratches?

            Is calling a ferrari a “car” just like a Yugo is a “car” somehow misleading?

            Since when is language used in the way you are using it?

            Your language should make sense to non-believers in the sense that we don’t scramble what our words mean for the sake of doing so. We are chartered with spreading the Good News, and doing so without unecessary code or needless linguistic dancing.

            Again, Jesus did not invent entire new words for fishing, walking, sandels, faith, etc for people to use as a way of seperating themselves form the world. We are called to be a people apart, but not in the totally unproductive ways that you suggest.

          • Vaughn Harold

            “Christianity is not a religion”

            It’s not, and never has been, except for the title that the world has giving it.

          • JSobieski

            I await for similar manuvering so that the Bible (a word given by the world) is excluded from the word book.

            Jesus never used the word Bible. I should also point out that the people who decided what books belonged in the Bible and what books didn’t belong in the Bible, called themselves Christians.

            I note that you didn ‘t cite the Gospel of Thomas in this discussion, so you seem to be limiting yourself to actual Christian canon.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            what books belong in the Canon.

          • SoFiMil

            ; )

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            In fact, “organized religion” has been fighting this battle for a couple of millenia and the fight will continue until the Trumpet sounds in the East. Call it the depravity of man, even of men who are forgiven.

            I also find it interesting that in the very same sentence that you condemn “titles” you use the appellation “true believers”.

          • SoFiMil

            Mic check.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Again, you are theologically and historically ignorant.

            Reagan’s and GWB’s confession of Christ had exactly nothing to do with their elections. Or their reelections.

            There was that whole malaise thingy in 1980, along with a terrible economy. And the fact that Reagan was a very well known and likable guy. Carter made every attempt to use his Christian faith against Reagan as he had Ford and it flopped.

            Actually, Carter got elected in 1976 solely because Ford still had “Nixon” hanging around his neck, not because of Carter’s faith

            GWB got elected in part because he had a solid record in Texas and partly because Al Gore is a horrible buffoon. Again, nothing to do with theology or faith – both of those guys were active, professing Christians.

            And finally, there’s no way on God’s earth (intentional representation) that in 2008 theology had any impact on getting Obama elected. Anybody who paid attention and knows anything about the subject knew from the outset that the congregation (as opposed to “church”) that Obama had been a member of for over 20 years was anything but a Christian organization. They might choose to call themselves such, but they’re going to have a hard time standing before the Throne with that story.

            If you choose to make the case that Social Conservatives vote on the basis of “theology”, again you’d be wrong. They vote based on a candidate’s stand on specific issues that are argued both ways within the body of people who profess to be Christians or who “have a relationship with God”. Abortion, welfare, the responsibility of government to care for those in need, etc. In fact, “Social Conservatives” tend to conservatives who have strong opinions on some social issues. Nothing more.

            You have opinions Vaughn. Your opinions are neither theological facts nor are they historically accurate.

          • Vaughn Harold

            A person’s view of God is always apart of the decision making process, even if unknowingly by indirect means. This is why there are liberals, conservatives, and the basterd mixture of the two, independants, within our society.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            undecipherable King of Kings.

          • JSobieski

            What is God’s position between a 6% sales tax in Michigan and the original 4% tax?

            Again, you use the phrase “God is always a part of the decision making process” so broadly that the phrase is meaningless. All matter and energy comes from God. Without God, there is no existence. God is integral to existence. In that sense, God is always a part of everything.

            God is part of the murderer who kills their spouse.
            God is part of the the hero who dies to save another.

            Should my neighborhood association expand the sidewalks next summer? I agree that God should be a part of the decision in some generic sense, but in terms of specific guidance, I don’t see how it can be.

          • Vaughn Harold

            Taxation should be kept simple.
            Live within the means that God provides.
            Do not covet.
            Man should be able to provide for the needs of his family.

            Etc

          • JSobieski

            slogans, not actually actionable information.

            How does your bullet points tell me how to vote in a school board election? Or regarding the additional sidewalk? Income vs. flat?

            How does God help me in these decisions besides the most generic way that the phrase can be used?

            If you use language in ways that people cannot undertstand or relate to, what exactly are you trying to accomplish by communicating?

          • Vaughn Harold

            How does your bullet points tell me how to vote in a school board election?
            teach the basics of education, not their job to mold minds

            Or regarding the additional sidewalk? Can we afford it

            Income vs. flat? God only suggest 10% for his work, I suppose that the high water mark.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            with that comment.

          • Vaughn Harold

            I may not articulate everything to your liking, but I’ll take biblical principle over the crap that our nation is living by today.

            Now go play somewhere else, unless you truely want to say something other than smerk.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            You have yet to explain or defend the crap that you started this thread with. And when I say “crap” let me note that in context, here, it’s utter crap. It’s not that you don’t articulate to my liking, it’s that you are apparently attempting to make some sort of a point that is somehow related to both theology and history and you understand neither so you change the definition of words that have common meaning and make up your own facts.

            And then you get all pissy when it”s pointed out to you that you’ve painted yourself into a corner.

            I’ll be happy to say something. We should be looking at the totality of each candidate’s positions, his or her consistency over time and their record both politically and in the private sector. Then we should pay a modicum of attention to their ethics and morality.

            Experience, willingness to expound on what they consider to be the critical issues of the day, including what they intend to do if elected are the number one considerations. After that, I’m concerned about the candidate’s ability to actually accomplish what they are proposing. What sort of record of accomplishing difficult tasks do they have and how does that record relate to the current cycle. Finally, I want to know what the probability of the candidate actually keeping his or her word is so I’ve got some feel for whether I’m being lied to.

            Frankly, I really couldn’t care less who the candidate sleeps with if the candidate’s spouse doesn’t care. I care a lot if the candidate has a history of playing voters for fools. I don’t much care if a candidate was at one time a complete reprobate if they’ve since turned their life around and become productive, and I certainly don’t much care why they were able to make the turn. I could care less which house of worship the candidate attends or if they ever attend. I don’t care if they believe in God or god. I do care if they worship Mother Earth or at the altar of Big Government (not the website, I’d probably be ok with that).

            Bottom line, right positions on issues, consistently held. Experience that indicates that the candidate can get a good portion of the things I consider most critical accomplished. A solid record of keeping his or her word. An understanding of what “good character” means. In that order.

            That said, I’ve not been smirking in this thread. This is serious stuff and ignorant and misinformed opinions like you’ve been tossing around do far more damage to the party as a whole, and to individual candidates when applied to them, than anything the left can toss over the fence. This is basically the SingleIssueValuesVoter anthem, which was summed up quite nicely in your snide comment below – paraphrase, “win without us” – and is a total distraction from the real work of winning and changing the government.

          • acat

            based on these principles.

            Take a look at the writings of the time, the dealmaking and bribery and chicanery that are going on today are the same as they were yesterday, and likely will be the same tomorrow.

            If you *really* want to reduce them, work to shrink the size of government. At least, if there’s a smaller trough, the number of pigs will be reduced…

            Mew

          • Vaughn Harold

            no text here

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            completely unsupportable sentence.

            And it has exactly nothing to do with any of the discussions going on here.

          • aesthete

            We can “afford” plenty with sufficient taxes. The Scandanavian states manage about ~50% confiscation of GDP, and can afford much with it. Is every sidewalk we can afford a good expenditure?

            What are the “basics” of education? Can you Biblically justify them? There was, after all, no compulsory education in the Bible, except perhaps some teaching of the Torah during certain periods.

            Nothing in the Bible says anything about tax rates. “Under 10%” is a nice slogan, but I can tell you right now that I pay more than 10% of my income towards my house and food. Does that mean that I value either one above God, and that it is ergo a violation of the 10 Commandments? No, nor does a > 10% tax rate imply such. We needed taxes much higher than 10% to win WWII. Was that immoral?

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            had very little to do with “his work”, and rather much more to do with honoring God with our first-fruits. Any discussion of tithing is almost always interspersed with commentary about “offerings” that are over and above the tithe. Additionally, the money was to be used for maintenance of the church and it’s works.

            There is exactly one passage that relates in any way to “taxes” and that would be the passage where Jesus asked whose picture is on the coin and when told “Caesar’s” he said, “Render unto Caesar…” The passage and the quote render a distinct and bright line between church government and secular government.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            And then duck.

          • JSobieski

            Heck, even within the universe of this thread, it seems laughable to consider anything sensible. We can’t even agree on the definition of words.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            since 1976 and toss of an indecipherable three sentences with no beginning, no end and no point. and, there’s an “a” in bastard. You couldn’t successfully explain that comment with 25,000 words, so don’t bother. We’ll rack it up to drinking too much communion wine.

            Let me toss out a couple of other campaigns for you.

            1988 (I did miss that one). Bush1 won that one because GovMikie was easily the worst candidate that the Dems could have nominated. Even worse than “I’ll raise your taxes” Walter Mondale in 1984. Neither of those elections tipped, or were even influenced, by theology.

            1992 Bush1 lied, Perot ran 3rd party.

            1996 what can we say but Bob Dole.

            1972 McGovern the socialist v Nixon the Nixon.

            1968 Nixon had a secret plan to get us out of Vietnam and Humphrey had an anchor known as LBJ.

            1964 the Daisy commercial.

            1960 here’s an election that could have been influenced by theology. Except JFK won it.

            I can do another couple of decades if you’d like. We have to back to Al Smith before we actually get to an election where theology actually played a role in picking the winner.

          • Vaughn Harold

            there is such an uproar over Perry being an evangelical and leading a pray event, or Romney being a morman, or Obama sitting in the pew of Rev Wright?

            Or Ronald Reagan endorsing Christianity or Bush’s religion on his sleeve?

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Perry leading a “pray event”. This was standard leftist “stuff against the wall” screeching about the “separation of church and state”. It was hot stuff for less than a day and won’t be brought up again unless Perry is unable to put together a paragraph to drive a stake through their heart. It has exactly nothing to do with “theology”, rather it’s all politics.

            Romney being a Mormon. Is an ongoing farce. Please note that the most vociferous of the folks making comments to the effect that LDS theology is incompatible with Christian theology include in their remarks something to the effect that they don’t like Romney in the primary because of his record, not because of his religion and they will vote for him in the general if he wins the primary. There are likely a small group who will not vote for Romney because of his association with LDS and there is an equal group who will be motivated to vote for him for exactly that reason. Net Zero.

            Obama in Wright’s church was not a theological argument, it was an argument about how someone could spend 20 years listening to secular damnation of this country and call himself an American.

            Reagan’s endorsement of Christianity, such as it was, had zeo impact on either of his elections and Bush’s almost cost him an election when Gore publicized his DWI arrest and the good religious people stayed home.

            This stupidity that you’re pushing, Vaughn, is nothing more than your completely unfounded opinion about the impact on religion and politics.

          • aesthete

            in a country of 300 million is that idiots can and do vote. In a country with our media, that means that said idiots get a lot of attention and focus.

          • JSobieski

            Never before I have come into contact with someone so determined to take the meanings of words like religion and theology totally outside of

            How was theology a part of the 1980 Presidential campaign? I must have missed that debate. You define religion so narrowly that Christianity is NOT a religion. Yet you define theology so broadly, the every election is about theology.

            Why not just use the definitions that most people use. Instead of arguing by your odd definitions, why not just communicate your ideas using the words as they are commonly defined?

            You will be less frustrated if you use normal English terminology.

            Jesus was plain spoken. To my knowledge, he never argued about a definition. If you want to communicate with others, you have to use a common language.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      But I think you’re short-sighted.

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      ..no…text..here..

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        I’m off work today so when I found something small and helpless to play with, I just couldn’t resist.

        I’m a certifiably bad person.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          no additional text here

          • acat

            Hey, you brought up holy wars…

            Mew

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            And, yeah, Holy Wars will continue until Armageddon. I was actually referring to the primary election holy wars at RS. I know they’ll end by Nov. 6th, 2012 for this election cycle, but was naively hoping for a little sooner than that.

          • acat

            Once someone clinches the nom, the Red State holy wars will die down as we all back whoever the nominee is.

            I’m ready to support just about any of them…

            Mew

          • SoFiMil

            Unlike the Huckster and Ron Paul who didn’t get our when they should. Romney also whole-heartedly backed the winner (McCain). Guess that makes 2 good things.

      • Doc Holliday

        about no churches, and religion being anathema, Vaughn is actually espousing at least some beliefs that fit very well in the historically mainline protestant churches, particularly the Reformed Church.

        I would go into more detail, but I really don’t want to.

        btw, the over on this thread is 800+ on intrade lol.

        • Doc Holliday

          of course their are gaping holes, I don’t remember what he said about the Bible as revelation.

          But y’all can believe what you want, it is all good with me :)

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            The problem, as you noted, are the gaping holes which instantly remove all credibility from the author and invalidate the argument.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            You could fire a Cannon through those holes.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            I come up with a perfectly good pun and then misspell the word.

            CANON. You could fire a Canon through those holes. CANON.

          • Doc Holliday

            I do think Vaughn can believe what he wants to, maybe not teach Sunday School, but he can believe what he wants.

            I am calling for a block on the rest of this thread

            now I am doing that spider fingers thing :)

      • Vaughn Harold

        how that works out for ya!

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          no–text–here

          • Vaughn Harold

            I let my emotions get the best of me for a moment, Hate when that happens.. Enough said, I’ll crawl back into my hole.

          • JSobieski

            Not only did this thread crash my Vista desktop, but my rate for spelling errors is getting to the point where I am really glad that I post annonymously.

            Don’t crawl into any holes.

            Peace!

        • JSobieski

          I presume nobody hear, regardless of metaphysical world view is so immortal that they would throw the world future down a rathole just out of spite?

  • irishgirl

    So if the following has already been pointed out, sorry, but this is pretty interesting in light of the topic.
    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/111010
    I listen to American Family radio every daya and they are all over this.

  • aesthete

    1) Mormons really, really want to be part of the 700 Club (who knew)?

    2) The “Are papists Christians” debate is still a thing.

    3) People have really dumb beliefs, “really dumb beliefs” defined as anything which disagrees with my own enlightened views, of course.

    Did I miss anything?

    • acat

      ..religion and politics is still a devil’s brew…

      Mew

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        indeed the Devil’s Brew…

      • westcoastpatriette

        did you catch the comment CincoSolas left you yesterday about the two kingdoms? I intercepted the link he provided and it is really good. Not sure if you missed it.

        • acat

          (and feel no need to belabour the point)

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      Although… I don’t need the 700 club membership… just need to know that I’m not ostracized in politics for my religion.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        It’s more than enough to be ostracized in politics for your politics.

        • Doc Holliday

          see the natural ones are better than the ones you call mbeck :)

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          Being shouted down is an exercise in courage and humility… and if we bear it well, we come off dignified and with integrity.

      • aesthete

        It’s so apparent that all of your postings on RS are just a bid to gain entrance to that sweet, sweet 700 Club membership.

    • Doc Holliday

      conservatives can still get distracted by a good ol’ fashioned theology fight?

      well, on second thought, I think that was implied.

      • aesthete

        of numero tres.

    • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

      (no offense to acat, who does yeo-mouser’s work, but the former would doubtless have worked Zeus and lobsters in by now … )

      • aesthete

        And yes, he was fun to have around for these discussions.

        • Vaughn Harold

          Very true

      • JSobieski

        Probably the funnest person I know for engaging in a philosophy of law or other form of applied metaphysics kind of argument. He had a naturally disarming personal that made it possible to argue vigorously while never crossing that line into pure combat.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        .

        • JSobieski

          Something about the Bird always seemed to annoy you

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            I wasn’t happy that he couldn’t brook any disagreement on TARP.

          • JSobieski

            I myself fell into the category of being opposed, but a lot of that was based on the lack of a public case being made in favor.

            Never before has $800B been spent with less rational justification. Months later, we did it again.

            Anyway, I realize that being a moderator can be a chore…. so thanks!

      • acat

        Evidently, I missed Birdmojo… worth googling the archives?

        Mew

        • aesthete

          He was a pretty fun guy, but he did have a big mouth on him: that was part of the charm, of course, but like Achance, he sometimes didn’t know when to let sleeping dogs lie. Some people know that discretion is the better part of valor and that RS is not a free speech zone, but rather a moderated zone. Others… don’t. He’s still kicking around on the internet; I read his blog for a good while, and I wish he’d make his way around here again. He was a character and a heck of a debater, if nothing else.

        • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

          Neil is quite right–his end was not pretty and I have no wish to relive it; nor was I advocating his return in my note to aesthete, merely imagining how much longer and uglier this post might have run had he been here. But for a time he was the resident non-Christian keenest to expose the ill-preparedness of some of the evangelicals here in handling objective truth, which I took as a net positive in spite of our diametric opposition of motivation.

          • aesthete

            He was just darned good at playing devil’s advocate, and really enjoyed the hell out of it (no word play intended).

  • thosjefferson

    Why does the media (and RedState) ignore what these same so-called Christian ministers say about Catholicism? Jeffress says Satan is behind the Roman Catholic Church.

    All this publicity is exactly what Jeffress wants: he’s raking in the money from foolish evangelicals who buy into his hatred. Rick Perry is pathetic, resorting to Jeffress to make a not-so-subtle case against Romney.

    I hope Republicans see the Perry/Jeffress tactic for what it is: Perry trying to undermine Romney while keeping his hands “clean,” and Jeffress making money.

    • kyconservative

      He is Baptist you know….