Mitt Romney on Freedom of Religion

[SpyridonOCA]

This morning, I watched Mitt Romney's speech on television. It was one of the most eloquent political speeches that I've heard for quite some time. While I do believe that Mormonism is a false religion, I recognize that Mormons have at least some of God's truth, and that this is reflected in their lives. I've never heard of a Mormon who strapped a bomb to his chest for his religion. I have known Mormons, however, who are good people, who have strong family values, and are committed to charity. If we really do have freedom of religion in America, and if there is no religious litmus test for public office, then Mitt Romney's faith should not be a stumbling block to him becoming our next president. If a Mormon can become president, maybe an Orthodox Christian can too.

[Shubunkin]

But the president needs congress and the senate to back him up. Otherwise, it doesn't work very well.

[Xpycoctomos]

This morning, I watched Mitt Romney's speech on television. It was one of the most eloquent political speeches that I've heard for quite some time. While I do believe that Mormonism is a false religion, I recognize that Mormons have at least some of God's truth, and that this is reflected in their lives. I've never heard of a Mormon who strapped a bomb to his chest for his religion. I have known Mormons, however, who are good people, who have strong family values, and are committed to charity. If we really do have freedom of religion in America, and if there is no religious litmus test for public office, then Mitt Romney's faith should not be a stumbling block to him becoming our next president. If a Mormon can become president, maybe an Orthodox Christian can too.
I look forward to seeing it1 Thanks. I agree with you here (that I don't think being Mormon should be an impediment to being president).

I'm still for Hukabee (have ben since before anyone outside of his state knew who he was). But, I'm not a fiscal conservative... I just think he believes in his social conservativism more than any of the other candidates I have seen (including Romney).

Xpy

[Shubunkin]

What is Hukabee's stand on abortion?

[Matrona]

There's an old quote of Winston Churchill's where he says that if Hitler invaded Hell, he'd at least make a favorable speech in Parliament on behalf of the Devil. If you replace Hitler with Hillary, that about sums up how I feel about her. When it comes down to the wire, I'll vote for anybody who has a chance against another Clinton in the White House.

That said, I'd prefer not to cast that vote for Mitt Romney. It's just that, theologically speaking, I think that adherence to Mormonism (or Scientology, or certain other sects) requires a degree of credulousness that does not suit a maker of public policy.

I'm not saying this to be mean. :P Like I said, I'll go for anyone who will beat Hillary, but I just have a little Richard Dawkins in me that rears up at times like this and puts his foot down.

[Natalia.V]

This morning, I watched Mitt Romney's speech on television. It was one of the most eloquent political speeches that I've heard for quite some time. While I do believe that Mormonism is a false religion, I recognize that Mormons have at least some of God's truth, and that this is reflected in their lives. I've never heard of a Mormon who strapped a bomb to his chest for his religion. I have known Mormons, however, who are good people, who have strong family values, and are committed to charity. If we really do have freedom of religion in America, and if there is no religious litmus test for public office, then Mitt Romney's faith should not be a stumbling block to him becoming our next president. If a Mormon can become president, maybe an Orthodox Christian can too.

I haven't really had an opportunity to listen to him speak, so I'm unable to form an educated opinion of him. But I do not think that his being Mormon should be a stumbling block to his being president. I know many Mormons, and while I do not agree with them and their beliefs, like Spyridon said, they have at least some of the truth, and they are wonderful people. Very family oriented and strong morals.

[vanshan]

I 100% agree with Matrona. Adherents to some of these very absurd religions lack credible judgement. If Mitt can believe that Joseph found some gold tablets and a runestone to translate them . . . that God lives on planet Kroton . . . that the largely plagarized Book of Mormon is, in fact, "another testament of Jesus Christ" . . . then he is by that measure of gullibility unfit for major public office. That's not to say he can't make fair judgments on some issues, but in his core, he's proven himself to be very very gullible, so unless that's a value we appreciate in a president of the most powerful nation in the world, we shouldn't support him.

Basil

[Xpycoctomos]

What is Hukabee's stand on abortion?
Very anti.

[Xpycoctomos]

I 100% agree with Matrona. Adherents to some of these very absurd religions lack credible judgement. If Mitt can believe that Joseph found some gold tablets and a runestone to translate them . . . that God lives on planet Kroton . . . that the largely plagarized Book of Mormon is, in fact, "another testament of Jesus Christ" . . . then he is by that measure of gullibility unfit for major public office. That's not to say he can't make fair judgments on some issues, but in his core, he's proven himself to be very very gullible, so unless that's a value we appreciate in a president of the most powerful nation in the world, we shouldn't support him.

Basil
But we believe God became man. That he rose from the dead. That people have glowed before and levatated. That some people are clairvoyant and that some bread and wine become the very body and blood of Christ.

[Dorothea]

I heard bits and pieces of his speech and thought it was good also. Romney's not my first choice, but if it came to him as the Rep candidate against one of the top 3 Dems, I'd vote for Romney, and I agree...I don't think his being a Mormon should be an issue for him to be president.

[Matrona]

But we believe God became man. That he rose from the dead. That people have glowed before and levatated. That some people are clairvoyant and that some bread and wine become the very body and blood of Christ.

Yes, but there's a difference in that Orthodox beliefs happen to be true. :P

I understand what you're saying, but I think Orthodox can draw a line among other religions. Nothing but Orthodoxy has the benefit of being directly revealed and, dare I say it, embodied by God. But among the sects, we can distinguish between systems that at least have the benefit of internal logical consistency with those that don't, particularly ones that bear un-supernatural marks of human contrivance and disingenuousness. We can distinguish between sincere Roman Catholics who are loyal to the Vatican or at least the pre-Vatican II version of it, and those who are out to collect mitres and supposed lines of apostolic succession from the chapels/bases in their garages. We can distinguish between a sincere Sufi Muslim immersed in his tradition, and one who spent twenty bucks getting "esoterized" by a New Age whackjob labeling himself a mystic shaykh. And we can certainly distinguish between evangelical Protestantism and Mormonism.

[Xpycoctomos]

Yes, but there's a difference in that Orthodox beliefs happen to be true. :P

I understand what you're saying, but I think Orthodox can draw a line among other religions. Nothing but Orthodoxy has the benefit of being directly revealed and, dare I say it, embodied by God. But among the sects, we can distinguish between systems that at least have the benefit of internal logical consistency with those that don't, particularly ones that bear un-supernatural marks of human contrivance and disingenuousness. We can distinguish between sincere Roman Catholics who are loyal to the Vatican or at least the pre-Vatican II version of it, and those who are out to collect mitres and supposed lines of apostolic succession from the chapels/bases in their garages. We can distinguish between a sincere Sufi Muslim immersed in his tradition, and one who spent twenty bucks getting "esoterized" by a New Age whackjob labeling himself a mystic shaykh. And we can certainly distinguish between evangelical Protestantism and Mormonism.
You make good points. And I do have to admit that the "human contrivance" you referred to is very obvious in Mormonism (the "acheological" evidence, it's erie similarities to pre-Mormon Masonic tradition and rituals, there back stepping on social issues that were once dogmas such as polygamy and black people). I suppose I was just playing devil's advocate. I can't argue with to your post :)

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

I heard bits and pieces of his speech and thought it was good also. Romney's not my first choice, but if it came to him as the Rep candidate against one of the top 3 Dems, I'd vote for Romney, and I agree...I don't think his being a Mormon should be an issue for him to be president.
But in the end, I agree with this. I think Romney is Mormon for the reason most people are what they are... because that's what they grew up in and it gives them some kind of a moral compass. I don't see him as the evangelical type (except for the 2 years of mandatory proselytizing... but everyone has to do that). So, I don't really think he is crazy.. he's just inhereited it.

So, I agree with the post I've quoted. I would vote for him if it were between himself and any of the 3 dems.

[JustinHesychast]

I rather like him. I also like Huckabee. To a lesser extent I like Obama. And to a much lesser extent, Hilary Clinton. Those are my top 4 choices, but I will be 7 months below voting age, so eh. :P

[SaintPhotios]

I can't personally vote for a Mormon in good conscience. I have no reason to lump Mormonism together with other Protestant sects because at the core, I don't think it is truly a Christian religion. It has a role for Christ, but this is also true of Islam. Ultimately, at least from what I've seen, the Freemasonic roots of Mormonism as well as what seems to me be utterly Satanic elements, I would have to dismiss a Mormon candidate immediately in virtually all cases.

That being said, he may or may not have good view regarding religious freedom, but that doesn't do anything to vindicate his other absurd neo-con views. I think we notice almost all of the candidates changing their views now that electability is a primary concern. Could he be sincerely pro-life now? It's possible. But all of a sudden, Romney is now pro-life, Giuliani is now pro-gun, Huckabee is now a champion of the Constitution. I personally think that anything on the candidates' records within the past 5 years should be utterly dismissed as irrelevant. Look at their record before they have something to gain.

Now that everyone else has given their candidate a plug... I'll go ahead and say the only person that meets the bare minimum requirement in my book, honesty, as well as the only candidate that could possibly be expected to remain unwavering in their oath of office, protecting the Constitution, is Congressman Ron Paul. I've seen no other person stand, in every single respect, for the one thing that truly matters for a President -- protecting the Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8

[Xpycoctomos]

I can't personally vote for a Mormon in good conscience. I have no reason to lump Mormonism together with other Protestant sects because at the core, I don't think it is truly a Christian religion. It has a role for Christ, but this is also true of Islam. Ultimately, at least from what I've seen, the Freemasonic roots of Mormonism as well as what seems to me be utterly Satanic elements, I would have to dismiss a Mormon candidate immediately in virtually all cases.

That being said, he may or may not have good view regarding religious freedom, but that doesn't do anything to vindicate his other absurd neo-con views. I think we notice almost all of the candidates changing their views now that electability is a primary concern. Could he be sincerely pro-life now? It's possible. But all of a sudden, Romney is now pro-life, Giuliani is now pro-gun, Huckabee is now a champion of the Constitution. I personally think that anything on the candidates' records within the past 5 years should be utterly dismissed as irrelevant. Look at their record before they have something to gain.

Now that everyone else has given their candidate a plug... I'll go ahead and say the only person that meets the bare minimum requirement in my book, honesty, as well as the only candidate that could possibly be expected to remain unwavering in their oath of office, protecting the Constitution, is Congressman Ron Paul. I've seen no other person stand, in every single respect, for the one thing that truly matters for a President -- protecting the Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8
What if a president goes to a Christian Church and professes to be one but is also a Freemason? Not uncommon at all. Not trying to stump you. Just curious.

[SaintPhotios]

What if a president goes to a Christian Church and professes to be one but is also a Freemason? Not uncommon at all. Not trying to stump you. Just curious.


Oh yeah, this is extremely common especially in the South where I live. I would say that they are unfortunately extremely confused. It's like that female Anglican "priest".... she claimed to be both Christian and Muslim. But she was claiming two conflicting worldviews. I don't want to derail the thread, but Freemasons, even if they don't know it, are participating in Satanic practices.

But back to Mormonism, it is ultimately polytheistic. I couldn't vote for a Muslim in good faith. Likewise, I couldn't vote for a Mormon because, though they claim believe in the three Persons of the Trinity, they deny the Trinity and adhere to a Christian polytheism -- which is really a misnomer because by adhering to polytheism, they are not Christian at all. They are polytheists that just so happen to borrow Christian Deistic terminology. They are absolutely no closer to Christians than Muslims -- and just from a secular point of view, the story of Islam's prophet isn't nearly as absurd as that of Joseph Smith. That being said, heresy is heresy and I don't particularly like voting for non-Orthodox. But I don't view them all totally alike.... Mormon theology greatly surpasses my personal limitation when it comes to voting for someone with a clean conscience.

EDIT: and for those that say religious beliefs have nothing to do with being President -- we'll have to agree to disagree, because I think it certainly does. When I vote for someone, I'm not only voting for their record, but their judgement. And when you're dealing with unforeseen future events that a President will have to deal with, I would only trust a Christian to exercise the type of judgement that I consider meritorious.

[Xpycoctomos]

Oh yeah, this is extremely common especially in the South where I live. I would say that they are unfortunately extremely confused. It's like that female Anglican "priest".... she claimed to be both Christian and Muslim. But she was claiming two conflicting worldviews. I don't want to derail the thread, but Freemasons, even if they don't know it, are participating in Satanic practices.

But back to Mormonism, it is ultimately polytheistic. I couldn't vote for a Muslim in good faith. Likewise, I couldn't vote for a Mormon because, though they claim believe in the three Persons of the Trinity, they deny the Trinity and adhere to a Christian polytheism -- which is really a misnomer because by adhering to polytheism, they are not Christian at all. They are polytheists that just so happen to borrow Christian Deistic terminology. They are absolutely no closer to Christians than Muslims -- and just from a secular point of view, the story of Islam's prophet isn't nearly as absurd as that of Joseph Smith. That being said, heresy is heresy and I don't particularly like voting for non-Orthodox. But I don't view them all totally alike.... Mormon theology greatly surpasses my personal limitation when it comes to voting for someone with a clean conscience.

EDIT: and for those that say religious beliefs have nothing to do with being President -- we'll have to agree to disagree, because I think it certainly does. When I vote for someone, I'm not only voting for their record, but their judgement. And when you're dealing with unforeseen future events that a President will have to deal with, I would only trust a Christian to exercise the type of judgement that I consider meritorious.
Wouldn't you think that a Mormon (post 60s) would have better moral judgement than any liberal episcopalian, Orthodox or Methodist?

By the way, I am not trying to criticze your stance. I'm just trying to udnerstand what it's limitations are. And so, would you vote for a Mason claiming to be a conservative Christian? If so, what's the difference? Their theology is obviously out of wack. But they may be extremely level headed and moral people.

[SaintPhotios]

Wouldn't you think that a Mormon (post 60s) would have better moral judgement than any liberal episcopalian, Orthodox or Methodist?

That really depends on who we're talking about, in which case I wouldn't vote for either candidate. But in the case of Romney, it sounds like that assumes he's a conservative -- which I totally disagree with.

Even now he would allow abortions in some instances. NOW he says he disagrees with abortion. But as late as 2002, he openly and without confusion endorsed the woman's right to choose. So let's say for the sake of argument that it wasn't a politically motivated shift of policy and he really is a semi-pro-lifer now. All this tells us is that he totally changed his mind on an issue as important as abortion within a matter of a few years, and so what makes us think he wouldn't change his position again in a few years when he's in office and its his responsibility to elect a Supreme Court judge or veto homocidal legislation (which is a very real scenerio considering our liberal majority in Congress). Or this sort of shift in world view could also occur on a similar issue with results nearly as devastating.

He NOW says he's a big supporter of the rights to bear arms. But when the federal ban on semi-automatic weapons was about to expire, in 2004 he signed into law a permanent ban on semi-automatic firearms that would replace the federal ban.

When he was running for governor, he not only supported stem-cell research as being totally ethical, but promised to put pressure on George W. Bush to support these programs. As you might have guessed, he now openly renounces that decision.

As governor he said he didn't support Bush's tax cuts and was even supporting federal tax increases... but now he says Bush was right.

The guy is the posterboy for pandering to his base. I mean if there's any possible way a liberal can change his position to pander to the conservative base of a party prior to an election, Romney's done it. I think Bush is a neo-con crook.... but Romney makes him look like Honest Abe. I don't know what our definition of "conservative" is, but this guy isn't it.

....... so yeah, if we took a different Mormon with entirely different policies -- an actual conservative. I would still have a really hard time voting for him. But this guy doesn't even make me have to think about it for a second. I have no idea what ever made him think he should be a Republican except for his mutual love of blowing things up.


And so, would you vote for a Mason claiming to be a conservative Christian? If so, what's the difference?

Umm... no. While I can't see myself ever voting for either, I would come closer to voting for a Mormon before even toying with the notion of voting for a Freemason.


Keep in mind, these are my personal convictions. But I think my reasons for holding them are totally justified, and I would encourage anyone that is thinking of voting for either to take a long hard long as Mormonism and Freemasonry (especially Freemasonry) and think about that decision very seriously before casting that ballot.

[Shubunkin]

Very anti.
excellent :)

[Xpycoctomos]

That really depends on who we're talking about, in which case I wouldn't vote for either candidate. But in the case of Romney, it sounds like that assumes he's a conservative -- which I totally disagree with.

Even now he would allow abortions in some instances. NOW he says he disagrees with abortion. But as late as 2002, he openly and without confusion endorsed the woman's right to choose. So let's say for the sake of argument that it wasn't a politically motivated shift of policy and he really is a semi-pro-lifer now. All this tells us is that he totally changed his mind on an issue as important as abortion within a matter of a few years, and so what makes us think he wouldn't change his position again in a few years when he's in office and its his responsibility to elect a Supreme Court judge or veto homocidal legislation (which is a very real scenerio considering our liberal majority in Congress). Or this sort of shift in world view could also occur on a similar issue with results nearly as devastating.

He NOW says he's a big supporter of the rights to bear arms. But when the federal ban on semi-automatic weapons was about to expire, in 2004 he signed into law a permanent ban on semi-automatic firearms that would replace the federal ban.

When he was running for governor, he not only supported stem-cell research as being totally ethical, but promised to put pressure on George W. Bush to support these programs. As you might have guessed, he now openly renounces that decision.

As governor he said he didn't support Bush's tax cuts and was even supporting federal tax increases... but now he says Bush was right.

The guy is the posterboy for pandering to his base. I mean if there's any possible way a liberal can change his position to pander to the conservative base of a party prior to an election, Romney's done it. I think Bush is a neo-con crook.... but Romney makes him look like Honest Abe. I don't know what our definition of "conservative" is, but this guy isn't it.
I can definitely see your points there. I mean I have a hard time trusting a flipflopper who conveniently has a change of heart before he runs for president. Giuliani comes to mind even more.

Personally, I don't see the arms issue as a moral one. I know a lot of people do, but in the end, the INTENT is for people to feel safe. The MANNERS of seeking that intent are TOTALLY different. I know people get very emotional about that debate, but I think both sides have great points and although one person may be wrong and the other right (about HOW to go about achieving the same goal) both have a moral INTENT.

This is not so with abortion, so I am with you that his past bothers me here, a lot.


....... so yeah, if we took a different Mormon with entirely different policies -- an actual conservative. I would still have a really hard time voting for him. But this guy doesn't even make me have to think about it for a second. I have no idea what ever made him think he should be a Republican except for his mutual love of blowing things up.


Ah, now this gets to the heart of the actual question. Above you seemed to suggest the most poingant reasons for why you are not voting for him (and very understandable ones) that seem more pressing than the Morman question, especially in light of this last paragraph above. You're not NOT voting for him becuase he's Mormon but rather because he's not a conservative... and the Mormon thing doesn't help at all because even if he were conservative it would be really hard for you to do so (but, not impossible if the "perfect storm" of candidates were to arrive... like if the devil on the otherside were just unimaginble). Does that seem fair?



Umm... no. While I can't see myself ever voting for either, I would come closer to voting for a Mormon before even toying with the notion of voting for a Freemason.
I can see that.


Keep in mind, these are my personal convictions. But I think my reasons for holding them are totally justified,
Even if I don't feel as strongly about them, I think you raise very good points.

and I would encourage anyone that is thinking of voting for either to take a long hard long as Mormonism and Freemasonry (especially Freemasonry) and think about that decision very seriously before casting that ballot.

Seems logical.

[OnTheWay]

On the abortion issue, the current Mormon line is that they have no "revelation" on abortion. Of course, most Mormons oppose abortion and in the past Mormon leadership has commented negatively on it. However, as per the "Church Handbook of Instructions" with guidence from the bishop (in Mormonism a bishop would be like the priest of a small parish called a ward) you can obtain permission to have an abortion. As such the Mormon church cannot be considered opposed to abortion.
My issue with Romney on this issue is the simple fact he's changed his position because it doesn't work on the national level like it would in a liberal state like Mass.
As for Mormonism in general, I have to agree with Matrona. You can't study Mormon history in an honest fashion and come away believing Smith's claims. That's not to say Mormons are bad people or stupid. Most of them accept the church's version of events without question and as a matter of faithfulness don't inquire into the problem aspects. In a presidental canidate I want someone that inquires into things a little more deeply.

[hiImEric]

I'll be honest, I haven't read through all these posts. I just must say this.

Our government seems like a joke to me. I saw a guy on CNN or something talking about the candidate's faiths are irrelevant and they're only important because we should want a president who believes in something. I died of laughter. He went on into some more ignorant statements, and it was just pathetic. Then I watched one of the debates on TV, and it was just as if their faith was a backdrop for their lives, not their complete lives, you know what I'm saying? I don't know. It was pathetic.

Lord, have mercy.

[Dorothea]

I brought up voting in my Orthodox adult class on morals and ethics Wednesday evening. I asked my priest how are we to vote as Orthodox and are we to do so? According to the book he read out of, which I think was about morals and ethics, and I forget the author...dang it. He said that we as Orthodox should vote in our communities and also in any other voting process. We should try to do something for our communities by voting....contributing to society...etc.

I asked Fr. Dennis the question and said something like, "for instance, shouldn't we vote for a candidate that's pro-life?" His response was, "What is there are no candidates that are pro-life?" and shrugged. It all came down to we have to vote our conscience..for the person that best represents our beliefs or as much as they can, knowing that a politician can't solve most of the moral issues in this country. Just thought I'd share.

[Dorothea]

EDIT: and for those that say religious beliefs have nothing to do with being President -- we'll have to agree to disagree, because I think it certainly does. When I vote for someone, I'm not only voting for their record, but their judgement. And when you're dealing with unforeseen future events that a President will have to deal with, I would only trust a Christian to exercise the type of judgement that I consider meritorious.

Well, there isn't anybody running that Orthodox, and until there is, we have to vote for whomever we feel best represents our values and morals and issues we're concerned and care about. And I can tell you this, if there was a person who happened to be Orthodox running for president, that wouldn't necessarily have me automatically voting for the person. I'm interested in the character of a person. Sometimes people say they are whatever faith or religion, but they really aren't practically it or living by those standards.

[Dorothea]

[/size]
I can definitely see your points there. I mean I have a hard time trusting a flipflopper who conveniently has a change of heart before he runs for president. Giuliani comes to mind even more.


This is not so with abortion, so I am with you that his past bothers me here, a lot.


[size=3]


Romney's slickness and his flipflopping, what you mentioned above, is why he isn't on the top of my list. It has nothing to do with his being a Mormon. To me, that's a non-issue, as there are other things that are more concerning about him. But I favor him over Guiliani. Although all the dirt is now starting on Huckabee because he's pulled ahead in the Iowa polls, I still prefer him over the others at this time.

[SaintPhotios]

Personally, I don't see the arms issue as a moral one. I know a lot of people do, but in the end, the INTENT is for people to feel safe. The MANNERS of seeking that intent are TOTALLY different.

No... I don't think it's a moral one at all, but considering the corruptness of our government, an extremely important one. And ultimately, it's a Constitutional one. Given the President's primary job is to protect the Constitution, someone that opposes it could never get my vote.

Above you seemed to suggest the most poingant reasons for why you are not voting for him (and very understandable ones) that seem more pressing than the Morman question, especially in light of this last paragraph above. You're not NOT voting for him becuase he's Mormon but rather because he's not a conservative... and the Mormon thing doesn't help at all because even if he were conservative it would be really hard for you to do so (but, not impossible if the "perfect storm" of candidates were to arrive... like if the devil on the otherside were just unimaginble). Does that seem fair?

Well... he's a Mormon, and I have a host of problems with voting for one. Basically, I wouldn't. Now, I typically don't look too much at their particular religious views because they're always some sort of Protestant or Roman Catholic (which I don't like, but doesn't put up a fence like Mormonism does). And really... I hate to even use the word conservative, because the neo-con faction that has taken over the party I don't consider to be conservative at all. So I would rather use the word Constitutionalist. So to answer your question, I would not vote for either, but because I've never had to pay too much attention to religious affiliations, I could really like a candidate's conservatism that happens to be a Mormon. That is not to say, however, that I would vote for him. I don't think I ever would.

Well, there isn't anybody running that Orthodox, and until there is, we have to vote for whomever we feel best represents our values and morals and issues we're concerned and care about. And I can tell you this, if there was a person who happened to be Orthodox running for president, that wouldn't necessarily have me automatically voting for the person.

I totally agree. And I don't even like voting for non-Orthodox. But I personally have to draw a line between Protestants which are confused, but at least Trinitarian -- and then Mormons who are polytheists. I can't view them the same just as I can't view Muslim candidates as the same. I'm not criticizing you if you think voting for Mormons is okay, I'm just stating my personal convictions and that I can't do it.

[buzuxi02]

Guliani is the only logical candidate, he gets things done, knows about the economy, and even if he's nominal, he still stands up for everyones beliefs. Like when he fought to stop city funds going to the museum, when they exhibited african paintings of Jesus and his Mother using elephant dung. The opposition argued thats what africans use to pain icons, he saw thru the "bull", Knew it was offensive, being an RC he was somwhat familiar with ethiopian and coptic iconography, and feces is not used by them.

[SaintPhotios]

Guliani is the only logical candidate, he gets things done, knows about the economy, and even if he's nominal, he still stands up for everyones beliefs. Like when he fought to stop city funds going to the museum, when they exhibited african paintings of Jesus and his Mother using elephant dung. The opposition argued thats what africans use to pain icons, he saw thru the "bull", Knew it was offensive, being an RC he was somwhat familiar with ethiopian and coptic iconography, and feces is not used by them.
If stopping city funding to a museum exhibiting offensive paintings is the first argument that comes to mind when looking at Giuliani's resume, then he's in trouble.

If it's Giuliani and Clinton in November, then we're going to see the lowest voter turnout in history, because I doubt the majority of Christians would vote for either of them. I'm not critisizing you, and I'm certainly not a one issue voter.... but even if Clinton was favoring selling all of our land to the Saudis, I'd leave the country before voting for Giuliani. He wants to protect the right to murder infants, wage war on everyone that looks at Israel the wrong way, and wants to continue to promote the bloating of the federal government and unchecked powers of the executive branch.

Seriously... is this guy the best we can do?

How about Rudy's ties to terrorism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wCTXcsB7zU

[SpyridonOCA]

My personal favorite is Obama. If he wins the Democratic nomination, he will be unbeatable against any Republican.

[SpyridonOCA]

Several prominent Republicans, including Pat Buchanan, have stated that the Republican Party needs to lose, and lose big, in 2008 as to have incentive to reform itself. Having said that, isn't Obama the perfect choice for a disaffected Republican?

http://www.republicansforobama.org

[Shubunkin]

Oh yeah, Obama, the one who was raised by two Muslim men. Right. :eek:

[SpyridonOCA]

Oh yeah, Obama, the one who was raised by two Muslim men. Right. :eek:

What are you talking about?

The same old Washington politics isn't going to work anymore. Obama, as a relatively young person, could actually change the way our government operates.

[OnTheWay]

What are you talking about?

The same old Washington politics isn't going to work anymore. Obama, as a relatively young person, could actually change the way our government operates.

You do understand that the president can't change the way the government works, fix the economy, or a host of other things politicians often promise to do knowing full well they can't?

[SpyridonOCA]

You do understand that the president can't change the way the government works, fix the economy, or a host of other things politicians often promise to do knowing full well they can't?

A president can make different decisions, and different kinds of decisions, from previous presidents, especially if he isn't already imbedded in Washington political culture. Wouldn't you agree?

People can make cheap shots about his father (the Bible teaches that children are not responsible for the sins of their fathers), but as far as one can tell, he is a churchgoing Christian (they do exist in the Democratic Party) and, after all, there is no religious litmus test for public office. I don't see much of a substantial difference between UCC, the Methodists, or Southern Baptists. They are all not Orthodox.

[SpyridonOCA]

staff edit.

The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior. It acknowledges as kindred in Christ all who share in this confession. It looks to the Word of God in the Scriptures, and to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, to prosper its creative and redemptive work in the world. It claims as its own the faith of the historic Church expressed in the ancient creeds and reclaimed in the basic insights of the Protestant Reformers. It affirms the responsibility of the Church in each generation to make this faith its own in reality of worship, in honesty of thought and expression, and in purity of heart before God. In accordance with the teaching of our Lord and the practice prevailing among evangelical Christians, it recognizes two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion.
http://www.stmarkucc.org/The%20UCC%20-%20Who%20We%20Are.htm


This looks like a typical Evangelical Protestant statement of faith to me.


Studies and surveys of beliefs
In 2001, Hartford Institute for Religion Research did a "Faith Communities Today (FACT)" study [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_church_of_christ#_note-UCC-denom_ident) that included a survey of United Church of Christ beliefs. Among the results of this were findings that in the UCC, 5.6 percent of the churches responding to the survey described their members as "very liberal or progressive," 3.4 percent as "very conservative," 22.4 percent as "somewhat liberal or progressive," and 23.6 percent as "somewhat conservative" Those results suggested a nearly equal balance between liberal and conservative congregations. The self-described "moderate" group, however, was the largest at 45 percent. Another statistics based on the Hartford Institute report found that for opinion of the highest source of authority, 53.2% said "the Bible," 16.1% said "Holy Spirit" 9.2% said "Reason", 6.3% said "Experience" and 6.1% said "Creeds."
David Roozen, director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research who has studied the United Church of Christ, said surveys show the national church's pronouncements are often more liberal than the views in the pews but that its governing structure is set up to allow such disagreements[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_church_of_christ#_note-Divided).
Starting in 2003, a task force commisisoned by General Synod 24 studied the diverse Worship habits of UCC churches. The study can be found online [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_church_of_christ#_note-Summary-2005) and reflects statistics on attitudes towards Worship, Baptism, and Communion, such as "Laity (70%) and clergy (90%) alike overwhelmingly describe worship “as an encounter with God that leads to doing God’s work in the world.” "95 percent of our congregations use the Revised Common Lectionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Common_Lectionary) in some way in planning or actual worship and preaching" and "96 percent always or almost always have a sermon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon), 86 percent have a time with children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_message), 95 percent have a time of sharing joys and concerns, and 98 percent include the Prayer of Our Savior/Lord’s Prayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Prayer)." Clergy and laity were invited to select two meanings of baptism that they emphasize. They were also to suggest the meaning that they thought their entire church emphasized. Baptism as an “entry into the Church Universal” was the most frequent response. Clergy and laity were also invited to identify two meanings of Holy Communion that they emphasize. While clergy emphasized Holy Communion as “a meal in which we encounter God’s living presence,” laity emphasized “a remembrance of Jesus’ last supper, death, and resurrection.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_church_of_christ#Doctrine_and_beliefs


Are you willing to apologize for your statement?

[OnTheWay]

A president can make different decisions, and different kinds of decisions, from previous presidents, especially if he isn't already imbedded in Washington political culture. Wouldn't you agree?

Not in the least. Our repubic is a system of government based on checks and balances designed to resist change, especially designed to remove the ability of one individual to make any large scale changes. Obama is no more going to change politics and procedure than any other canidate. Reality isn't anything like "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." If anything the executive branch is the least important in changing the political climate in Washington.

People can make cheap shots about his father (the Bible teaches that children are not responsible for the sins of their fathers), but as far as one can tell, he is a churchgoing Christian (they do exist in the Democratic Party) and, after all, there is no religious litmus test for public office. I don't see much of a substantial difference between UCC, the Methodists, or Southern Baptists. They are all not Orthodox.

The litmus test for getting elected is whatever the voters want to make it. While I may not agree with the Southern Baptists on theological issues, unlike with the UCC, issues like the existence of God are not matters of debate in SBC.

[SpyridonOCA]

Not in the least. Our repubic is a system of government based on checks and balances designed to resist change, especially designed to remove the ability of one individual to make any large scale changes. Obama is no more going to change politics and procedure than any other canidate. Reality isn't anything like "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." If anything the executive branch is the least important in changing the political climate in Washington.


If Obama were elected president in 2000, would we be in Iraq right now? Would more Americans have access to healthcare?



While I may not agree with the Southern Baptists on theological issues, unlike with the UCC, issues like the existence of God are not matters of debate in SBC.

You've already been proved wrong about the UCC. Please retract your statement.

[Akathist]

Thread closed for staff review. I will open it in 24 hours even if staff are not done reviewing it as it is clearly a thread members are interested in.

I am going to request that this be moved to the debate area.

[Akathist]

This thread is being reopened and has been moved to the Debate subforum for TAW.

There are still some work staff are doing in the thread related to a couple reports. Please do not quote to or reply to posts that have been reported. (There is a little caution sign next to the "quick quote" button on the bottom of any post that has been reported.)

If you quote the reported post and staff decide that post needed an edit or to be removed it could result in your post being edited or removed in a thread clean up.

Try to focus your posts on the topic and if you don't like something about another member, something they said or an opinion, then please just debate the topic and don't make personal remarks in public. If you must speak directly to them please send them a pm.

[Xpycoctomos]

Huckabee! :)

[SaintPhotios]

If Obama were elected president in 2000, would we be in Iraq right now? Would more Americans have access to healthcare?

Well, there are others that didn't want to go to Iraq. I think it's a very important issue. But the current state of the two main parties seems to me to be one of neo-socialism (Democrats) and one of nationalistic fear-mongering (Republicans). And they're both spitting on our civil liberties. So Obama.... ehh, lesser of the evils is still evil.

[SpyridonOCA]

Well, there are others that didn't want to go to Iraq.

It was our current president who brought us to war, and a different president could have made a much different decision.

Many Americans are tired of the red state vs. blue state divide, and are looking for a presidential candidate who is truly a uniter, one with real character and a positive vision for our country. Perhaps that person is Obama.

[Dorothea]

Huckabee! :)
:thumbsup: :pink:

[SpyridonOCA]

Huckabee is a likeable guy, but his FairTax idea just wouldn't work well for the American people.

[Xpycoctomos]

Right, it wouldn't work becuase it would never happen. That's alright. I mean, he's only the president, not a dictator. i don't expect every idea of his to go through... nor do I assume I will paricularly like every idea of his.

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

Below is a response I had written to a post in the "Orthdoox Monk who predicted 9/11" thread. It was getting quite off topic (no thanks to me) and I thought rather than start a new thread, I would just artificially inject it here since, while still off topic here, this is at least a political thread having to do with the run for presidential office. Without further ado...

Why does everyone assume that it will automatically be this person or that, or that so and so doesn't stand a chance..?

Do you all know that this time in 2003, John Kerry was no where near the top nor a front runner in his party? (actually by this time in 2003, he was starting to move up and be known)

So everyone has a chance, even someone who everyone and their mother is trying to hold down, but yet managed to raise over 6 million dollars in one day, and over 4 million in one day a month ago....also Hildabeast is going down in the polls to Barrack...

It's a good point you raise. However, John Kerry was no Hukabee or Ron Paul. That is to say that kerry wasn't ever courting the fringes. And I don't say that fringes in a bad way. It's just that they aren't mainstream in their thinking. kerry always was. there was never anything impressive about Kerry... or Bush for that matter. There generally isn't anything very impressive about those who stand a chance... at least in my political experience (which isn't great I admit and includes Regan on).

Hukabee unabashedly calls out to Evangelical support and will not pass up a time to show honor to Christ in very explicit words while each and every other politician (including Bush) that "stood a chance" has always muddled words to be as PC as possible as far back as I can remember. He honestly just doesn't care what others think of his policies. He plainly states, they either like me or they don't. They'll decide. It's as if he's just saying "I'm just here for the ride and if that takes me to the White House, so be it.". Ron Paul is much the same although not in the religious way, but politically he goes vastly against what any other main contender has EVER held in my short experience (unless we include Alan Keyes as a "main contender"... but in reality he never was).

I have to say, I am impressed with Ron Paul. The only thing that worries me is that he would not be able to get any of his agenda through and I am afraid it would just be a 4-year battle between Congress and Paul... even if the Republicans pulled a super majority in the congress. His ideas just make too many people in DC obselete. That's what makes his ideas great... and unworkable in the monster that is the US Government.

However, with that said, I would probalby vote for him were he to become a main candidate.

Romney, on the other hand, is very mainstream... and becuase of this I feel quite cnfident that he (or Giuliani) will end out being the Republican Candidate. I fully welcome being wrong on this... but I don't think so.

And as far as Barack goes... He very well may be the Democratic Candidate in the end (although I still think it will be Hillary) becuase he is completely and totally mainstream. Just like Romney. Ron Paul's counterpart is not Barack (that's Romney's or Giuliani's) but rather Kucinich (spelling?) or that senator from Alaska.

Xpy