Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Can a Mormon become president?
Posted by: McQ on Monday, November 27, 2006

Interesting article with that title at Time/CNN. It's a good question. Despite the fact that we, as a country, claim that any citizen can become president, is that really true? Is it true for a woman? Blacks?

To this point, obviously, no. And religion is no different. I recall, as a kid, listening too discussions in which participants wondered where John F. Kennedy's allegiance would be if he were elected president - the Catholic Church or the Constitution. Kennedy tried to allay those fears by telling anyone who'd listen that he wasn't the Catholic candidate for president, but instead, the Democratic party's candidate for president.

Mitt Romney faces a very similar challenge if he is serious about running for president. And he faces that challenge from the very same people who wondered about Kennedy's Catholic faith. Evangelical Christians:
Even if the church succeeds in its public relations offensive, Romney still has some explaining of his own to do, particularly to the Republican evangelical base, which now makes up nearly a third of the party's electorate and can wield huge power in primary states, most notably South Carolina. That's because some Evangelicals hold the view that Mormonism is not a Christian faith. Because Mormons acknowledge works of Scripture that are not in the Bible, believe that their prophets have received revelations directly from God and teach that God has a physical body, Evangelicals consider them heretics. The Southern Baptist Convention lists the LDS church under Cults and Sects, along with Scientology.
Obviously evangelicals, especially in the south, comprise a very large, mostly Republican faction which votes pretty darn regularly. The question, then, is can the beliefs reflected in the paragraph above be overcome by a Mormon candidate to the satisfaction of Evangelical Christians? Or is it still a "bridge too far"?

Between the possibility of Mitt Romney or Rudi Gulianni ending up at the top of the next Republican presidential ticket, a lot of evangelicals are going to have to do some serious soul searching concerning Republican candidates. Can they find it in themselves to support such candidates or are Republicans going to have to count on these candidates, if they are indeed the party's choice, attracting more secular moderates to the party than the evangelicals they lose to pull off a victory?

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side of things, a fellow I think could be the presumptive VP candidate for just about anyone who is chosen to run for president on the '08 Democratic ticket is already working well in formerly uncharted (or are they formerly abandoned) waters:
In the latest sign that the “God gap” between Republicans and Democrats is narrowing, one of America’s biggest evangelical churches will this week welcome Senator Barack Obama, the rising African-American star of the Democratic party who has become a leading contender for the 2008 presidential elections.

Obama will appear on Friday at the Saddleback church in Lake Forest, California, where at least 20,000 conservative Christians gather each week for services led by Pastor Rick Warren, the evangelical author of the bestselling inspirational book The Purpose Driven Life.

[...]

Yet Obama has made a point of courting evangelical Christians. A speech he delivered to a Christian group at a Washington church last June was described by the Washingtonian magazine as “perhaps the most important dissection of the role of faith made by any Democratic politician in half a century”.

In a bestselling new memoir, The Audacity of Hope, and in numerous television interviews, he has urged his Democratic colleagues not to “avoid the conversation about religious values”.

He said recently: “I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives. We need to understand that Americans are a religious people. Substantially more Americans believe in angels than in evolution.”
Discuss.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"the rising African-American star of the Democratic party" = Current darling of the media elite. The only thing missing is the middle name "token" (I just saw that South Park episode in rerun a few nights ago).

This felch-a-thon over Senator Obama is getting a bit much alredy. Let the man develop a track record before offering him a promotion. And let it happen because his achievements are many and good and positions agreeable rather than him being adequately endowed in the melanin department.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
to the first set of questions, ’yes’, a woman or a black can become president, for a woman did not choose her womanhood; same goes for black.

however...

mitt chose his faith (they may claim his "faith chose him"), and with this faith are too many articles i may respect for an individual, but not in a leader.

does he believe in the god-adam doctrine?
does he believe in spiritual marriage?
does he believe in the literal existence of the planet kolob?
does he watch battlestar galactica with no sense of irony?

these are questions which need to be asked & answered openly on live tv.
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
D makes a good (& seemingly obvious to us proles) point: don’t embrace racism by lofting obama to the cathedral rafters just so we can feel good about ourselves.

this ties right back in w/ mitt: anyone seeking the highest office must endure the highest scrutiny. no passes. no exceptions.
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
I don’t see the big deal. I’m mildly to moderately religious, depending you your perspective. I believe in God but only go to Church a handful of times a year.

I’m more concerned about what Romey will do on issues and less concerned as to why. I’ll compare his scorecard against the likes of McCain and Guiliani.

That fact he’s a Mormon, I don’t really give a flying f... It’s what he says he’ll do and how much I believe he’ll follow through on that.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I’m in agreement with D and windowlicker regarding Obama, however there are faith based issues with Obama, as well. I wrote a brief piece on this issue about a month ago. While Democrats have enjoyed the support of the, admittedly small, Muslim community in the past few election cycles (2002, 2004, 2006), Muslims, as a rule, have been strong supporters of the Republicans in the past (2000, in particular saw fairly widespread support for Bush). Should the Democrats nominate Senator Obama for either the Presidency or Vice Presidency, they are in for quite a rude awakening. Obama is an apostate Muslim. Now the media and the D’s can and will try to spin this any way they can, but this inconvenient truth (pun intended) will not simply go away. I’m not expecting CAIR, MPAC, and the rest to openly endorse the Republican candidate, whomever that might be, but expect Muslim communities to strongly oppose the D’s over this issue. While the Muslim vote is not particularly important in 49 of the 50 states, it is quite important in Michigan, which is normally fairly solid D territory. IF, and that is an intentionally big if, Republicans can somehow manage to sway Muslim voters back to their side of the aisle, Michigan may become a potential battleground state in the 2008 election. An Obama nomination will end Muslim support of Democrats, it remains to be seen whether Republicans will have the political savvy to take advantage of this or simply let Muslim voters stay home on election night.

Regarding religion for the other candidates, it has always been my view, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that the central thesis of evangelical Protestant Christianity is that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was the Son of God and that he died to atone for mankind’s sins. As far as I know, the Mormon Church is inline with this belief. Why on earth would evangelicals oppose the nomination of a religious man who accepts this belief over a much more secular candidate like Giuliani?
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Obama is an apostate Muslim
Now that’s a can of worms! If he was elected then, what the outcry be from the middle east? Would the Saudi’s want the death penalty? Would any devout muslim work in conjunction with him?

Interesting...
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Omar,

I have always wondered where it is said that Obama was ever a muslim? His father was one right? But wasn’t he raised entirely by his mother?

I believe the problems some Christians have with mormons is the weird beliefs held by some sects. Like that Jesus and Satan were brothers, that God was once a mortal man like you or I, and was given our planet to be God over, that we can do this too once we get to mormon heaven, and other things.

Mormonism to me seems to be really interesting in studying the growth and development of cults to religions. as it’s pretty much a cult that has become an accepted religion. It could be a lot like what scientology will look like in a hundred years or so.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Mormons aren’t Christians. The idea that a non-Christian will ever be nominated by the GOP in our lifetimes is pure fantasy.
Regarding religion for the other candidates, it has always been my view, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that the central thesis of evangelical Protestant Christianity is that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was the Son of God and that he died to atone for mankind’s sins. As far as I know, the Mormon Church is inline with this belief. Why on earth would evangelicals oppose the nomination of a religious man who accepts this belief over a much more secular candidate like Giuliani?
Guiliani is a nominal Christian. Romney is not.

Mormoms don’t believe in a triune God and don’t baptize their children in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Catholics do. Protestants do. Mormons don’t.

And hard core evangelicals on the right, i.e., primary voters, understand this.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
"there are faith based issues with Obama, as well"

Even that is a substantive discussion of his fitness as a candidate. I know little of his religious background so cannot comment on that. However, anyone who claims the mantle of faith is setting himself up for higher scrutiny in that regard and had better have his alibis in order.

AFA Romney is concerned, his professions of faith are not of nearly as much concern to me as his record as MA Governor. Basically his accomplishments are minimal save the political exiling of Billy Bulger (former State Senate and U. Mass. Prez and brother of fugitive mafioso James "Whitey" Bulger) and Matt Amorello (late of the Turnpike Authority). In sum, he is an empty suit from an executive standpoint. Granted, he was a Republican governor facing a veto-proof Democratic legislature so his exec. authority was limited. However, he rarely exercised the bully pulpit to attract public opposition to legislative action save his vehemet opposition to gay marriage.

For the benefit of the national Republican party I hope his name is dropped from the front-runner list soon.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
I know it will come as no surprise to those familiar with this site, but mkultra is mistaken.
Mormoms don’t believe in a triune God and don’t baptize their children in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Catholics do. Protestants do. Mormons don’t.
Mormons do baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If the quibble is "well Mormons’ concept of what that means is different from Catholics’ or Protestants’ concept", the answer is "yeah, how is that different from the disagreement between Catholics and Protestants over how and when to baptize?" Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, lived on earth, died for our sins and rose on the third day. How does that make them non-Christians?

And theological nitpicking aside, if you think that Guiliani is a "nominal Christian" but a man who belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not, then you have a different idea of what "nominal" means than the rest of us.
 
Written By: jinnmabe
URL: http://
Mormoms ... don’t baptize their children in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
unless they’re dead.

funny, mormons eschew that name in favor of LDS, but still hold onto (most of) their founding fathers’ beliefs. that i know of, there are no core beliefs that can distinguish a "mormon" from an LDS member.

for me, my troubles w/ the LDS church come down to this: their fruits demonstrate they believe they are better than other (lesser?) forms of christianity. seems that christ wasn’t dead enough for them, and there’s much more work to be done. this is clear when considering the 3 levels of heaven - and how through the work of the devout mormon - can they be gained.
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
Mormons aren’t Christians.
And growing up Catholic I was informed by some folks (from Gordon-Conwell theological seminary, no less) from one of the protestant wings of christianity that I wasn’t a Christian either.

It was okay though, because as a Catholic, I was taught they were going to hell.

And I too can remember my protestant grand parents worrying about that Papist, rum-running Kennedy guy.

Ah, religion, such a lovely, brotherly, loving, human institution.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Regarding religion for the other candidates, it has always been my view, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that the central thesis of evangelical Protestant Christianity is that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was the Son of God and that he died to atone for mankind’s sins. As far as I know, the Mormon Church is inline with this belief. Why on earth would evangelicals oppose the nomination of a religious man who accepts this belief over a much more secular candidate like Giuliani?
I think you have to read the article to get a better idea of why their belief in Christ just isn’t enough.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I’m sure the Democratic candidate would love for the GOP to spend its time debating obscure points of Christian theology to determine whether or not Mitt was officially a Christian-according-to-the-Catholics-but-not-to-the-Baptists. This bodes stupid.
 
Written By: jinnmabe
URL: http://
and just how do the democrats fare when catholics debate the "obscure points" of the sanctity of life?
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
I have always wondered where it is said that Obama was ever a muslim? His father was one right? But wasn’t he raised entirely by his mother?
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born to a Kenyan father and an American mother. His father Barack Obama, Sr. was born to Muslim parents, although later became non-practicing (although formally agnostic) after travelling to the West. After Senator Obama’s parents were divorced, his mother married an Indonesian Muslim man and they moved to Jakarta where Senator Obama was educated in a Muslim school for two years, then two years in a Catholic school. By birth (father) and later adoption (step-father), Senator Obama is a Muslim, although he converted to the United Church of Christ later in life.

The Senator was raised by his maternal grandparents in Hawaii from age 10 on. I do not know what their religious affiliation is (if any).

Obama’s problem is not just that he’s an a secularist or agnostic apostate; it’s that he’s openly evangelizing for his new chosen religion (United Church of Christ). He is running very strongly on his new religious identity (versus the general anti-religion perception of the Democratic party). Apostasy, while perhaps not the greatest sin of all, is definitely top 5 amongst most Muslims. This is very much a line in the sand for us. If Democrats hope to enjoy continued Muslim support, they will dump Obama. OTOH, if they charge ahead with their new golden boy as the next Presidential (or Vice Presidential) nominee, then there will be a great opportunity for Republicans to invite Muslims back to the party. Again, we’re only talking about 7 million or so people here, but the numbers are growing and Muslims have the potential to upset a close race in states like Michigan.

Regarding the LDS v. Evangelical thing: the article McQ quoted and some of the comments here have certainly brought me a little more clarity on this issue. As I see it, however, it still really boils down to whether evangelicals are comfortable with a man who, despite some theological oddities, still professes belief in Jesus Christ (PBUH) and appears to live up to the ideals of Christianity in his personal life [Romney]. If not, then will they give their support to a man whose social views are not in line with their own and whose personal life is anything but Christian [Giuliani]?
The idea that a non-Christian will ever be nominated by the GOP in our lifetimes is pure fantasy.
As an intersting trivia note here, let’s assume that the bulk of evangelicals live in the traditional "South," the 11 states of the former Confederate States of America. During the American Civil War, one of the most prominent members of the evangelical South’s cabinet (and widely regarded as the most talented man in the CSA’s government) was an Orthodox Jew, Judah Philip Benjamin. Rather than harangue President Davis over his appointment of a Jew to such high offices as Attorney General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State, the voters supported him and his Cabinet. Indeed, had the CSA gained its independence, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that Judah Benjamin might have become a Senator, a Governor, or even President. I suspect that evangelical voters of today, much like their forefathers, would be willing to consider a candidate on their merits rather than just their acceptance of the divinity of Jesus Christ (PBUH). If it could happen during the evangelical revival of the 1860’s, why not now?
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Mormonism to me seems to be really interesting in studying the growth and development of cults to religions. as it’s pretty much a cult that has become an accepted religion.
Cult = new religion I don’t like. Unless it is an old religion I don’t like, as Islam is for many bigots at LGF, and as Catholicism was for a long time in Know-Nothing America.

Bob Jones Sr., of the University, said of Roman Catholic Al Smith’s candidacy for prez in 1928: "I’d rather see a n*gger in the White House." And he meant it.

Look, I’m not a Mitt Romney fan, but if we are going to start down the road of ridiculing his specific religious beliefs, well, I think only deluded fools believe that bodiless spirits impregnate Jewish virgins who then give birth to a god, who in turn is killed, rises from the dead, and is about to come back as the believers are all raptured. But I refrain from such commentary as a general rule, because it is not civil — but I will strike it up anytime some bigots purport to stand in judgment of the "silly" beliefs of other religionists.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://inactivist.org/
I think that the excitement that secular conservatives show for a Romney run shows how little they understand evangelicals.

Doctrine matters. Now we can engage in tedious arguments about the validity of Mormonism, but they won’t convince any evangelicals. The question that remains is whether secular conservatives are going to be foolish enough to push forward a candidate that won’t gain evangelical support. Do they want to win or lose?
 
Written By: John
URL: http://locustsandhoney.blogspot.com
Mona -
They don’t have to ridicule their belief (or non-beliefs) not to vote for the man (Obama, or Romney).
It won’t be hard to guess what Jerry Foulwell is going to say about them and they may ’hear’ it from the pulpit at their local church. They may not actually ’say’ a lot in public, they just won’t vote for them.

And, while entertaining when put the way you did, your defense is certainly not going to go any distance in convincing someone who holds their faith as reality that they ought to listen to you anyway.

We’re talking about people who were/are worried that Harry Potter is going to cause kids to practice satanism.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
We’re talking about people who were/are worried that Harry Potter is going to cause kids to practice satanism.
Which is so pathetic I want to spit. We have a lady in GA who is taking a case to the GA supreme Court to have the books banned from public school libraries. She’s been shot down at every level so far but still gets the SC presentation. To me, she should spend more time with her kids and less time worrying about mine.

I still want to know what the reaction of the Middle East would be if Obama were to be elected. Would they hate him worse than Bush? Make them wish Bush could have stuck around for a third term? Unite them against us?
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
I don’t know I’m a Catholoc, BUT from my perspective you boys and girls are missing the boat on Evangelicals. They are SOCIAL CONSRVATIVES, by-and-large. Yes, I’m sure an Evangelical Protestant would LOVE to have one of his or her "brethren" or Deacon or Elder elected POTUS. But they’ll vote for George Bush, too. They’ll vote for Reagan, divorced, not a regular church-goer at all. They vote the issues of Social Conservatism.

The questions are:
1) Is Romney for or against gay marriage, I use "marriage" loosely, does he have a stand on Civil Unions or any other state-sponsored/sanctioned blessing of gay couples?
2) Will he support a Federal Marriage Amendment?
3) What is his take on abortion?
4) What is his stand on Roe v. Wade?
5) How will he deal with the SCOTUS and the issue of abortion?

The question is NOT, whether or not we will be married in Heaven or which particular Heaven we will be in, or whether Jesus came to America or the like? And I think that many here reveal their ignorace, and I mean that LITERALLY-ignorance, lack of knowledge of, so-called Evangelicals. "Evangelical" is also a term of art, meaning I believe those who proselytize. The Religious Right is largely Protestant and made up of two seperate groups, Evangelical Christians and Pentecostal Christians. They aren’t the same thing. Pentecostals believe in "speaking in Tongues", "The Laying on of Hands" for healing...Evangelicals tend more towards the Literal interpetation but aren’t as ..."mystical" as Evangelicals. And my point is: So-called "Evangelical Republican Voters" ALREADY HAVE THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE AMONGST THEMSELVES... and yet they vote Republican and don’t first ask if the Bible is the Literal Truth and then if a candidate believes that s/he can speak the language of Angels.

Sulliavan et al. in asking this question really reveal an lack of understanding about the Protestant Right, to repeat it is NOT monolithic in its theology today...and it has NO problem cooperating with we Godless, Mary-Worshipping Papists when the need arises. I think that a discussion of the "Mormon Question" reveals more about those who ask about it than it does about the voters, the Protestant Fundamental Right is politically sophisticated enough to recognize that the important thing is to win at the ballot box, and not to worry about the finer points of theology.

That having been said, Romney’s problem with the Right voter may be his RECORD AS GOVERNOR, not his Mormonism. I have read, that Romney was Pro Choice in running for Governor, was not opposed to Gay Marriage-his opposition is to COURT-ORDERED Gay Marriage, IIRC. So Romney may be "soft" on these issues and lose votes, it’s not his membership in the LDS that’s going to give pause. IF he attempts to change now, he opens himself up to "Kerryism"-the Flip-Flopper.

Bottom-Line: Romney’s problems with Social Conservatives have less to do with his LDS membership and what more with what he said running for Governor of MA.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Regarding religion for the other candidates, it has always been my view, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that the central thesis of evangelical Protestant Christianity is that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was the Son of God and that he died to atone for mankind’s sins. As far as I know, the Mormon Church is inline with this belief. Why on earth would evangelicals oppose the nomination of a religious man who accepts this belief over a much more secular candidate like Giuliani?
The difference comes in the basic nature of Jesus and God. Christians believe that Jesus is, to quote the Nicene Creed, "of one being with the Father". Christians, like Jews and Muslims, believe there is only one God, who is both omnipotent and omniscient, who created all that is.

Mormons believe that Jesus is the son of God in the same sense that George W. Bush is the son of George H. W. Bush. In other words, two completely separate beings. Moreover, every planet has its own god. God is the god of Earth, but not of other planets and certainly not of the universe. This multi-planet doctrine may be changing, though. Mormons also believe that men can become God, and that God was once a man. So, the Mormon religion isn’t even a monotheistic religion.

This isn’t to say that all Mormons are polytheists. Rank-and-file Mormons, in my experience, have even less knowledge of what their faith teaches than rank-and-file Christians.

Some Christians will have trouble with all this, but I will be surprised if Romney’s religion becomes a litmus test for the Republicans.
 
Written By: BrianOfAtlanta
URL: http://
The religiosity of candidates for President in ’08 is obviously going to be an important issue in the U.S., as it is every election in Turkey, Egypt, and Iran.

The Dems are not going to lose Michigan in ’08, regardless of how Muslims in Detroit vote, so Mr. Obama’s ’apostacy’ is moot. As for Mr. Romney, John Kennedy set the example when he deliberately over-rode all of his political advisors and went to campaign in the primary in Protestant West Virginia, and won! His political courage in confronting the religious issue directly earned him an eventual nomination, and then the presidency. When Mr. Kennedy was grilled in West Virginia about his Catholicism, he simply retorted, "No one ever asked me about my religion in the South Pacific," and the issue quickly became a non-issue for patriotic American Protestants.

And about this "apostacy": Isn’t the entire concept of ’apostacy,’ ’heresy,’ and ’infidel’ something of a non-sequitor for a free people living in a free land? If the imams of Detroit Muslims decry Mr. Obama’s apostacy in their Friday sermons, the entire rest of a free country will laugh at the medieval absurdity, and then cast their votes for the ’apostate.’

’Be free.’
 
Written By: a Duoist
URL: http://www.duoism.org
when he deliberately over-rode all of his political advisors and went to campaign in the primary in Protestant West Virginia, and won! His political courage in confronting the religious issue directly earned him an eventual nomination, and then the presidency
Well ACTUALLY it was dead voters in South Texas and Chicago, but we get your drift.
We’re talking about people who were/are worried that Harry Potter is going to cause kids to practice satanism.
Which probably says more about Looker than Fundamentalists...them Christianists is soooo stoopit. Only Looker you ignore the fact she probably voted for Dubya. You fail to distinguish between her suit, which is her attempting at one level to influence governmental policy, with her realization that a vote for Gore/Kerry will NOT advance her generalized concerns and so she votes Dubya, though she may also file suit for particularized concerns. Again, move past your negative stereotypes and begin to examine your enemy...as Sun Tzu wrote:
If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe - I’d agree, except you’re talking religions that aren’t American main-stream - there’s a fair number of protestants & catholics who don’t know diddly about Mormons and the (Kolob example provided previously) info they DO have is anywhere from accurate to off the wall as to what Mormon’s believe.
Mona’s demo of how anything can be made to sound off the wall notwithstanding Romney may have to defend himself/his religion from some wild accusations and mischaracterizations.

The Kennedy/Catholic thing was a waypoint on the trail. We went through the fear that a Catholic would start answering to the Pope and passed on, but it was there, and normally sane people discussed it and actually worried about it.

Mormons, (and Muslims) are still, ’out there’ for a lot of people.
Being an agnostic I don’t vote based on religion, but I know a fair number of people who will. I think that voting block is big enough to kill off Romney as a candidate. When I see otherwise intelligent people saying things like "he’s a Mormon" about mutual acquaintances in much the same fashion I’d expect them to say "he worships Baal", what am I to think?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
This isn’t to say that all Mormons are polytheists. Rank-and-file Mormons, in my experience, have even less knowledge of what their faith teaches than rank-and-file Christians.
And many Jews have, for centuries, described Xianity as polytheism. The whole doctrine of the Trinity is just a ways of shoveling three gods into one, in no intellectually coherent fashion.

Then there is the Cult of Mary and the Saints in Catholicism. In practice, not distinguishable from polytheism, no matter how much they prattle that the prayer to these icons is "merely intercessory." Even the honorifics appended to Mary derive, frequently enough, from pagan Goddess worship.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://inactivist.org/
Only Looker you ignore the fact she probably voted for Dubya. You fail to distinguish between her suit, which is her attempting at one level to influence governmental policy, with her realization that a vote for Gore/Kerry will NOT advance her generalized concerns and so she votes Dubya, though she may also file suit for particularized concerns.
To be accurate, I never mentioned a law-suit, that was another poster.

and you don’t know specficially who she voted for, or if she voted at all, and, more specifically that has nothing to do with how she would have voted if George Bush had written the Harry Potter novels and not Ms Rowling.
We’re talking about decisions she might make based on the religion of the candidate, and Bush is main-stream enough not to be offensive even to someone who thinks Harry Potter is a practical guide to satanic worship, so I’m not sure how your knowledge of the ’enemy’ applies in the example Mr Tzu.

None of these folks I’ve referred to is my enemy and I avoid discussing religion with them so’s I can keep them that way.

That and politics...heh.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Cult = new religion I don’t like.
Yes, thats sort of what I was getting at. Christianity certainly was considered a cult in the first couple of centuries, now look at it 2000 years later. Mormonism was considered a cult in the 19th century, and though it is still considered one be some, it’s much more excepted and such. Scientology is considered a cult now, but what about in 200 years from now?
After Senator Obama’s parents were divorced, his mother married an Indonesian Muslim man and they moved to Jakarta where Senator Obama was educated in a Muslim school for two years, then two years in a Catholic school. By birth (father) and later adoption (step-father), Senator Obama is a Muslim, although he converted to the United Church of Christ later in life.
Thats kind of what I dont get Omar. I’m sure it’s different for muslims, but as a fairly non-religious guy, I don’t see all that as meaning he’s muslim. He spent as much time in catholic school as muslim school, and all of this before he was 10. His one constant in his childhood seems to be his mother and her family and not his father or step father. When I think of apostacy, I think of willfully leaving one faith for another, not something done in their childhood when the parents have the greatest affect on what the child learns and does.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Between the possibility of Mitt Romney or Rudi Gulianni ending up at the top of the next Republican presidential ticket, a lot of evangelicals are going to have to do some serious soul searching concerning Republican candidates. Can they find it in themselves to support such candidates or are Republicans going to have to count on these candidates, if they are indeed the party’s choice, attracting more secular moderates to the party than the evangelicals they lose to pull off a victory?
Based on the last election....that may not be such a terrible thing. At the very least, the GOP has to give the appearance of moderation, of moving away from the Evangelicals. It’s a cut and dried calculus as McQ notes. And the answer is........based on the specific candidate. I’d think that Rudy could pull it off (and I’d love to see it myself). I don’t know nearly enough about Romney to speculate.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
This isn’t to say that all Mormons are polytheists. Rank-and-file Mormons, in my experience, have even less knowledge of what their faith teaches than rank-and-file Christians.
Rank and file Mormons are usually quite used to having "experts" who are not members of their religion tell them what they believe. So it’s not surprising to hear someone say that Mormons don’t have any knowledge of what their faith teaches. Of course, when it comes from someone who says
God is the god of Earth, but not of other planets and certainly not of the universe
it’s easy to see why people who aren’t Mormons would be confused and mischaracterize or misstate actual Mormon beliefs.
 
Written By: jinnmabe
URL: http://
And thirdly - sorry, I reviewed my posts and saw that one might justifiably characterize my view on fundamental Christians to be that I believe ALL of them think Harry Potter = Satanism. This is not the case, I’m talking about a fringe element of the fundamentalist right, and I understand that.

I think a larger block, composed of those more towards the middle, and the Harry Potter haters, will kill Romney’s chances because some other *sshole candidate’s campaign will play the Mormon card on him here in the south.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
it’s easy to see why people who aren’t Mormons would be confused and mischaracterize or misstate actual Mormon beliefs.
thanks for illustrating my previous point.
There’s how many of us on this blog?
and already one poster has pointed out another is practicing mischaracterization....Imagine that spread across the south from Norfolk to El-Paso.

And imagine that with no one directly on-hand to refute mis-information.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I know it will come as no surprise to those familiar with this site, but mkultra is mistaken.
Mormoms don’t believe in a triune God and don’t baptize their children in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Catholics do. Protestants do. Mormons don’t.
Mormons do baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If the quibble is "well Mormons’ concept of what that means is different from Catholics’ or Protestants’ concept", the answer is "yeah, how is that different from the disagreement between Catholics and Protestants over how and when to baptize?" Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, lived on earth, died for our sins and rose on the third day. How does that make them non-Christians?
Answer: It’s different because Catholics and Protestants adhere to the Nicene Creed; Mormons don’t. They don’t baptize their children in the understanding of the creed of Christendom.

If you don’t subscribe to the creed of the faith, then you are not of that faith.

Romney is not a Christian. Doesn’t mean he is a bad person, or an immoral person. Just means he is not a Christian (and in the eyes of many is damned to spend eternity in Hell).
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Could a Mormon be elected President?

Why sure, why not? Oh there is that little primary thingie one must first attain – which a Mormon could not. But in the general, if one’s only strike against one is the fact that one is a Mormon, then sure… one could get elected, one would think.

It is an interesting discussion, though. Albeit academic (McCain is your Republican nominee – get used to it.) I ponder, how many Mormons outside of Utah, are currently sitting in a national chair? Not many, I would assume.
I believe the problems some Christians have with mormons is the weird beliefs held by some sects. Like that Jesus and Satan were brothers, that God was once a mortal man like you or I, and was given our planet to be God over, that we can do this too once we get to mormon heaven, and other things.
Written by: ChrisB
Yeah, that’s weird.
Like you, Chris, I am not a religious man. Commonly as I protest proud atop firm heathen bedrock, all religions are cults and their beliefs can I, armed with reason, beat to ridicule. The problem with wanting national commission is, that one cannot beat to ridicule those whom one wishes to be employed by.

Which, to me at least, raises a more interesting question.

Where one can point to Mormons currently sitting in national office, can one point to anyone, at least claiming to be, an atheist/agnostic sitting in national office?

Can an atheist be elected President?

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
Romney is not a Christian. Doesn’t mean he is a bad person, or an immoral person. Just means he is not a Christian (and in the eyes of many is damned to spend eternity in Hell).

That’s true, MK, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t vote for him...I mean there are lots of people who are going to Gehenna and the Lake of Fire, but who have the correct view on taxation, abortion, and Iraq. Where we go after we die is LESS important than what happens whilst we’re here. Now I freely admit this is a personal opinion of mine, but I like to hope that it is shared by many.

I still hold that the LDS is less a problem for Romney than his postions whilst running for and then governoring MA. Let’s be honest the Bay State isn’t Alabama or Wyoming and what it takes to win in Boston may cause problems in other parts of the US.

Still some point out Giuliani v. Romney and I think Social Conservatives will vote Mitt over Rudy, because Rudy has been divorced, and promiscuous and is hardly a Social Consrvative. Personally, whilst I think Rudy did a FINE job in NYC prior to 9/11, in many ways, and was inspiring ON 9/11 as someone said of Bob Kerrey, "One wild night in the South China Sea doesn’t make your a President." I think Rudy brings a LOT of baggage with him.

Finally, someone mentioned the Party "moderating". I’d make two points on that. That’s what comes from teaching the GOP a lesson and waiting for the "lessons" of ’06 to be absorbed BEFORE elelcting new leaders. Because it was Independents breaking for the Democrat’s BUT ALSO the RELIGIOUS voted Democratic, too. So all this about "moderation" is well questionable... do we NEED TO MODERATE or reacquire the Religious? Was it Evangelicals that cost Independents, yes if your Ryan Sager, no if you’re Joe, it might very well have been war weariness, scandals, and other things that brought down the GOP. My point being what we "learn" about ’06 depends on where we stood prior tot he Election. So "lessons" are pretty amorphous things.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
ponder, how many Mormons outside of Utah, are currently sitting in a national chair? Not many, I would assume.
U’uuum how about Harry Reid, a MINOR political figure in the Senate.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Can an atheist be elected President?
Not with that graveyard in my closet... you’ll have to find another candidate ;-)
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Can an atheist be elected President?
Sure if s/he holds the correct views on taxation, abortion and Iraq...
Seriously IF he’s a Steven Den Beste atheist as opposed to a Jesse Ventura atheist, AND s/he holds the correct views on taxation, abortion, and Iraq...I mean it’s a pity that s/he is going to burn in the Lake of Fire for ALL Eternity, BUT as long as my taxes go down and Roe v. Wade is repealed, well that’s his/her problem not mine.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I mean it’s a pity that s/he is going to burn in the Lake of Fire for ALL Eternity, BUT as long as my taxes go down and Roe v. Wade is repealed, well that’s his/her problem not mine.
ROTFLMAO!

 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Thats kind of what I dont get Omar. I’m sure it’s different for muslims, but as a fairly non-religious guy, I don’t see all that as meaning he’s muslim. He spent as much time in catholic school as muslim school, and all of this before he was 10. His one constant in his childhood seems to be his mother and her family and not his father or step father. When I think of apostacy, I think of willfully leaving one faith for another, not something done in their childhood when the parents have the greatest affect on what the child learns and does.

And Chris, this is where Judaism, Islam and other religions differ from Christianity. Although a highly inflammatory and tricky issue, the question "Who is a Jew?" is quite similar to the Obama situation. According to Orthodox Jews, if your mother was a Jew, then you are a Jew. You need not believe in Judaism, be circumsised (if male), go to Schul, etc. The standard for the past 3,000 years has been if you are born to a Jewish mother, then you are, by default a Jew. Islam takes several different legal approaches to this question, but they all tend to boil down to this real world application : the father is the religious head of the household; if the father is a Muslim, then the children are Muslims. In Senator Obama’s case, both his father and step-father were Muslims (practicing or not is irrelevant). He is, therefore, a Muslim. If he were simply agnostic or non-practicing, then this whole issue would be, not quite unimportant, but certainly not as hugely important as the idea that he has formally abandoned the religion of his birth and embraced (and is actually evangelizing) a new religion.
The Dems are not going to lose Michigan in ’08, regardless of how Muslims in Detroit vote, so Mr. Obama’s ’apostacy’ is moot.
Whether or not Dems lose Michigan because of Muslims is very much up in the air at this point, however I think the important point here isn’t so much the actual numbers of Muslim voters, but the media and psychological impact of CAIR, MPAC, etc. withdrawing their support from the Dems. I honestly don’t believe that CAIR, etc. has a great deal of actual grassroots influence over Muslim communities, but they do serve a important propaganda role in Democrat thought and political strategy. Democrats, on the whole, enjoy the idea of being seen as the "inclusive" party, the party that loves minorities of all stripe (ethnic, religious, etc.). They have been fairly fond of the fact that they are represented as champions of religious equality and liberty for Muslims. Now, assuming Senator Obama is nominated in 2008, let’s kick that crutch out from under the D party. They are no longer seen as champions of the "poor, oppresssed minorities." They can’t fall back on the idea that evil, ethno or religio-centric Republicans are trying to attack the Muslim community when that community is openly supporting the Republicans (or at least openly opposing the Democrats). If nothing else, they are going to have to spend a lot of money and time on damage control on this issue as well as spinning some plausible explanation of Obama’s religious beliefs (and apostasty). This, IMHO, is too much baggage for a man with a relatively short political resume to take on. Politically, he’s a liability as a Presidential nominee. He’s much better in Congress, rooting for whomever the D’s do actually nominate. Keep him local, and he’s useful. Make him national, and he becomes a target.
If the imams of Detroit Muslims decry Mr. Obama’s apostacy in their Friday sermons, the entire rest of a free country will laugh at the medieval absurdity, and then cast their votes for the ’apostate.’
See above. It’s not about the actual votes. It’s the media impact that 7 million Muslims up in arms will have.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Omar,

I would suspect that if a big deal is made of his apostasy by Muslims, it will gain him MORE votes. America is founded on individual liberty and freedom of religion and apostasy just strikes a wrong chord with most people who feel religion should be an individual’s choice.

Maybe Iran can issue a fatwa against Barrack , too - that would help him a lot, too.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Maybe Iran can issue a fatwa against Barrack , too - that would help him a lot, too.
Unless someone actually carried the fatwa out...
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
for me, my troubles w/ the LDS church come down to this: their fruits demonstrate they believe they are better than other (lesser?) forms of christianity.
I’m trying to think of a Christian sect, other than perhaps Unitarian, that doesn’t demonstrate that they believe they are better than other (lesser?) forms of Christianity.

Pat Robertson on "other lesser forms of Christianity"...
"You say you’re supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don’t have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Harun, nominating Obama burns bridges. Dems have been very insistent on the idea of building bridges in the US (bipartisanship) and abroad (discussions with Iran, Syria, NK, etc.). Should they choose to nominate him, this will fly in the face of what they have been advocating. Not that hypocrisy has ever stopped either major party in the past.
I would suspect that if a big deal is made of his apostasy by Muslims, it will gain him MORE votes. America is founded on individual liberty and freedom of religion and apostasy just strikes a wrong chord with most people who feel religion should be an individual’s choice.
Unless we’re talking about voters who take their religions seriously as opposed to their prejudices. Certainly some self-proclaimed "religious" people will jump on this as an opportunity to attack the barbaric Muslims, but think about how hypocritical this makes them look. Does not the Bible offer the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:3-7)? When a Christian abandons his faith and becomes (fill in the blank non-Christian religion), is it not a duty of his fellows to seek his redemption and return to the fold (at least for evangelical Christians)? When a Jew turns his back on Judaism, it is considered a tragedy to the community. Why then should our Judeo-Christian nation apply a different standard to Muslims? Have we no right to seek the return of our fellow? Have we no cause for considering this a tragedy? Dare we not call out hypocrisy when we see it?
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
(McCain is your Republican nominee – get used to it.)
Yours maybe. Not mine.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Omar,

I think he would gain votes among the non-religious or very mildly religious who feel most strongly that it should be a free choice. Also, while its easy to understand that religions want to try to win back any defectors, there are two problems with the Islamic solution:

1. Banning it outright, and sometime threatening apostates with death - very uncool. I’m sure there are some fine passages in the Koran which say that’s not the case, but I’m referring to the practice not the theory: see Pakistan.

2. The whole "males who marry an Islamic women must become muslim, but muslim men who marry non-muslim women of course do not" is intrinsically unfair in a world where people of both sexes have equal rights. Yes, yes, the jews do it too, but two wrong don’t make a right. I am also aware this is another practice vs. theory issue in Islam... (and note that will lose a lot of women voters as well if it were to become a big issue.)

What I suspect would really happen is that the Muslim community would be so thrilled that a sort of quasi-Muslim might be elected president, a man that had a fairly deep understanding of Islam and had lived in Islamic cultures before, that they would ignore the whole apostate thing (in public at least.) When he visited Kenya he was like some kind of rock star...

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Harun, it’s interesting that you mention Pakistan, as two of their leading jurists, Javed Ghamidi and Javid Iqbal, are both leading movements that are strongly opposed to Pakistan’s laws against apostacy. Interestingly, both of their arguments are based on Qur’anic verses.
Yes, yes, the jews do it too, but two wrong don’t make a right.
So, major world religions, one nearly 4,000 years old and the other over 1400 years old should simply abandon their major ideals because, what, they don’t jive with pop culture? Please. Next you’ll be telling me that Catholics should start ordaining women priests, because, well gosh golly it’s just not fair that they don’t.
What I suspect would really happen is that the Muslim community would be so thrilled that a sort of quasi-Muslim might be elected president, a man that had a fairly deep understanding of Islam and had lived in Islamic cultures before, that they would ignore the whole apostate thing
Senator Obama’s knowledge of Islam is probably quite limited, as his last real exposure to it was before his 10th birthday. I daresay that few of us had a real grasp of our religion prior to our teens or even twenties. Add to this the fact that he’s an openly evangelizing UCC’er and you have a man that is going to be inherently anti-Muslim, not pro. That’s bad news for the Muslim community here and I think that most of us know it. Also, why should we celebrate a man that has turned his back on Islam?

I suspect that an Obama presidency or VP’hood will result in a further breakdown of already poor US-Islam relations. Do you really think the Saudis are going to sit-down to chat with an apostate Muslim? Or the Iranians or even Iraqis? Not gonna happen.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
When a Christian abandons his faith and becomes (fill in the blank non-Christian religion), is it not a duty of his fellows to seek his redemption and return to the fold (at least for evangelical Christians)? When a Jew turns his back on Judaism, it is considered a tragedy to the community. Why then should our Judeo-Christian nation apply a different standard to Muslims? Have we no right to seek the return of our fellow? Have we no cause for considering this a tragedy? Dare we not call out hypocrisy when we see it?
When a Christian leaves the fold and embraces a different religion, it is a tragedy because he or she has left and abandoned the one true religion. When a Jew or a Muslim does it, it is good, if he or she has embraced Christianity, because he or she is now embracing the one true religion. If, OTOH, the new religion is also non-Christian, it is neither a tragedy nor a cause for celebration, as he or she is still lost.

There is no inconsistency in this line of thought.

And, quite frankly, I would expect any faithful Jew or Muslim to rearrage the words and believe the same thing. Though, of course, you would be wrong. :)
 
Written By: Hummer
URL: http://
And, quite frankly, I would expect any faithful Jew or Muslim to rearrage the words and believe the same thing. Though, of course, you would be wrong. :)
And we wonder why people blow each other up over this stuff?
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Don’t rely on opponents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for LDS doctrinal information. Go to the Mormons themselves to learn what they believe.

The Mormons have a site for people who are curious about the LDS church: http://www.mormon.org/

There’s also a site for the church members: http://www.lds.org/

Ignorance about Mormons led to some of the worst mob violence in US history in the 1830’s and 1840’s. I hope we’re far beyond that kind of hatred.
 
Written By: Thor
URL: http://
"weird beliefs held by some sects"

There is but one LDS church, they really are not secularized. You are either Mormon, (oh a term the church is trying to avoid now), or you are not Mormon. Sans the RLDS, but they really do not differ enough from the LDS to really comment about. Anything else you might be referring to would be the polygamists that are outside of the law and the church. (For the most part), but that is not for this discussion.

Mitt seems like a pretty good fellow, he brought this nation one of the best olympics that ever was on the globe! So that means he can operate and direct people, seems he is good at such.

I really know nothing else of him, but will as others pointed out, I too will check his record as a statesman! GAWD knows with the senators of his state he has to put up with, one can but wonder how good a whor* he is.

If Mitt can lead effectively, fine, if he can’t then let him stay in MA and fix that messed up state, as what is on the surface today is way the ell out there for most of the nation.

Maybe he could go run FL or CA for a few years first. At least we could get a better idea about him and more importantly his REAL abilities.

Mormons.... well most are pretty good people. After living amongst them within their own state for over 50 yrs, all I can say is the only real flaw they seem to have is they forget they are part of the REAL human race first, and mormons second.

but such is reality, they are people with a slightly different viewpoint on the world and the afterlife than most of the world. But not so much different they do believe in salvation by works as opposed to salvation by faith. Such is very much in line with many faiths on the globe today! Just be quiet when you hit the hallowed halls, most think they are the only ones there. Shhhhh....

Just a thought, It does seem that the nation has been served better by one religion over another during it’s 200 + yr history. There are way too many voices available today to decry any sort of religious leanings of any president! If there were, we would still be able to enjoy some of our Christmas displays that we just like to see, for whatever reason. But no more.

 
Written By: TC
URL: http://
This is the most disheartening exchange I’ve ever read.

Realistically, there is no way at present to put the religion genie back in the bottle, but I do miss the days when the top questions weren’t about a candidate’s religion but about his/her economic and national defense policy stands.

I long for the day when a candidate can say "none of your business’ in answer to a queery about church affiliation.

There is something creepy about the current prying into every nook and cranny of a politician’s life and psyche, followed by endless analyses by political gurus. How many girlfirends did he have in high school? Is he a good dancer? Does he eat pork?

Just tell me how you’ll vote!
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
I don’t know Laime, I thought that this thread was alternately informative and hilarious.

Omar, I respect you and all, and the apostasy angle is interesting, but get serious. I would bet you one hundred dollars that Barack Obama would gather a majority of the US Muslim vote against a Republican President in 2008.

Muslims in America are worried, rationally or no, about becoming a persecuted minority, and they associate that strongly with the Republican party. You’d get a firsthand lesson in what happens when the religious letter of the law hits the cold hard ethnic reality. Barack Obama could do everything short of commit bodily functions on a Koran and still get a majority of Muslim-American votes.

I hope Mitt Romney could get through a primary, because he seems to be unflawed enough to be a decent losing candidate. He might be able to take out McCain, who is the only man in the country who has a shot at impeding a Democratic victory in 08’.

But you have to add the Massachusetts on top of the Mormon. I think it will make it very hard.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
"This is very much a line in the sand for us"
"you have a man that is going to be inherently anti-Muslim,"

So much for tolerance.


"ROTFLMAO!"

Dittos.

Every time I scroll past this post(this is the first time I have looked at the comments section) I read the headline as "CAN A MORON BECOME PRESIDENT?".
Am I the only one to do so? Is this a symptom of a reading problem, or something more sinister? Terminal cynicism, perhaps.
At any rate, I think I can say without fear of contradiction that my (mis)interpretation can be answered in the affirmative by people of good will from all religious and political persuasions(although for some, politics is a religion).

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I read it the same way but my thought was to ask why it wasn’t phrased, "How did a Moron become President?"

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Muslims in America are worried, rationally or no, about becoming a persecuted minority, and they associate that strongly with the Republican party.
Oh, I agree completely, however the issue of apostasy is, IMHO, a greater one. As I mentioned, in 2000 Bush enjoyed the support of CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, and any number of Muslim organizations. Muslims, due to religious beliefs (social conservatism), are natural Republican voters. The invasion of Iraq and subsequent disastrous American handling of, well just about everything related to it, poisoned the Muslim community against the party that they had supported in 2000. In 2004, John Kerry and the Dems enjoyed the formal endorsement and support of the major Muslim voices in the US. Understand that this was not necessarily a pro-Dem vote, but rather an angry backlash against Bush.

As far as I can tell from the word on the street (I’m not sure if the formal statistics on religious group voting patterns is in yet for this year’s election), Dems again enjoyed Muslim support. This situation is likely to continue, fairly happily, at least until the Iraq War and its aftermath are behind us.

Enter Senator Obama. This is a man who is almost the antithesis of the Muslim community. Despite his personal political beliefs (and I don’t think we’ve seen enough of him on the national stage to really know them yet), he is a man who left Islam and joined a religion that he is now openly, strongly, and proudly campaigning for. Nominating him to a Presidential (or VP) ticket would be about the biggest slap in the face that the Dems could give to American Muslims. It’s not the actual numbers of votes. It’s the media impact of 7 million Muslims loudly complaining about this insult on network news every day of the entire election cycle, post-nomination. Press releases from CAIR, MPAC, ISNA every week. Imagine the damage control necessary to counter all of that. If that’s not enough to scare the Dems back to reality, what is?
So much for tolerance.
Nothing to do with tolerance or religious freedom, timactual. It’s about voting our own interests. You know, just like every other religious/racial/economic subgroup in the US.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
"I read it the same way but my thought was..."

Forgive my cynicism, but you will have to specify which president(s).

" It’s about voting our own interests. You know, just like every other religious/racial/economic subgroup in the US."

I wan’t aware that other religious groups made concerted efforts to punish those who left the fold. Why is it in your interest to do so?

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Forgive my cynicism, but you will have to specify which president(s).
The one that wants to put food on your family.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I wan’t aware that other religious groups made concerted efforts to punish those who left the fold. Why is it in your interest to do so?
The point is not about "punishing." The point is that Obama is going to bring an inherent anti-Muslim bias. Supporting such a candidate would be against the interests of the Muslim community.

If a Jew converted to Christianity and was seen as inherently anti-Jewish, would you fault the Jewish community for opposing him?

If a laissez-faire Republican left the party and became a Keynesian Democrat, would you fault Republicans and Libertarians for opposing him?

Same idea. You vote your own interests. It’s nothing to do with tolerance, punishment, etc. Just basic political common sense.

 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
"The one that wants to put food on your family."

??
*************************************
From your website;
"One of the factors that is definitely going to work against him, should he earn the nomination, is whether Muslims decisively oppose him or merely ignore the election as a silent protest."

"In Barack Obama’s case, he’s not just an apostate secularist or atheist or non-practicing Muslim; he’s openly pushing the cause of his new religion. That is going to absolutely mobilize the Muslim community against him."

"Should they choose Senator Obama, then his apostasy will override every other issue. The Muslim community will either support whomever the Republican candidate is or sit home. There will be no support for Senator Obama. This is a line in the sand for devout Muslims. This isn’t the liberal Catholics or Reform Jews deciding to vote for John Kerry here. This is something that most Americans have never seen before. This is absolutely a defining issue for us."

Sure sounds like punishment to me.

"The point is that Obama is going to bring an inherent anti-Muslim bias"

Nonsense. The only people who seem to worry about his being Muslim are Muslims. Of course if you make a big enough stink about it you probably will generate some anti-Muslim sentiment.

"If a Jew converted to Christianity and was seen as inherently anti-Jewish,"

So you believe that he is anti-Muslim because he chooses not to be a Muslim? Is this true for other non Muslims? Am I also anti-Muslim because I choose not to be Muslim?

"If a laissez-faire Republican left the party and became a Keynesian Democrat, would you fault Republicans and Libertarians for opposing him?"

Once again you imply that Obama will be actively working against Muslims. Sounds a little paranoid to me.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Sure sounds like punishment to me.
timactual, you can call this punishment all day long if you want. It certainly doesn’t make it so, but if it makes you feel better.
So you believe that he is anti-Muslim because he chooses not to be a Muslim?
He was born and raised in a Muslim household. He chose to reject that, which is fine. That’s not really the issue. What is is that he’s chosen to not only become an evangelical Christian, but to push for Democrats to embrace that particular segment of Christianity. Unlike Senator Clinton’s election time religious conversion, Senator Obama genuinely seems convinced that the Evangelical path is the right one. Evangelicals are not exactly Muslim friendly. Catholics and Muslims basically get along. Jews and Muslims, as a rule, have no real reason not to get along. Mormons and Muslims should get along just fine. Evangelicals, on the other hand, are not particularly oriented towards being friendly with the Muslim community. Examine the statements of some of their leaders over the past several years. Obama is a member of a religion that, in recent times, has been anti-Muslim. He has made great pains to preach his faith and to lead his party toward an alliance with the Evangelicals. Combine this zeal for Evangelicalism with a very limited knowledge of Islam and you have the makings of a dangerous mix. Ignorance plus zealotry. For Muslims not to oppose this would be ludicrous.
Is this true for other non Muslims? Am I also anti-Muslim because I choose not to be Muslim?
No, as I pointed out, just being a non-Muslim doesn’t make you anti-Muslim anymore than being a non-Jew makes you anti-Jewish.
Once again you imply that Obama will be actively working against Muslims. Sounds a little paranoid to me.


The man seems genuinely committed to his new religion. That religion’s current policy appears to be one of anti-Muslim rhetoric and action. I am basing my assesment of him on the religion that he appears to take quite seriously. How exactly is that paranoid?
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
"Does not the Bible offer the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:3-7)? When a Christian abandons his faith and becomes (fill in the blank non-Christian religion), is it not a duty of his fellows to seek his redemption and return to the fold (at least for evangelical Christians"

LOL. I just read that. I do not recall the father or the rabbi putting out a fatwa on the lost sheep.

******************************************

"He was born and raised in a Muslim household. He chose to reject that, which is fine. That’s not really the issue"

I will let you respond;
"Apostasy, while perhaps not the greatest sin of all, is definitely top 5 amongst most Muslims. This is very much a line in the sand for us."

"If he were simply agnostic or non-practicing, then this whole issue would be, not quite unimportant, but certainly not as hugely important as the idea that he has formally abandoned the religion of his birth and embraced (and is actually evangelizing) a new religion"

(I like this one a lot)
"and you have a man that is going to be inherently anti-Muslim,"

"Do you really think the Saudis are going to sit-down to chat with an apostate Muslim? Or the Iranians or even Iraqis?"


It seems prety important for a non-issue.

************************************


"but to push for Democrats to embrace that particular segment of Christianity"

He is trying to convert Democrats to evangelical Christianity? I can just picture old Teddy getting a full immersion baptism. They better not do it near a Japanese whaling vessel.

**************

" Examine the statements of some of their leaders over the past several years."

Perhaps that is a reaction to examining the statements of some Muslim leaders over the years. Why is it that this alledged hostility to Muslims is something you havn’t mentioned before? Got any proof?

" Ignorance plus zealotry. For Muslims not to oppose this would be ludicrous."

It is difficult for me to believe that he is the only ignorant and zealous candidate who may possibly advocate something not to the liking of Muslims.

" No, as I pointed out, just being a non-Muslim doesn’t make you anti-Muslim anymore than being a non-Jew makes you anti-Jewish."

You say that now, but given the level of paranoia I have seen on television and read, I have my doubts. The definition of "anti-Muslim" seems to be quite flexible.

"That religion’s current policy appears to be one of anti-Muslim rhetoric and action"

Got cites?


So, to sum up my impressions, you think that evangelical Christians in general, and Obama specifically, are religious bigots who must be opposed.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Got any proof?
Got cites?
As follows:

Starting with a great John Ashcroft cite. Then this lovely little case illustrating the feelings of Evangelicals down under who want to make any religion other than Christianity illegal.

More great cites regarding feelings toward Islam by major Evangelical or Christian right figures.

Note some of the great Randall Terry comments in there. Let’s just go ahead and make becoming a Christian a requirement of obtaining citizenship in the US.

And some choice bits from Pat Robertson.

From one of President Bush’s best friends : Franklin Graham.

Including some more from Franklin Graham.

By evangelical author Hal Lindsey.

Nice one here from this Christian group.

More love from Pat Robertson. That is, when he’s not busy suggesting that we assasinate the elected leaders of other countries.

A nice summary of how Islam-bashing is now "in."

Here’s a nice breakdown of Evangelical attacks and attitudes toward Muslims by a Brookings Institute Fellow.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
LOL. I just read that. I do not recall the father or the rabbi putting out a fatwa on the lost sheep.
And while you’re lauging about that one, please show me where the hadiths or Qur’an mandate that all Muslims follow every fatwa issued by any imam?
It seems prety important for a non-issue.
The non-issue is him leaving Islam. Or rather I should have said, minor issue. The big issue here is actively, publicly pushing a new religion. If he had left Islam to become agnostic or non-practicing, that’s one thing; to be sure a tragedy for the Muslim community, but not as bad as becoming a major public figure in a new religion.
He is trying to convert Democrats to evangelical Christianity? I can just picture old Teddy getting a full immersion baptism. They better not do it near a Japanese whaling vessel.
Politics makes strange bedfellows. Would you imagine a fading imperialist constitutional monarchy, an isolationist socialist representative democracy, and an authoritarian, communist dictatorship allying together for any purpose?
You say that now, but given the level of paranoia I have seen on television and read, I have my doubts. The definition of "anti-Muslim" seems to be quite flexible.
As is the definition of: fascist, anti-semite, marxist, progressive. Quite a few terms are "stretched" to meet the needs of their users.
So, to sum up my impressions, you think that evangelical Christians in general, and Obama specifically, are religious bigots who must be opposed.
SOME major Evangelical leaders are indeed ignorant religious bigots. Those attitudes have not changed since the early days of Evangelicalism; only the targets have changed (they were originally Roman Catholics and Jews, now they are Muslims). Obama, if he is truly under the sway of the Jerry Vines and Pat Robertson’s of the world, will, in fact, prove to be no different than they. If that proves to be the case, then yes, I think he must be opposed. Which I suspect is quite a mainstream view in the US.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
" SOME major Evangelical leaders are indeed ignorant religious bigots."

So are SOME Muslim leaders. So what?


"If that proves to be the case, then yes, I think he must be opposed"

If? It appears to me you are opposing him now.

"And while you’re lauging about that one, please show me where the hadiths or Qur’an mandate that all Muslims follow every fatwa issued by any imam?"

I get it. I can shoot at my neighbor as long as I don’t hit him.
Isn’t death the punishment for apostasy?

" Or rather I should have said, minor issue."

Yeah, maybe. But what you did say was;
"Apostasy, while perhaps not the greatest sin of all, is definitely top 5 amongst most Muslims."
I must be wrong. It is a very tolerant religion where minor sins make the top five.

I confess to not reading all the cites yet, but do any of them say anything about Obama persecuting Muslims? I doubt it, but it doesn’t really matter at this point. You let the curtain slip, and we all got to see what is behind it.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider