political question

[fadada1]

caught a bit of CNN this morning (in between crisis TV mode) and was thinking about something. everyone (and by "everyone" i mean the idiotic media) is making a big deal out of mitt romney and his being mormon. "they" seem to wonder if his ability to lead this country will somehow be comprimised by his... how shall we say it... "lack of christianity." as if being a mormon somehow degrades his mental functioning. apparently he was to speak at a&m this morning (which might be a strike against him) to discuss faith and the presidencey. mind you, this was NOT to be a discussion about mormonism. rather, it was to be about how one's faith influences a run/stay in the white house.

being the fair and patial south ovalers that we all are... what's your take on this???

should we be making a big deal of this or should we even care?

imo, i don't really care. i don't care if he's mormon, jewish, catholic, methodist, atheist, moslum, budhist, or any other -ist, -ish, or -ic out there. i somehow think it is wrong to even address the issue of religion with a candidacy... unless you're running for pope, of course.

if the man or woman can lead, GREAT. if they stick to their principles, regardless of what others think, GREAT.

there's more to discuss here, but i just wanted other view points.

should we care? and why?

[GrapevineSooner]

As long as he can set aside his own religious views to lead the country and I agree (or guh-gree if you're Vince Young) with the ideas in his head, he's fine by me.

Where I have a problem is when pols use religion to guide their decisions.

[fadada1]

Where I have a problem is when pols use religion to guide their decisions.
what's poland got to do with this?:D






btw, i agree.

[The Ghost of Joe Morrison]

I'll not vote for him in the SC Republican primary due to him being a mormon.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

What's wrong with letting religion guide your decision making process?

Especially if it's the tenets of a religion, not the organized religious body? For example, it seems like Jesus taught us some pretty neat stuff in regards to loving one's fellow man. Besides, a person's moral compass is often rooted in theology. You know, the whole thou shalt not kill, hump your neighbor's wife, steal, et cetera?

So why would you want to make a blanket statement like that? Having religion guide your decisions doesn't exactly equal one nation under MY god, and dammit, you better just shut up now, does it.

[TUSooner]

What's wrong with letting religion guide your decision making process?

Especially if it's the tenets of a religion, not the organized religious body? For example, it seems like Jesus taught us some pretty neat stuff in regards to loving one's fellow man. Besides, a person's moral compass is often rooted in theology. You know, the whole thou shalt not kill, hump your neighbor's wife, steal, et cetera?

So why would you want to make a blanket statement like that? Having religion guide your decisions doesn't exactly equal one nation under MY god, and dammit, you better just shut up now, does it.
Egggzactally. The original statement is, at best, overbroad, at worst :twinkies:

[rufnek05]

According to my grandma the goal of the Mormon religion is to take over our gooberment.

Side note: When is the dem primary here in oklahoma?

[Frozen Sooner]

John Kennedy had to address his Catholicism when he ran.
Some people think it's clever to imply that Barack Obama has ties to Muslims by emphasizing his middle name.
Just wait for it to hit the fan if an atheist ever becomes a viable candidate.

Religion is a topic that certainly can be discussed in the political sphere simply because it's something that gives a handle on a candidate's decision-making process. For example, if LDS still forbade blacks from becoming priests, I'd want to know what Mitt Romney thinks about that.

[TUSooner]

What's the big deal? It seems we've had many presidents who were Morons.

Wait.

What?

Oh.

Never mind.

[Sooner_Bob]

I doubt if there will ever be an election where people don't vote for someone based mostly on their religious affiliations or beliefs.

I know I'd prefer a Christian in the white house. For whatever reason our society seems to not value that particular characteristic like it once did. I know I catch myself sometimes conforming more to the mainstream, materialistic viewpoint than that of a humble Christian.

[The Ghost of Joe Morrison]

If he wins his party's nomination & runs against Mr. Clinton or the Terrorist in disguise, I'll vote for the Mormon.

[fadada1]

good points.

i guess my question should be continually clarified:

are we to assume that because someone on the ticket is NOT christian, that they don't have christian-like values (i.e., not killing people or humping the neighbor's wife), and therefore wouldn't be a good president?

i think we've learned that being a christian does not necessarily qualify you as being a good president.

[Sooner_Bob]

good points.

i guess my question should be continually clarified:

are we to assume that because someone on the ticket is NOT christian, that they don't have christian-like values (i.e., not killing people or humping the neighbor's wife), and therefore wouldn't be a good president?



I don't think you can assume that they don't have christian-like values, but I'd imagine many voters would anyway.



i think we've learned that being a christian does not necessarily qualify you as being a good president.


I guess you could make a pretty solid case for that . . . :D

[MamaMia]

Mormons are Christians.
I would never vote for someone who doesn't believe in Jesus and God.

[SicEmBaylor]

caught a bit of CNN this morning (in between crisis TV mode) and was thinking about something. everyone (and by "everyone" i mean the idiotic media) is making a big deal out of mitt romney and his being mormon. "they" seem to wonder if his ability to lead this country will somehow be comprimised by his... how shall we say it... "lack of christianity." as if being a mormon somehow degrades his mental functioning. apparently he was to speak at a&m this morning (which might be a strike against him) to discuss faith and the presidencey. mind you, this was NOT to be a discussion about mormonism. rather, it was to be about how one's faith influences a run/stay in the white house.

being the fair and patial south ovalers that we all are... what's your take on this???

should we be making a big deal of this or should we even care?

imo, i don't really care. i don't care if he's mormon, jewish, catholic, methodist, atheist, moslum, budhist, or any other -ist, -ish, or -ic out there. i somehow think it is wrong to even address the issue of religion with a candidacy... unless you're running for pope, of course.

if the man or woman can lead, GREAT. if they stick to their principles, regardless of what others think, GREAT.

there's more to discuss here, but i just wanted other view points.

should we care? and why?

I hate to quibble, but I believe Mormon's are Christian.

[SicEmBaylor]

According to my grandma the goal of the Mormon religion is to take over our gooberment.

Side note: When is the dem primary here in oklahoma?
September. Don't follow the news or worry about voting until then. I have just given you all the information you need. YWIA

[Whet]

I don't think I would vote for a muslim that follows strick shura law... So, yes I would, and think others, should care about a political candidate's religious views.

And, I agree, that being a good christian does not make one a good president, i.e. Jimmy Carter.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

VOTE SWAGGART

Free wanking for everyone!

[JohnnyMack]

The pandering required to get oneself elected POTUS makes me a sad panda.

[Frozen Sooner]

I hate to quibble, but I believe Mormon's are Christian.

I guess a case could be made either way. I know that Mormons consider themselves Christians.

From what I've heard from other Christians, their issue is that they believe the LDS Church preaches that salvation is achieved through faith and works instead of faith alone being the path to salvation.

Not sure how true that is, but that's what I've been told.

Also, Catholics are most definitely Christians.

[OklahomaTuba]

Mormons are Christians.
I would never vote for someone who doesn't believe in Jesus and God.

Mormons are sort of Christians actually. I wouldn't call them 100% Christian. More of an odd offshoot.

Good people though, I really respect them, but they are in apostasy as a church IMO, and I fear for their salvation.

And I agree with you, I would NEVER vote for anyone who isn't a Christian.

[SicEmBaylor]

I guess a case could be made either way. I know that Mormons consider themselves Christians.

From what I've heard from other Christians, their issue is that they believe the LDS Church preaches that salvation is achieved through faith and works instead of faith alone being the path to salvation.

Not sure how true that is, but that's what I've been told.

Also, Catholics are most definitely Christians.

Indeed, I've heard many many times (mostly Baptists of which I'm not) protestants claim that Catholics aren't Christian. That's absurd to me but whatever. It's even more difficult trying to convince them that, technically speaking, the God of the Muslims is the same God of Christians and Jews.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I
And, I agree, that being a good christian does not make one a good president, i.e. Jimmy Carter.Also, don't your Clintons loosely claim Christianity?

[fadada1]

Also, Catholics are most definitely Christians.
the protestants in ireland don't think so.:D

[SicEmBaylor]

I wouldn't mind voting for a non-Christian so long as their religion was Western. They could be a Pagan Druid for all I care as long as they believe in small limited government.

I would NOT vote for someone of an Eastern religion which would rule out Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

[OklahomaTuba]

Heh, druids.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I wouldn't mind voting for a non-Christian so long as their religion was Western. They could be a Pagan Druid for all I care as long as they believe in small limited government.

I would NOT vote for someone of an Eastern religion which would rule out Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.BTW, are you stocking up "provisions" for the SACW?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Heh, druids.

Funny...

She doesn't LOOK Druish!

http://www.penguincomics.net/dvdreviews/dvdrimages/spaceballs4.jpg

[OklahomaTuba]

Also, don't your Clintons loosely claim Christianity?

With out a doubt they are Christians. Bill isn't a very good one, but I can't say I am either. ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Funny...

She doesn't LOOK Druish!

http://www.penguincomics.net/dvdreviews/dvdrimages/spaceballs4.jpgWasn't he the last Druish person?

[SicEmBaylor]

BTW, are you stocking up "provisions" for the SACW?
SACW?

[JohnnyMack]

Becoming POTUS means you're willing to ascribe your beliefs to the LCD and in America that means you run as a Christian.

[Chuck Bao]

I'm going to say yes based on the assumption that those seeking the presidency would have already long ago deviated from a strict adherence to the tenets, doctrines and priorities of their faith.

And, that's not such a bad thing. Highly religious people scare me.

So I'd vote for the "for show" religious people. But, I'd also vote for the non-religious who are probably more geniune.

In my very limited personal view, I haven't yet detected any difference in the morals of religious and non-religious folks.

[Whet]

Also, don't your Clintons loosely claim Christianity?

I think is is more Clintonanity.... they are their own religion unto themselves.

Doth thee recall Bill 10:99 "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski."

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Bill Sixty:Nine sez...

Thou shalt let me place thine cigar into thoust vagina verily, sayeth Bill.

[VeeJay]

What I'm more troubled by than anything else is the line of questioning by the mainstream media to candidates like Huckabee (who constantly seems to be defending his faith to interviewers like Wolf Blitzer and Matt Lauer), while the Democratic candidates get a full pass.

John Edwards had professed his upbringing as a *gasp* Southern Baptist, yet has never been asked to explain the literal meaning of the world's creation in six days and pulled off only 6000 years ago, as Huckabee has been asked to do.

Bill Clinton's a Southern Baptist, too, and as far as we know, never claimed not to be, Monica or no Monica. He even cozied up to a group of ministers and asked for forgiveness and said, just like Swaggart "I have sinned."

I can understand why Huckabee is perturbed that he's the only one who gets the God questions in an obvious effort to portray him as a hell and damnation religious extremist. So far he's handled himself brilliantly.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think is is more Clintonanity.... they are their own religion unto themselves.

Doth thee recall Bill 10:99 "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski."What religion does one espouse when he says something like "I promise the most ethical administration in the history of the earth", and then go off whoring everything out?

[JohnnyMack]

What I'm more troubled by than anything else is the line of questioning by the mainstream media to candidates like Huckabee (who constantly seems to be defending his faith to interviewers like Wolf Blitzer and Matt Lauer), while the Democratic candidates get a full pass.

John Edwards had professed his upbringing as a *gasp* Southern Baptist, yet has never been asked to explain the literal meaning of the world's creation in six days and pulled off only 6000 years ago, as Huckabee has been asked to do.

Bill Clinton's a Southern Baptist, too, and as far as we know, never claimed not to be, Monica or no Monica. He even cozied up to a group of ministers and asked for forgiveness and said, just like Swaggart "I have sinned."

I can understand why Huckabee is perturbed that he's the only one who gets the God questions in an obvious effort to portray him as a hell and damnation religious extremist. So far he's handled himself brilliantly.

Do you think it's because he's one of the candidates who is more open about his faith?

[Whet]

Clintonanity!

[SicEmBaylor]

BTW, are you stocking up "provisions" for the SACW?
Heh, I'll be ready when the day comes...mark my words. ;)

[GrapevineSooner]

Having religion guide your decisions doesn't exactly equal one nation under MY god, and dammit, you better just shut up now, does it.

Certainly not. It's one thing to base your decisions on basic tenets of human goodness.

But when I thought of this question, one of the first quotes that came up was from some Oklahoma State Senator who voted against the lottery because he personally felt it was immoral.

[SicEmBaylor]

Electing officials with religion has nothing to do with ensuring they are good people. I'm reasonably sure that you could elect an atheist and not have to worry about him suddenly going on a killing spree or something. Even atheists can be moral and ethical people.

The importance of electing officials who believe in God has to do with ensuring that they believe and acknowledge a higher authority than just government. I don't trust a government that denies the existence of a supreme being because the logical consequence of that is that all power is then vested with the government and not with something greater than that.

I had this argument once with Mdklatt who said that you could have an atheistic government where the people still hold the power but, in the end, I simply don't believe that to be possible.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

But when I thought of this question, one of the first quotes that came up was from some Oklahoma State Senator who voted against the lottery because he personally felt it was immoral.

So?

State senator = representative of the people, not quarterback of the Executive Branch. If his constituency felt that the lottery was immoral, I have no qualms whatsoever with him voting as the voice of that constituency. It's unrealistic and impossible to assume they'll get every vote in line with every stance found in the represented district, but if this is the voice of his represented citizens, then by cracky, let him speak with his vote.

Besides, who says his moral guidance is based wholly on scripture or theology? Maybe that particular senator finds the bilking of Oklahoma's citizenry through a "voluntary tax" immoral. Maybe he finds putting false hope in a five dollar scratch and win when that five bucks can buy a gallon of milk immoral. There's lots and lots of spins on morality, and stating something is immoral doesn't automatically equal some sort of assumed religious high ground.

[JohnnyMack]

The importance of electing officials who believe in God has to do with ensuring that they believe and acknowledge a higher authority than just government. I don't trust a government that denies the existence of a supreme being because the logical consequence of that is that all power is then vested with the government and not with something greater than that.


That's what they tell the masses so they can elected.

LCD

[jeremy885]

Also, Catholics are most definitely Christians.


I don't know about that. The way they worship idols and saints seems pretty pagan to me.

[JohnnyMack]

Where'd Muhammad go?

[jeremy885]

It's founder's day for my Frat.

[Ike]

I have trouble with the whole kit and kaboodle regarding the intermarraige of politics and religon. We like to think that knowing a candidates religon will give us some insight into how that candidate makes decisions. But I think this line of reasoning is extremely flawed. Just amongs christianity, there are a brazillian subtle differences that can influence ones decision making. For instance, there are some christians that take the whole "turn the other cheek" thing to amazing extremes. I wouldn't want one of those guys as commander in chief. But they are christian. There are other christians that don't believe life begins at conception. There are catholics who think the pope is wrong sometimes. And then there are 'christians' that really don't pay much attention to what their church or the bible say...they just go their own way, but will (especially if they are in politics) continue to go to church and make a big display of being pseudo-pious.

Just knowing the faith of a particular candidate, IMHO, tells us little about the candidate. Everyone is different, and the role that their faith plays in their lives is different. If we require some set of religious belief in our candidates, we may get a few who actually believe that stuff, along with a whole bunch that will pay just enough lip service to those beliefs in order to get elected. And that will be the easiest lie that those people can ever tell.

[soonervegas]

I get to hire people to run large segments (people, processes, policy) within the wireless industry quite frequently. I know I ALWAYS ask if they are a Christian or not before hiring them. I'll be damned if I am going to have some hethen running a segment of our company.

[Frozen Sooner]

I don't know about that. The way they worship idols and saints seems pretty pagan to me.

Claiming that Catholics worship either idols or saints is incorrect as I understand it.

Catholics ask for intercession from saints as an intermediary. The saints themselves are not gods, nor or they worshipped.

[jeremy885]

Don't catholics pray to saints for blessings or help? Aren't these saints of something (luck, health, etc), just like the god of love, wine, etc? What about the Madonna idols?

Seems pretty pagan to me.

[OklahomaTuba]

Just knowing the faith of a particular candidate, IMHO, tells us little about the candidate.

I beg to differ.

Electing a Christian to office comes with a set of expectations, even though those expectation are next to impossible to meet for the average human being.

That being said, this is a Christian nation operating under a Christian culture. One reason why we've only had one muslim elected to office nationally.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Don't catholics pray to saints for blessings or help? Aren't these saints of something (luck, health, etc), just like the god of love, wine, etc? What about the Madonna idols?

Seems pretty pagan to me.

I'm not catholic, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. My family on my father's side is, however, and I've asked a few of these very questions of the old man.

The fact is, Mike hit it right on the head. The saints are just that. The folks that have been there, done that. And just like the University of Oklahoma creates a statue for all the Heisman trophy winners in honor of their triumph on the football field, catholic parishes will have statues of honor of the blessed Virgin Mary, various saints, specifically the saint many parishes are named for, others who have performed deeds worthy of our respect, and of course, the big JC himself. In fact, while the prevalence of these statues and iconography is pronounced in both roman and orthodox catholicism, the significance is no different than the very cross one will find in every christian church on the planet.

It's a symbol of the faith. An homage to the Bud Wilkinsons, Barry Switzers and Billy Vessels of Christendom. The statues aren't worshipped, just like the cross itself isn't worshipped, just like a crucifix you may wear isn't worshipped, just like the Bible isn't worshipped.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are worshipped, the Triumverate as Christianity knows it, is worshipped.

Any prayer that includes the saints and the blessed Virgin Mary are no different than calling out for a lil' prayer assist here on the SO. They aren't asking the saints themselves for a blessing, they're asking for a lil' help in putting in a good word with the Father. For example, when the patron saint of firefighters St. Florian is called upon, it is because historically Florian the Centurion knew the plight of fire and flame, knows the trials we experience. That's it.

Every catholic knows that Christ is the only path to salvation. That's just a no-brainer.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

His religious beliefs are not correct for some cultural conservatives. Some view Mormonism as a cult.

Yet one more reason Senator Clinton is odds on favorite to become Madam President.

[jeremy885]

His religious beliefs are not correct for some cultural conservatives. Some view Mormonism as a cult.

Yet one more reason Senator Clinton is odds on favorite to become Madam President.

So you're saying people will vote for Clinton due to religious reasons?

I'm a Dem in tx and there is no way I'm voting for her. What makes you think Republicans will in the general election?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So you're saying people will vote for Clinton due to religious reasons?

I'm a Dem in tx and there is no way I'm voting for her. What makes you think Republicans will in the general election?You are prolly pretty unique among dems. I betcha only a very small percentage of your party would consider not voting for whoever is the dem nominee. After all, nobody brings on the biggest social programs' growth like those who have that as an announced goal. W surprised most everyone with his social spending, but there's not a republican out there who can deliver the welfare pork like the democrats.

[Vaevictis]

Don't catholics pray to saints for blessings or help? Aren't these saints of something (luck, health, etc), just like the god of love, wine, etc? What about the Madonna idols?

Seems pretty pagan to me.

I really enjoy razzing one of my Catholic friends about that, but no, that's not what they do.

For example:


Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Note the "pray for us sinners." This is pretty much the common theme. You ask someone or something that is closer to God to pray for you, in the hopes that they might use their special position on your behalf.

(In Mary's case, hey, you might expect a mom to have some extra pull with her kid.)

As far as idoltry, well, I don't know that I'd call it that, but it's certainly (IMO) asking for trouble. Especially with say, little kids who might not quite catch the subtle difference. Best not have statues at all, IMO.

[Frozen Sooner]

Don't catholics pray to saints for blessings or help? Aren't these saints of something (luck, health, etc), just like the god of love, wine, etc? What about the Madonna idols?

Seems pretty pagan to me.

No, they don't pray to saints at all. They ask saints to intercede on their behalf with God. Yes, there are patron saints-but all that means is that those saints have a special interest in that field and may be more willing to listen to requests for intercession in those fields. Think of it this way: the CEO of a major corporation may not listen to any dude off the street, but if one of his subordinates vets the guy's ideas as they pertain to the subordinate's field of expertise and passes it on, the CEO is going to be more willing to listen. That doesn't mean that the subordinate is the one making the decision, nor does it mean that the subordinate has any real power.

What about the Madonna "idols"? They aren't worshipped any more than you worship a cross (as has already been mentioned.) It's a symbol of respect for the Mother of God, nothing more.

Speaking of which: I assume that you worship Jesus as both the Son of God and God, while worshipping God Himself. I understand that in all branches of Christianity They are accounted as one and the same person, but can you understand how an outsider might not understand how you claim to be monotheistic?

[jeremy885]

No, they don't pray to saints at all. They ask saints to intercede on their behalf with God. Yes, there are patron saints-but all that means is that those saints have a special interest in that field and may be more willing to listen to requests for intercession in those fields.

Isn't praying to and asking something of a saint the same thing?

[jeremy885]

You are prolly pretty unique among dems. I betcha only a very small percentage of your party would consider not voting for whoever is the dem nominee.
Isn't it the other way around for both parties? I haven't voted along straight party lines since 94 (my first election). Hell, I voted for Gore in 00 and Bush in 04.


After all, nobody brings on the biggest social programs' growth like those who have that as an announced goal. W surprised most everyone with his social spending, but there's not a republican out there who can deliver the welfare pork like the democrats.

Not all democrats are for big social spending and socialism :rolleyes:

[SanJoaquinSooner]

So you're saying people will vote for Clinton due to religious reasons?

I'm a Dem in tx and there is no way I'm voting for her. What makes you think Republicans will in the general election?


No, I'm not saying they (or you) will vote for Clinton. Given a choice between Clinton and a mormon some cultural conservatives will simply choose not to vote, or perhaps will support a third party candidate, but would ordinarily support a republican. It's a lost pub vote.

And Texas is irrelevant nominee-wise. The republican nominee will carry Texas no matter who the nominees are.

The battleground states are Ohio, Florida, and Missouri. Perhaps a few others.

[Frozen Sooner]

Isn't praying to and asking something of a saint the same thing?

Categorically, no.

If I ask you to pray for me, am I praying to you?

Then how is asking a saint to pray for me praying to him or her?

The fact that you're asking for someone to intercede on your behalf recognizes that the person asked doesn't have the power themself. Saying "St. Agnes, please talk to God for me about my gout" isn't saying "St. Agnes, please cure my gout." In the former, it's recognized that any potential healing would come from God, not St. Agnes.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

1)Isn't it the other way around for both parties? I haven't voted along straight party lines since 94 (my first election). Hell, I voted for Gore in 00 and Bush in 04.



2)Not all democrats are for big social spending and socialism :rolleyes:1)I think most non-pragmatic republicans that don't particularly like their nominee tend to either vote third party, or not vote. I don't think many dems take that approach, knowing 2) that their guy/gal will very likely deliver the pork, and take it out on high income taxpayers. I still contend you are not a typical democrat, and there are very few guys like you. Most who think like you are independents(rather than registered democrats), and hold out hope that there is a reasonable democrat who might run for some office sometime. Perhaps OK Gov. Brad Henry is okay. He's the ONLY sitting democrat politician I know of who appears to be acceptable. (At least so far) Of course, I don't know as much about OK state politics as I do AZ, but from what I've seen and heard, including from people on Soonerfans, he seems pretty reasonable, no?

[Mixer!]

...SACW?

[76soonergrad]

Do Mormans believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, the Savior and Redeemer?


I don't think so. Their founder "discovered" the Book of Morman. The Bible is not their authority.


Many beliefs do coincide with Christian values. But, IF Mormans do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, they cannot be Christian.


Having said that, I do not think that "Mormans take over the country" if Mitt Romney gets elected.

I prefer Huckabee.





And, anyone who worships the Blessed Mother or the saints is a blasphemer. Looking at the miracle of Cana, Jesus performed a miracle that he did not want to perform. "Woman, it's not my time," He said.

So why did he do it? 'Cause Mom said simply, "They have no wine." I can ask my friends to pray for me, but they are not in the Bible getting Jesus to do something that He didn't plan on doing.

And I'll ask Jesus directly, too. True Catholics do not confuse veneration with adoration. The Triune God is what Catholics worship. The rest are just aids to worship.


In Matthew, Jesus said, "I do not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." Catholics would say that the Catholic Church is that fulfillment.

Paul's letters refer to "hold fast to Tradition." Tradition is the church.



It's fine to disagree. I only say this because the Catholic Church is Bible based. When Mary visited Elizabeth, Elizabeth said, "Hail, full of Grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blest are thou among women. Blest is the fruit of your womb." The Hail Mary prayer is scripture based.





Different denominations have different interpretations.






_______________________

[SicEmBaylor]

...SACW?
Second American Civil War you may know it by its proper term. "SWONA"

[Viking Kitten]

This whole thread is a perfect example of what scares me off of organized religion in the first place. Sitting around bickering about who is a Christian and who's not a Christian and how the way "I" do it is better than the way "you" do it and btw you are doing it wrong and probably going to hell.

WTF ever.

[Sooner_Bob]

Categorically, no.

If I ask you to pray for me, am I praying to you?

Then how is asking a saint to pray for me praying to him or her?

The fact that you're asking for someone to intercede on your behalf recognizes that the person asked doesn't have the power themself. Saying "St. Agnes, please talk to God for me about my gout" isn't saying "St. Agnes, please cure my gout." In the former, it's recognized that any potential healing would come from God, not St. Agnes.


Personally, the only problem I have with that line of thinking is that we have all been provided someone to intercede for us . . . the Holy Spirit.

I also I have a problem with this particular aspect:

Penance is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ in which forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is granted through the priest's absolution to those who with true sorrow confess their sins and promise to satisfy for the same.

Absolution is the remission of sin, or of the punishment due to sin, granted by the Church.

Sorry, but only Jesus Christ can absolve sin. No minister, priest, nun or church in the world has that power.



Now, back to the topic. :D

Do I think Romney would do a good or bad job due to his mormon beliefs? I'm not really sure. I can't say I think he's a worse person than any of the rest of us. I think many politicians like to think that they are lead by their religious beliefs when they are asked to make decisions. Sometimes that turns out to be good and others it's more controversial.

Just don't spout some Christian philosophy one day and then endorse abortion the next. I think stuff like that is what gets a ton of politicians in trouble.

[Sooner_Bob]

This whole thread is a perfect example of what scares me off of organized religion in the first place. Sitting around bickering about who is a Christian and who's not a Christian and how the way "I" do it is better than the way "you" do it and btw you are doing it wrong and probably going to hell.

WTF ever.

Many aspects of "organized religion" have given grounds for the "bad name" many folks have for it. Trust me, many of us raised in church probably take issue with certain things within the church we attend. Things happen, people get upset. Nothing that involves man is ever going to be perfect.

There's a thin line between discussing religion and judging someone. More often than not that line gets obliterated.

[crawfish]

I won't vote for a candidate because he or she is a Christian.

I WILL vote for them if they behave like a Christian should, whether or not they actually are Christian.

Barring that, I'll vote for the one who promises to repeal the ban on working toilets. Heck, I might vote for Hitler if he promised that. ;)

[76soonergrad]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Discussing religion and judging others are 2 different things.



Like you said, there will always be disagreements. It isn't for anyone to say who will achieve salvation and who won't.


And about penance--That sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ--

It was instituted by Christ. Catholics are taught that priests "stand in" for Christ. It is Christ who forgives.

Then we can get into the whole authority thing. That's probably what turns most people off the Catholic Church.



Back about Romney--He gives a great speech, he did a lot for Massachusetts. He is well packaged. His religion doesn't bother me. He almost seems too slick.




It is interesting that Dems never have dissect their faith for the media.



______________

[royalfan5]

<Obligatory everyone who isn't Lutheran is wrong post>

[85Sooner]

I'll not vote for him in the SC Republican primary due to him being a mormon.

Mark my word, His speech will go down as an historical one. I don't think I have seen a better on ein my lifetime, well maybe a couple of reagans but he definitely is in the running for my vote.

[OCUDad]

It is interesting that Dems never have dissect their faith for the media. See also "John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

Oh, and if you're going to philosophize about Mormons, it would be really nice if you knew that the spelling is not "Morman." This isn't spelling smack; it's asking you to do enough research and have enough respect for the topic to actually have any credibility.

[JohnnyMack]

Bill Clinton, one of the most popular & charismatic Presidents evar. Wonder how his campaign would have gone if he didn't do the dog & pony show that every candidate does by making sure he appeals to the Christian base? I'm not talking about the Right Wing conservatives, rather Christians as a whole. His appeal was far reaching, he was a smooth talker and a terrific salesman that got votes from black, Southern Baptists and white, east coast Catholics alike.

I wonder if he said, "Yeah, I'm an athiest. I don't have much need for religion" how his campaign would have gone? I don't think he wouldn't have made it out of the D primary.

My point is that it doesn't matter what anyone TRULY believes (and I don't know what BC or any other candidate TRULY believes), but I can tell you that people who groom themselves to try and run for the POTUS know they HAVE to come across as a Christian if they want to get elected.

[76soonergrad]

OCU Dad, thanks for the spelling correction.




Johnny Mack, I couldn't agree more about Bill Clinton being a smooth talker. We lived in Little Rock when he ran for President the first time. The Southern Baptist Church there distanced themselves from him over the abortion issue.

A friend went to his church. I told her I thought that Baptists believed in abortion because of what Clinton was saying. "Oh no, we do not," was her reply.

I still think Republicans are under a religious microscope, Dems pay lip service.










_______________________

[tbl]

All one needs to do is research Mormon theology to know they are most certainly NOT Christian. Not even close.

To compare the Kennedy/Catholic issues with the Protestant opposition is an ignorant statement. As has been said, Catholicism and Protestantism share the most basic fundamentals of Christianity in regards to Christ, God the Father, inspiration of Scripture, etc, but differ mostly on salvation by faith+works or faith alone and authority (Scripture alone or Scripture plus tradition). Mormonism is pantheistic and their concept of Christ, God the Father, Scripture, etc, are all completely opposed to the Bible.

I'm not necessarily saying that Romney is doing this, but it has always been the desire of the Mormon Church to establish a Mormon theocracy in America (and the world as a whole). They've done a pretty decent job of that in Utah, but the ultimate goal is far greater than that.

[fadada1]

This whole thread is a perfect example of what scares me off of organized religion in the first place. Sitting around bickering about who is a Christian and who's not a Christian and how the way "I" do it is better than the way "you" do it and btw you are doing it wrong and probably going to hell.

WTF ever.
thank you, VK.

this is pretty much the reason why i started this thread.

what irks me is when a person from one religious group tells another that they're wrong. the little old man on some island in the south pacific believes in his god as much as the pope believes in his god. ask either one and they will tell you the other is wrong and on their way to the big bbq pit. i would hazard a guess that if the sun god on the island of "wherever" were to make a visit, he would suggest that "tolerance" of other people's religious choice is a good thing. similarly, if Jesus was to make a visit, he would say something similar.

my point is this... who cares. mitt romney should not be blasted and told he's wrong. his faith is a strong as anyones. good for him. so what if he's morman? are we, as cristians, to banish him to hell (and possibly the white house) because he believe in Jesus differently??? Are we to say that islam is bad because of a few bad apples??? islam is actually a very peaceful religion. and what about christian fundamentalists bombing abortion clinics??? something tells me Jesus might frown upon that.

again, just my $.02.

[SoonerBOI]

Mitt is a bureaucrat, CEO type that he is the hope of the Mormon church. You see, Mormons believe that we are living in the last days, before the Second Coming of Christ, and that the world will soon be in such chaos that it will turn to the Mormon church to lead it because of the Mormon church's extreme ability to organize and be efficient. And, well, because God said that's how it would be in the last days. Really. Not making this up.

[Frozen Sooner]

islam is actually a very peaceful religion. and what about christian fundamentalists bombing abortion clinics??? something tells me Jesus might frown upon that.

Hope you brought your asbestos suit to work today...

I see where you're going with the rest of your post, though. Someone who worships something that an outsider would consider goofy probably shouldn't make fun of someone else's goofy religion, right?

However, I think it's probably fair to say that some religions are goofier than others-they're NOT all equal. Religions that teach manifest falsehoods are less credible than those that don't: for example, Cargo Cultism is MUCH sillier than Zen Buddhism. Wicca is sillier than mainstream Christianity.

[royalfan5]

Mitt is a bureaucrat, CEO type that he is the hope of the Mormon church. You see, Mormons believe that we are living in the last days, before the Second Coming of Christ, and that the world will soon be in such chaos that it will turn to the Mormon church to lead it because of the Mormon church's extreme ability to organize and be efficient. And, well, because God said that's how it would be in the last days. Really. Not making this up.
The way I see it, if we are already in the handbasket, it might as well be an efficient and organized handbasket.

[Sooner_Bob]

. . he would suggest that "tolerance" of other people's religious choice is a good thing. similarly, if Jesus was to make a visit, he would say something similar.



Actually I think He would say something closer to:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


:D


But we are also taught that:

1 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,

2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love,

3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;

5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift.


Like I said it's a pretty fine line.


For those folks who might make a political decision based on their's or the candidates religious beliefs I would hope that they would life that decision up in prayer and not make a snap judgment.

[JohnnyMack]

Actually I think He would say something closer to:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


:D



As has just about every other deity we humans have created.

[Sooner_Bob]

As has just about every other deity we humans have created.


ZANG!!


The story of Christ may have been told by humans, but I disagree that we created the idea of Christ.

[crawfish]

Are we to say that islam is bad because of a few bad apples??? islam is actually a very peaceful religion. and what about christian fundamentalists bombing abortion clinics??? something tells me Jesus might frown upon that.

again, just my $.02.

I think you overpaid. :rolleyes:

There have been, what 10-15 abortion murders since the 1980's? Fewer than fifty bombings (most with no casualties)? That's a slow day for Islam.

What you're saying is this: "I know that Rwanda is engaging in genocide, but how can the U.S. be critical of it when there are school shootings?"

It's a matter of perspective. STOP WITH THE STUPIDITY!!!

[fadada1]

There have been, what 10-15 abortion murders since the 1980's? Fewer than fifty bombings (most with no casualties)? That's a slow day for Islam.

STOP WITH THE STUPIDITY!!!
no casualties justifies it???

but stupidity is sooooo fun.....:D

[Stoop Dawg]

What religion does one espouse when he says something like "I promise the most ethical administration in the history of the earth", and then go off whoring everything out?

Well, I can only go by what I read in the press. I know that's not very scientific, but it's all I've got.

So, given the staggering number of sex scandals reported over the years, I'm going to go with "Christianity".

[Stoop Dawg]

I skipped a few pages, sorry that I'm now "off topic" by going back "on topic".

To answer the original question, I too feel that one's religious affiliation is important in elections. But being a "Christian" doesn't automatically disqualify them from my vote, it's just another mark in the "cons" columns. (Yes, lame pun intended.)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I skipped a few pages, sorry that I'm now "off topic" by going back "on topic".

To answer the original question, I too feel that one's religious affiliation is important in elections. But being a "Christian" doesn't automatically disqualify them from my vote, it's just another mark in the "cons" columns. (Yes, lame pun intended.)This philosophy suggests you lean towards who, then, Obama or the "Mormons are not-Christians" Romney?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well, I can only go by what I read in the press. I know that's not very scientific, but it's all I've got.

So, given the staggering number of sex scandals reported over the years, I'm going to go with "Christianity".Are you speaking of Clinton, or whom? I wasn't just referring to sexual whoring, but I wasn't originally clear about that.

[crawfish]

no casualties justifies it???

but stupidity is sooooo fun.....:D

I'm not justifying it. I'm just putting it in the proper perspective.

[JohnnyMack]

What percentage of candidates running for office at a National level (Congress, Senate & President) do so and don't call themselves Christians (Prostestant, Catholic or any other subset)?

[Stoop Dawg]

This philosophy suggests you lean towards who, then, Obama or the "Mormons are not-Christians" Romney?

My leanings aren't clear at this point. I'm not particularly impressed with any of them so far. For me, the guiding principle this year is going to be "limited government". Whoever cons me into thinking they will actually cut spending on social programs will get my vote.

[Stoop Dawg]

Are you speaking of Clinton, or whom? I wasn't just referring to sexual whoring, but I wasn't originally clear about that.

Well, Clinton is one. I'm not sure the Soonerfans.com database can hold the entire list. ;)

[crawfish]

My leanings aren't clear at this point. I'm not particularly impressed with any of them so far. For me, the guiding principle this year is going to be "limited government". Whoever cons me into thinking they will actually cut spending on social programs will get my vote.

Heh. That narrows it down to one. ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

This philosophy suggests you lean towards who, then, Obama or the "Mormons are not-Christians" Romney?

As I'm sure you're aware, Barack Obama is a practicing Christian. Nice try though.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

As I'm sure you're aware, Barack Obama is a practicing Christian. Nice try though.Actually, I wasn't aware of his reported religion. So, take that, fella!

[royalfan5]

As I'm sure you're aware, Barack Obama is a practicing Christian. Nice try though.
I really want to make a UCC joke here, but I'll hold off.

[Frozen Sooner]

Uh huh.

[Stoop Dawg]

Actually, I wasn't aware of his reported religion.

I think it's protocol to wait until after you're elected to let people know that God is telling you to invade foreign countries.

You guys make this too easy. It's almost no fun.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think it's protocol to wait until after you're elected to let people know that God is telling you to invade foreign countries.

You guys make this too easy. It's almost no fun.So, predict, already.

[SoonerBorn68]

I'm going to cast my vote for the person I believe will serve the best interest of the United States. You know, protect & defend the Constitution, secure our borders, gets tough on illegal aiens, won't raise taxes, will be fiscally responsible, etc. That leaves out every Democratic candidate.

I personally don't care if Romney's Mormon or not--he and I agree politically.

[Frozen Sooner]

Heh. Every Democratic candidate AND our current Republican president. :D

I know, I know, he's not running. It just made me giggle a little.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Heh. Every Democratic candidate AND our current Republican president. :D

I know, I know, he's not running. It just made me giggle a little.Me, too, but the laughing stops when I think we could have had to deal with the magnificence of ("dam*ed internal combustion engines")algore and/or the swiftboat patriot. W, with his shortcomings, was easily the best choice at the time.
We DO need to control our borders, and probably within the next 4 yrs. By the time the election comes, and if the economy is in fair or better shape, I think it will be(and should be) mostly about national security, including border security.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Here's another stick o' Jimmy Walker brand dynamite for the pile.


Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

And Commandment Numero Uno...


Do not have any other gods before Me.

So with that logic, if we're not old testament hardline hebrews, we're just screwed.

What the hell did I do with my yamulka?

[Ike]

I'm going to cast my vote for the person I believe will serve the best interest of the United States. You know, protect & defend the Constitution, secure our borders, gets tough on illegal aiens, won't raise taxes, will be fiscally responsible, etc. That leaves out every Democratic candidate.

I personally don't care if Romney's Mormon or not--he and I agree politically.


I think that last bullet point probably disqualifies every candidate.

[Chuck Bao]

Dubya was never the right choice. The worst American president in history was never the right choice.

It is not about security and defending the borders from foreign attack. America seems to be finally realising that these are just scare tactics.

The Republicans only know scare tactics because their whole purpose is to protect the status quo, the rich.

Big government and Democrats are coming after your money.

Evil dark-skinned foreigners are coming to blow everyone up.

Government intervention into outrageously expensive health care is socialized medicine.

Your son just might be tempted to give in to his true nature and come out as gay.

The religious right isn't really religious. They're only take half of the Bible trying to support their right wing political agenda of protecting the rich.

No wonder Republican candidates are grilled on their religious views. Democrats aren't courting these right wing nut jobs.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Dubya was never the right choice. The worst American president in history was never the right choice.

It is not about security and defending the borders from foreign attack. America seems to be finally realising that these are just scare tactics.

The Republicans only know scare tactics because their whole purpose is to protect the status quo, the rich.

Big government and Democrats are coming after your money.

Evil dark-skinned foreigners are coming to blow everyone up.

Government intervention into outrageously expensive health care is socialized medicine.

Your son just might be tempted to give in to his true nature and come out as gay.

The religious right isn't really religious. They're only take half of the Bible trying to support their right wing political agenda of protecting the rich.

No wonder Republican candidates are grilled on their religious views. Democrats aren't courting these right wing nut jobs.Is Kusinich your guy?

[mdklatt]

Is Kusinich your guy?

Given that Chuck Bao lives in Thailand, I'm sure that even Kucinich would be an improvement.

Besides, have you seen his wife? :hot:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Given that Chuck Bao lives in Thailand, I'm sure that even Kucinich would be an improvement.

Besides, have you seen his wife? :hot:What, does Chuck's wife look like Kucinich?...uh, lucky guy...

[SicEmBaylor]

Dubya was never the right choice. The worst American president in history was never the right choice.

Not a good President, but he sure as hell isn't the worst ever.


It is not about security and defending the borders from foreign attack. America seems to be finally realising that these are just scare tactics.

It's a threat but the hyperbole over terrorism is way the hell out of the hand, and I think we focus on that at the expense of other national security concerns that pose a much greater (though as of yet silent) threat. I'm more concerned with China than terrorism as far as a true threat to our nation.


The Republicans only know scare tactics because their whole purpose is to protect the status quo, the rich.

Now, that's just blatantly untrue. First, the GOP for the last two decades has done everything BUT protect the status quo. Now, granted since Bush took office they've "settled in" a bit, but I think if you look at the two parties side by side and contrast them over the last twenty years then you'd find more radical reforms being proposed (and implemented) with the GOP than the DNC. Also, the idea that they're out for the rich is depression era nonsense and every bit the same kind of hyperbole rhetoric used to promote the threat of terrorism. What the GOP does (at least in theory) is protect the institutions and system whereby people can attain wealth and, yes, that means the rich get richer. More people have become classified "rich" in this country as a result of GOP policies than that of the other party and that's not a bad thing. That quote that, "the unequal distribution of wealth is better than the equal distribution of property" is very very true. Also, the rich increasingly identify themselves as Democrats rather than Republicans these days.


Big government and Democrats are coming after your money.
So are the Republicans. But don't ever underestimate the ability and willingness of Democrats to spend outrageous sums of money on ever increasingly expensive entitlement programs paid for by outrageous tax hikes.


Evil dark-skinned foreigners are coming to blow everyone up.
I can't speak for the base, but I think Bush has gone way the hell out of his way to not make this an issue of race. In fact, I think he's gone too far in not making this about race.


Government intervention into outrageously expensive health care is socialized medicine.
It is and it's not constitutionally justifiable. Medicine, believe it or not, is a business just like any other industry. There is no enumerated Federal power stating, "The Congress shall provide healthcare..."


Your son just might be tempted to give in to his true nature and come out as gay.
I think you're right here. I'm not really in favor of gay marriage in my particular state, but if the people of Vermont or any other state want it then more power to them. The GOP is perfectly willing to violate the spirit of the constitution in efforts to criminalize it.


The religious right isn't really religious. They're only take half of the Bible trying to support their right wing political agenda of protecting the rich.

The leaders of the evangelical movement are dangerous and certainly wealthy, but protecting the rich is hardly a concern for the evangelical foot soliders who put Republicans into office. They're solidly middle-class and their concern is evangelizing the Federal government which is far more dangerous than this nonsense claptrap of protecting the rich.


No wonder Republican candidates are grilled on their religious views. Democrats aren't courting these right wing nut jobs.

No, they have their own nut jobs to court.

[Chuck Bao]

Since I’m on this hyperbole roll, I might as well continue.

I got this SicEm quote from his post on page 3, but it ties in with the core points of our political disagreement.


The importance of electing officials who believe in God has to do with ensuring that they believe and acknowledge a higher authority than just government. I don't trust a government that denies the existence of a supreme being because the logical consequence of that is that all power is then vested with the government and not with something greater than that.


I know a belief in a higher authority is commonly used as a litmus test, but I think it is way too broad and simplistic thinking. Religion shouldn’t necessarily be equated to morality.

And, which is a bigger ego trip? “There is no higher realm and I am in a position of power in this human domain” OR “God the creator of heaven and earth knows me personally and has put me here in this position of power”?

The only diff is potential threat of divine retribution for misdeeds. But, if you’re thinking that you’re God’s chosen, you aren’t so much worried about retribution until the earthly domain has already brought you down.

That’s the religious right appeal. God is in our corner. God wants us to be rich.

Yeah, it’s the conservative upper middle class that is the mainstay of the religious right movement. But, what happens when the gospel of prosperity isn’t exactly working for you?


What the GOP does (at least in theory) is protect the institutions and system whereby people can attain wealth and, yes, that means the rich get richer.

Institutions and systems? I was taught on my first day in business school that Baylor wants its MBA grads to make lots and lots of money. What an institution!

To use a highly over-used clich&#233;: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

The Republican party has betrayed its base – loss of fiscal responsibility in the War on Terror. And, there is that Republican elephant in the room – the Military Industrial Complex.

The internet bubble and now the property bubble. Let’s just bail out the financial institutions by freezing mortgage rates for those people who had no business in the first place of buying new homes. It’s not going to work, but let’s just say that we tried.

Great economic management, there.


Medicine, believe it or not, is a business just like any other industry. There is no enumerated Federal power stating, "The Congress shall provide healthcare..."

You don’t get it, do you? We are talking about letting people die because they can’t afford it. What sort of religious person…oh never mind.

[limey_sooner]

Not to mention the fact that there's also nothing that says the congress will provide money for education, or the maintenance of infrastructure, or money following natural disasters, or .... Well you get the point.

[SoonerBorn68]

Not to mention the fact that there's also nothing that says the congress will provide money...for the maintenance of infrastructure, or money following natural disasters, or .... Well you get the point.

Thank you founding fathers for including the Second Amendment.

[crawfish]

I think that last bullet point probably disqualifies every candidate.

Except one. But he's nuts because of it. ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

And, which is a bigger ego trip? “There is no higher realm and I am in a position of power in this human domain” OR “God the creator of heaven and earth knows me personally and has put me here in this position of power”?

That's a monarchist point of view. I'm talking about there being a higher authority than government and inalienable rights that exist which government can't deny. I'm not trying to argue in favor of the divine right of monarchists.

The only diff is potential threat of divine retribution for misdeeds. But, if you’re thinking that you’re God’s chosen, you aren’t so much worried about retribution until the earthly domain has already brought you down.

That’s the religious right appeal. God is in our corner. God wants us to be rich.


Yeah, it’s the conservative upper middle class that is the mainstay of the religious right movement. But, what happens when the gospel of prosperity isn’t exactly working for you?
Then it's up to private charity. None of what you're saying justifies government action.


Institutions and systems? I was taught on my first day in business school that Baylor wants its MBA grads to make lots and lots of money. What an institution!
To use a highly over-used cliché: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

What's wrong with that? I'd seriously question a business school that didn't teach its students to make money.


The Republican party has betrayed its base – loss of fiscal responsibility in the War on Terror. And, there is that Republican elephant in the room – the Military Industrial Complex.

I agree with you.


You don’t get it, do you? We are talking about letting people die because they can’t afford it. What sort of religious person…oh never mind.

I'm not a religious person. If you don't think plenty of people are going to die because of inadequate care under a government managed health care system then I want a hit of whatever you're smoking.

[SicEmBaylor]

Not to mention the fact that there's also nothing that says the congress will provide money for education, or the maintenance of infrastructure, or money following natural disasters, or .... Well you get the point.

Well, infrastructure can be (under the right circumstances) the proper use of the interstate commerce clause.

As for providing money for education....I wouldn't. Nor do I see why the Federal government has any business getting involved in natural disasters UNLESS it
crosses state lines.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

A)...my first day in business school...





B)The internet bubble and now the property bubble. Let’s just bail out the financial institutions by freezing mortgage rates for those people who had no business in the first place of buying new homes. It’s not going to work, but let’s just say that we tried.





A) You went to business school? B) Evidence you did. Congrats! That is a bad move by the administration and/ or congress-whoever chimes in with that social engineering.
It's sad to me that a considerable segment of our populace trusts the collectivists more than those who espouse capitalism and freedom. But, it has happened, and is the foundation for SicEm's possible SACW, or whatever it's real name is.

[Vaevictis]

The importance of electing officials who believe in God has to do with ensuring that they believe and acknowledge a higher authority than just government. I don't trust a government that denies the existence of a supreme being because the logical consequence of that is that all power is then vested with the government and not with something greater than that.

Heh, just curious: How's this theory working out for you, vis a' vis the current administration?

[SicEmBaylor]

Heh, just curious: How's this theory working out for you, vis a' vis the current administration?
Not too well. ;) There's an important difference though than simply acknowledging a higher power than God and being and using the bully pulpit to evangelize the nation, consolidate federal power, etc.

[Vaevictis]

Yeah, thought so. ;)

You have to be really careful when saying that what you want is a religious person in charge. Because if they're the wrong kind of religious person, you better watch the **** out. Nothing's more dangerous than a person who's convinced that they're on a mission from God.

[SicEmBaylor]

Yeah, thought so. ;)

You have to be really careful when saying that what you want is a religious person in charge. Because if they're the wrong kind of religious person, you better watch the **** out. Nothing's more dangerous than a person who's convinced that they're on a mission from God.

I think we're on different pages on this. I'm not talking about sticking Jerry Falwell in the Oval Office. I'm thinking of something approaching a Deist.

[Vaevictis]

Ah, well, now that you've qualified your original statement, we're more on the same page.

So the question then becomes: How do you separate one from the other in a modern political campaign? I don't know that you can reliably do so.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yeah, thought so. ;)

You have to be really careful when saying that what you want is a religious person in charge. Because if they're the wrong kind of religious person, you better watch the **** out. Nothing's more dangerous than a person who's convinced that they're on a mission from God.A religious person has a reasonable chance of being a good leader. A committed socialist/collectivist/progressive/(pick your preferred term) has nearly 0 chance of being a good leader.
You guys don't respond to the evidence that socialism doesn't work. It's a shame it doesn't work, because it looks good on paper, but it's proven to stifle incentive and motivation on most levels. You guys will continue to deny that, I guess.

[SicEmBaylor]

A religious person has a reasonable chance of being a good leader. A committed socialist/collectivist/progressive/(pick your preferred term) has nearly 0 chance of being a good leader.
You guys don't respond to the evidence that socialism doesn't work. It's a shame it doesn't work, because it looks good on paper, but it's proven to stifle incentive and motivation on most levels. You guys will continue to deny that, I guess.

Here's the problem with your statement: You're assuming that a man of religion is also going to be a man of limited government and pro-capitalist. That is NOT necessarily true. It's definitely not true of our current President.

You can be a conservative limited government President AND be an Atheist. I'd have reservations voting for them; because, it's hard to see where they would believe that inalienable rights come from if not government but it is definitely possible. The opposite has been proven.

[SicEmBaylor]

Ah, well, now that you've qualified your original statement, we're more on the same page.

So the question then becomes: How do you separate one from the other in a modern political campaign? I don't know that you can reliably do so.

Hell, I can't begin to imagine some spoor schmuck trying to explain that he was a deist to the modern American electorate.

American politics is a beauty pageant these days. That's all it is. It's shallow, superficial, and essentially irrelevant as far as determining the broad direction of the country.

[Frozen Sooner]

Here's the problem with your statement: You're assuming that a man of religion is also going to be a man of limited government and pro-capitalist. That is NOT necessarily true. It's definitely not true of our current President.

You can be a conservative limited government President AND be an Atheist. I'd have reservations voting for them; because, it's hard to see where they would believe that inalienable rights come from if not government but it is definitely possible. The opposite has been proven.

The inalienable rights of man arise out of logical necessity for the flourishing of man.

[SicEmBaylor]

The inalienable rights of man arise out of logical necessity for the flourishing of man.
Which can easily change which is why I'm not a fan of that particular point.

[Frozen Sooner]

How can logical necessity change?

I would say that it's a lot easier to change "Rights derive from a creator who's somewhat notorious for changing his mind" than it is "Rights derive from a logical necessity."

[Vaevictis]

A religious person has a reasonable chance of being a good leader. A committed socialist/collectivist/progressive/(pick your preferred term) has nearly 0 chance of being a good leader.

The keyword there being committed. The problem with religious or pseudo-religious zeal is that it won't yield in the face of the facts. This is true of any associated ideology, be it free market capitalism, socialism, communism, or any given religion. The certainty that your way is the only way or is always the right way is the problem here, not the specific ideology that you hold.


You guys don't respond to the evidence that socialism doesn't work. It's a shame it doesn't work, because it looks good on paper, but it's proven to stifle incentive and motivation on most levels. You guys will continue to deny that, I guess.

I don't have to respond; I'm not married to socialism like some people, nor am I married to free market capitalism like others.

I prefer the idea of looking at a given situation and utilizing the best tool for the job. Sometimes that's the market, sometimes that's regulation or collectivism, and sometimes it's a blend.

And the blanket claim that socialism never works is patently false. A family is a socialistic unit. Do families not work?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The keyword there being committed. The problem with religious or pseudo-religious zeal is that it won't yield in the face of the facts. This is true of any associated ideology, be it free market capitalism, socialism, communism, or any given religion. The certainty that your way is the only way or is always the right way is the problem here, not the specific ideology that you hold.



I don't have to respond; I'm not married to socialism like some people, nor am I married to free market capitalism like others.

I prefer the idea of looking at a given situation and utilizing the best tool for the job. Sometimes that's the market, sometimes that's regulation or collectivism, and sometimes it's a blend.

And the blanket claim that socialism never works is patently false. A family is a socialistic unit. Do families not work?A person of religion CAN be an okay or good leader. A socialist, whether religious or not, cannot be a good leader. It doesn't work at the coercion(govt.) level. Never has, and can't, because it stifles incentive and drive. It's that simple. I know you don't believe that. You still consider socialism viable. Too bad.

[SicEmBaylor]

A person of religion CAN be an okay or good leader. A socialist, whether religious or not, cannot be a good leader. It doesn't work at the coercion(govt.) level. Never has, and can't, because it stifles incentive and drive. It's that simple. I know you don't believe that. You still consider socialism viable. Too bad.

Why would being an atheist make you a socialist?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Why would being an atheist make you a socialist?I didn't say it does. I only said a socialist can't be a good leader, 'cause socialism sucks!

[Frozen Sooner]

Why would being an atheist make you a socialist?

No no no. Don't you realize that false dichotomies are actually a GOOD debate technique?

If you don't believe in God, you MUST be a socialist. I mean, just ask Ayn Rand.

[SicEmBaylor]

No no no. Don't you realize that false dichotomies are actually a GOOD debate technique?

If you don't believe in God, you MUST be a socialist. I mean, just ask Ayn Rand.

Socialist wench.

[olevetonahill]

All I know is this Country was Founded on religious principals
Since then its went to shat .
Id fear a hard core evangelical as well as an atheist
Just sayin

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I don't give a damn if a president is Morman, Catholic, Baptist, Unitarian, Jew, or atheist.... as long as she worships Adam Smith.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

December 07, 2007

Huck’s Unholy Dance
Mormonism should be a total irrelevancy in any political campaign. It is not.

By Charles Krauthammer


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

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

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

That didn’t seem to matter for much of this year when Romney had a commanding lead and his religion seemed a manageable political problem — until Mike Huckabee came along and caught up to Romney in the Iowa polls.

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

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

Forget the implications of the idea that being a “Christian leader” is some special qualification for the presidency of a country whose Constitution (Article VI) explicitly rejects any religious test for office. Just imagine that Huckabee were running one-on-one in Iowa against Joe Lieberman. (It’s a thought experiment. Stay with me.) If he had run the same ad in those circumstances, it would have raised an outcry. The subtext — who’s the Christian in this race? — would have been too obvious to ignore, the appeal to bigotry too clear.

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

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

Hmmm. So it is an issue, Huckabee avers. But not a very important one. And he’s not going to pronounce upon it. Nice straddle, leaving the question unanswered and still open — the kind of maneuver one comes to expect from slick former governors of Arkansas lusting for the presidency.

And by Huckabee’s own logic, since he is not running for head of a theological college, what is he doing proclaiming himself a “Christian leader” in an ad promoting himself for president? Answer: Having the issue every which way. Seeming to take the high road of tolerance by refusing to declare Mormonism a cult, indeed declaring himself above the issue — yet clearly playing to that prejudice by leaving the question ambiguous, while making sure everyone knows that he, for one, is a “Christian leader.”

The God of the Founders, the God on the coinage, the God for whom Lincoln proclaimed Thanksgiving Day is the ineffable, ecumenical, nonsectarian Providence of the American civil religion whose relation to this blessed land is without appeal to any particular testament or ritual. Every mention of God in every inaugural address in American history refers to the deity in this kind of all-embracing, universal, nondenominational way. (The one exception: William Henry Harrison. He caught cold delivering that inaugural address. Thirty-one days later, he was dead. Draw your own conclusion.) I suspect that neither Jefferson’s Providence nor Washington’s Great Author nor Lincoln’s Almighty would look kindly on the exploitation of religious differences for political gain. It is un-American. It is unfortunate that Romney has had to justify himself in response.

[JohnnyMack]

I'm voting for Fred. **** the rest of them. It'll be cool to have a new cold war with FT at the helm.

[Mjcpr]

I'm voting for Fred. **** the rest of them. It'll be cool to have a new cold war with FT at the helm.

Have you ever noticed he looks exactly like Phil Fulmer?

[JohnnyMack]

I'm disturbed by your avatar.

Srsly.

Creep. E.

[Mjcpr]

What ever happened to that av you had of your kid?

:D

[JohnnyMack]

<runs away>

[Stoop Dawg]

I didn't say it does. I only said a socialist can't be a good leader, 'cause socialism sucks!

I guess you and I have very different concepts of "leader". I'm certainly no fan of Stalin or Hitler, but to claim that they were not good "leaders" is patently absurd.

[Octavian]

What's wrong with letting religion guide your decision making process?



This question was answered several hundred years ago.

[Octavian]

I don't give a damn if a president is Morman, Catholic, Baptist, Unitarian, Jew, or atheist.... as long as she worships Adam Smith.


Then you don't have a dog in the race unless you're part of the R<3volution.


America hasn't adhered to Smith's philosophy in a century.


The Federal Reserve >< The Invisible Hand

[Vaevictis]

I guess you and I have very different concepts of "leader". I'm certainly no fan of Stalin or Hitler, but to claim that they were not good "leaders" is patently absurd.

His idea of a good leader requires someone who is for capitalism and limited government.

It's a circular definition :D

[SicEmBaylor]

His idea of a good leader requires someone who is for capitalism and limited government.

It's a circular definition :D
I disagree with that. RLIMC has shown on many occasions that he is less concerned with limited government than he is with electing Republicans.

If he were for those two things then I'd have virtually no problem with him.

[Vaevictis]

I disagree with that. RLIMC has shown on many occasions that he is less concerned with limited government than he is with electing Republicans.

If he were for those two things then I'd have virtually no problem with him.

Not everyone practices what they preach, yo. :D

[Octavian]

nm

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Then you don't have a dog in the race unless you're part of the R<3volution.


America hasn't adhered to Smith's philosophy in a century.


The Federal Reserve >< The Invisible Hand

That may be true in some respects. However, the U.S. and much of the world have been reducing tariffs for the past 25 years. The general movement has been toward free trade and a freer movement of labor.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I disagree with that. RLIMC has shown on many occasions that he is less concerned with limited government than he is with electing Republicans.

If he were for those two things then I'd have virtually no problem with him.Democrats openly espouse Big Brother, and try to deliver when elected. You know that. Some Republicans are for limited govt. Almost all republicans believe in a more limited govt. than almost all democrats. Third party people almost never get elected at the national level.

[SicEmBaylor]

Democrats openly espouse Big Brother, and try to deliver when elected. You know that. Some Republicans are for limited govt. Almost all republicans believe in a more limited govt. than almost all democrats. Third party people almost never get elected at the national level.

If there are Republicans who still truly believe in limited government then they aren't in a leadership position, and they sure as hell don't act like it. I'd have a hard time trying to quantify the relative belief in limited government between Republicans and Democrats.

It's like Sprite or Diet Sprite. I hate both. Diet Sprite isn't any better to me than Sprite is.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'll say this about the Mormons....damned they have one hell of a choir.

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir's Christmas music is the absolute best around (save for some of the classics by Bing Crosby, Nat King Cole, etc.)

I also love their patriotic music albums around the 4th of July. They include the anthem's 4th verse which virtually nobody else does. I get chills up my spine every time they sing, "then conquer we must; when our cause it is just. And this be our motto, 'in God is our trust.'"

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'll say this about the Mormons....damned they have one hell of a choir.

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir's Christmas music is the absolute best around (save for some of the classics by Bing Crosby, Nat King Cole, etc.)

I also love their patriotic music albums around the 4th of July. They include the anthem's 4th verse which virtually nobody else does. I get chills up my spine every time they sing, "then conquer we must; when our cause it is just. And this be our motto, 'in God is our trust.'"So, instead of R or D, you will vote M?

[SicEmBaylor]

So, instead of R or D, you will vote M?
I'm very likely to not vote in the Presidential race.

If Ron Paul runs as an independent then I'll be voting "I"

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If Ron Paul runs as an independent then I'll be voting "I"I will too, but only if his running mate is Cindy Sheehan.

[JohnnyMack]

I would definitely vote for Romney. His religious beliefs wouldn't deter me in the slightest.

I mean I'm no Christian and every person I've voted for in Presidential elections has been some sort of Christian so it's not like I'm so conflicted to the point I just haven't voted. I just try to pick the person I feel is closest to my set of beliefs.

[Ike]

I would definitely vote for Romney. His religious beliefs wouldn't deter me in the slightest.

I mean I'm no Christian and every person I've voted for in Presidential elections has been some sort of Christian so it's not like I'm so conflicted to the point I just haven't voted. I just try to pick the person I feel is closest to my set of beliefs.

My reasons for not voting for Romney have nothing to do with his religion, and everything to do with the fact that I have it on good evidence that he is in fact, an alien robot.

[mdklatt]

My reasons for not voting for Romney have nothing to do with his religion, and everything to do with the fact that I have it on good evidence that he is in fact, an alien robot.

Given all the other candidates, are you saying this is a bad thing?

[Frozen Sooner]

My reasons for not voting for Romney have nothing to do with his religion, and everything to do with the fact that I have it on good evidence that he is in fact, an alien robot.

ROM is not a robot.

He's a cyborg.

Geez.