Mitt Romney seemed to try to have it both ways in his speech today about faith. He played up the importance of faith, arguing that questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion are appropriate. Yet he didn’t answer many of those questions, mentioning the word “Morman†only once. As President Kennedy did, Romney assured that “no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.†But then he spoke about the need for religion in public life and complained about too much separation of church and state. Yet he also downplayed religious doctrinal differences, say they “are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance.†So faith is important, but it shouldn’t matter what that faith is in? If politicians are going to make faith part of their campaigns, they open the door to scrutiny about that faith.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
67 Comments
A very good speech. It requires no interpretation of the Morman religion for the nosey media or anyone else for the matter. Did you ask JFK to tell us about what Catholics “do”? Get real.
This speech would be a good one for the entire world to hear. Particularly the secular middle east.
PhilYou sound rather petty, if not, downright, “intolerant”!
What Romney said is, actually, the way most Americans think about faith.
Mitt Romney is NOT the one who has made religion part of his campaign. ALL he has ever said is “I’m a man of faith.” Period. It’s OTHERS who are bringing it up, and Huckabee who runs ads saying his religion “defines him.” Romney simply replied to the questions OTHERS have.
Kevin
I tend to agree with you – what bits of his comments I heard reminded me both of JFK back in 1960 and also of Carter when his faith was raised.
Good grief Phil! What do you want from conservative candidates?
If a republican candidate said he was Maharishi Mahesh Yodi and a follower of transcendental meditation – would you insult him by asking him to levitate across the room on a flying carpet?
Do you ask Christian candidates to walk on water?
Do you ask Lutheran candidates if they are Missouri Synod, the particulars of that faith?
If he said he belonged to the Church of the Navel, would you ask to see his?
You are being a slimy newspaperman now.
I wonder what Phil would say if Romney was a Muslim?
Romney gave a GREAT speech. I am convinced that he is the best choice for president.
It WOULD be nice if the Mormom church were more open about what goes on behind closed doors.
“Kitrell” –
Dial it back. The people who forced Romney into this talk about religion aren’t liberals or media types, they’re evangelical “christians” who’ve railed against the so-called Mormon “cult” for decades.
Huckabee’s camp followers (if not the Huckabee campaign itself) have — just as the Baptists did to Catholics in 1960 — made Romney’s religion an issue in the Republic Party primary. No one else has.
“Two of the Mormon Churches attorneys went into a diner and ordered two drinks. Then they produced sandwiches from their briefcases and started to eat.
The owner became quite concerned and marched over and told them, “You can’t eat your own sandwiches in here!”
The Mormon attorneys looked at each other, shrugged their shoulders and then exchanged sandwiches.”
MonkeyHawk,
I’m aware of the internal debate within the nose in the air religious right.
But I am responded directly to a post by Phil who represents the media.
He is stirring the pot and adding to the negativity – expressing HIS views, not other conservatives.
I wonder … if he had been a follower of the FMS would they have asked “elbow or straight?”
RAMEN
KitrellI agree with you.
The liberal press is well aware of potential “fractures” or “fault lines” in the Republican Party.
The liberal press uses all the “wedge issues” they can, to cause trouble within the Republican Party.
There HUGE contradictions in the Democrat Party, but the press papers over almost all Democrat Party divisions.
just as the Baptists did to Catholics in 1960 Posted by: MonkeyHawk
Does the Eagle represent Baptists? Is that where the question comes from? Here is what Phil said, “If politicians are going to make faith part of their campaigns, they open the door to scrutiny about that faith.”
What Phil missed when he listened to the ENTIRE speech was that Romney made it clear that although he is a man of faith -
‘Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.’
Like the swallows returning to Capistrano, like ocean tides (and just as interesting to watch), “Econ101″ and the Republic Party faithful blame “the media” for all their woes.
Brownlee didn’t make the speech today, Romney did. The “liberal” media didn’t make Mormonism an issue in the Republic Party primary, Republics did.
One moment “Econ101″ decries how Democrats “march in lockstep;” the next, he’s throwing out a vague reference to “HUGE contradictions.”
It’s like Karl Rove blaming the Democratic Congress for “forcing Shrub to invade Iraq.”
My regards to Bizarro Lois, “Econ101.”
just as the Baptists did to Catholics in 1960 Posted by: MonkeyHawk
He further said,”It’s important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. ”
He stressed the unity in the diversity of our religious differences – not what those differences were.
To make the large majority Christians happy, I think he even went too far – he acknowledged JC for what HE is.
Romney united religions with his speech. Phil is anxious to find out what the differences between us are. I can only think of one reason to divide us.
How much more specific detail does Phil need?
Phil and the rest of the media, and the democrats will not be happy with Romney’s religion until they can make an issue with the Morman Church.
I won’t beat around the bush – it would be a very good thing for liberals if they could some how bring up the issue of polygyny and get Romney to make ANY statement thereonto pertaining.
That is the sole goal.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Romney’s qualifications to lead our nation as president.
No mention about experience on this candid? Nope. It’s all about God.
Great reporting (not).
Monkey
I think Democrats would NOT “march in lockstep” if the liberal press would, actually, explain how much damage the Democrat Party does to the people you claim to represent.
It is the Democrat Party leadership that refuses to address immigration. Yes, I have been upset with some Republicans, on this issue, but when has the media ever highlighted the huge splits in the Democrat Party over this issue?
Tell me how radical environmentalism helps the average guy working in a manufacturing plant or a power plant? Do the radical greens care about unemployment? Do the radical greens care that China will just take all of our jobs, with cheap coal power? What about all the jobs we would have in oil production, if the greens would just let us drill?
When has the media EVER exposed the very questionionable tactics of the Rev. Sharpton or the Rev. Jackson?
When has the media ever highlighted a prolife Democrat? They rarely do it. To admit that prolife Democrats even exist is to make that position look less “radical” to the public.
The media is very biased.
The latest CNN Republican Debate fiasco is only the most recent example. That and Dr. Fingar changing his mind about Iran in a just a few weeks time.
what goes on behind closed doors.
Posted by: J R
Do you ask to go into the confessional with Catholics?
DO you ask to go rabbi’s faith areas?
Do you lift the veil on a muslim woman?
Good Grief why am I wasting my time on J R.
‘Cause when we get behind clo-osed doorsAnd she lets her hair hang down
And she makes me glad that I-I’m a ma-anOh no one knows
What goes on behind clo-osed doors’
idiot
The media ARE very biased.Up all night with granddaughter.
Bad grammar to match the bad spelling.
While I’m not a Romney supporter, it was a very good speech. None of the presidential candidates, in either party, would have any trouble delivering esentially that same speech, amending it, of course, to reflect their own religious persuasion.
For the speech was not about religion, it was about the relationship between religion and the polity, about respect for religious diversity and real tolerance for religious views.
Phil, however, is doing his “job.” Stirring the pot with imaginings of religious devisiveness in the speech. Like many of the posters, I believe a candidate’s religious persuasion has little to do with whether he/she will make a good president. I’m interested in whether the candidate has a consistent and comfortable relationship with his/her faith. I’m not particularly interested, nor do I think it’s particularly relevant to make an issue of, the doctrinal details of the belief.
There are, per the constitution, no religious tests for office. We, as a people, however, have to put that principle into practice.
Hell, this is the best thing I’ve hear Romney say. Saying that faith is important but it shouldn’t matter what your faith is in. Unlike Huckabee who’s gonna split the Christians apart from other voters.
I watched the first 5 minutes — raised an eyebrow when he said (paraphrasing) something like “….just like another Senator from Massachusetts did 40 yrs ago ….. — sounded like he was setting himself for a Quayle / Bentsen exchange of “.. of your no Jack…” after that he was making sense (I noticed he didn’t say Mormon but once or twice it seemed he talked about my faith the American faith etc … — seemed like he didn’t want to remind anyone too much that he was a Mormon) — regardless, I’ve known from the start I would never vote for a candidate who is using his own money to finance his entire campaign election — takes capitalism one step too far —
but the disconnect for people and the WE editors is when he first says this:
“…no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.”
then he seems to contradict himself when “… he spoke about the need for religion in public life and complained about too much separation of church and state.”
he would have been better off stopping at the first statement — then announced some major plan to fix SS, national infrastructure or….. and really surprised everyone
by continuing to talk about faith (any faith) he discredits his first statement
But, “American Way” –
Romney wasn’t delivering the speech to Brownlee, Mitt was talking to that important faction of Republic Party voters who smear Mormonism as a “Godless cult.”
I’m on record many times in the forum for advocating that relgion should have nothing to do with constitutional politics. I frankly don’t know or care about the religious affiliation (or devotion) of most of the Democratic candidates. I think Senator Clinton was raised a Methodist and maybe changed demoniations a while back. I suspect Richardson is Roman Catholic, but all I’m going on is his Hispanic heritage.
Romney’s speech — which he said for months and months he *wouldn’t* make — was forced by the twice-born evangelicals who have forced their theology into Republic Party politics.
Religion is almost exclusively a Republic Party issue. Own it. You asked for it.
I read the speech. WOW!
Hats off to Romney for a very moving performance.
“Econ101″ –
One by one:
You claim: “It is the Democrat Party leadership that refuses to address immigration.”
Actuall, despite its hot-button status among the radical right, only about 4% of Americans consider immigration to be a serious problem.
Unemployment is low, remember? (That’s one of your arguments that Shrubonomics is doing swimmingly.) If these immigrants are a threat, why isn’t there widespread unemployment.
Democrats know these people come to the United States to work and the only thing that makes them *illegal* workers is that people hire them illegally.
Further, the obvious racial and xenophobic overtones of right wing rhetoric towards brown people is repulsive to most Democrats. As with so many Republic Party hot-button issues, even some reasonable points are overshouted by the ranting of wing-nuts.
You asked: “Tell me how radical environmentalism helps the average guy working in a manufacturing plant or a power plant? Do the radical greens care about unemployment? Do the radical greens care that China will just take all of our jobs, with cheap coal power? What about all the jobs we would have in oil production, if the greens would just let us drill?”
Even George WMD Bush in one of his State of the Union Addresses proclaimed, “America must end its addiction to oil.” (Something like that.
I don’t know how you define “radical” environmentalism. I consider people who live in trees and who firebomb Hummer dealers to be radical. But mainstream environmentalism is far more reasonable. “Pinko socialist far-left liberal Democrat” outfits such as General Electric, and Wal-Mart, and British Petroleum have embraced the very real challenges the planet and its people face, due to our addiction to fossil fuels.
And the answer will come with what America’s supposed to to best. Innovative technologies will produce jobs and products that can and will be sold to developing industries here and abroad. (And better trade agreements will insist that overseas manufacturers conform to environmental and human rights provisions or they’lll lose the U.S. and Europe as customers.)
You’re boo-hooing about lost jobs sounds like buggy-whip manufacturers a hundred years ago. Yup, some technolgies will pass into history and, with them, some good ol’ livery stable jobs. But that’s what progress is and always has been. And conservatives have always been against progress.
You ask: “When has the media EVER exposed the very questionionable tactics of the Rev. Sharpton or the Rev. Jackson?”
You’ve heard of them, obviously, “Econ101,” which makes me think, perhaps, you heard about them in “the media.”
“When has the media ever highlighted a prolife Democrat?”
Again, perhaps you should clarify your term. Unlike the rantings of Abortion Abolitionists, we are the party of pro-choice people. There’s no such thing as “pro-abortion,” anymore than you could call some people “pro-amputation.” The sad fact is, sometimes amputation is necessary. The sad fact is, sometimes abortion is the only choice for a desperate woman. We Democrats tend to be realists while the anti-abortion crowd tends to live if a fantasy world of rainbows and teddy bears and every pregnancy results in a Gerber baby. And the reality of the reproductive rights debate is that there always have been and there will always be women who are desperate to end pregnancy. Our approach to abortion — Legal, Safe, and Rare — is about as pro-life as you can get; yet the manics among you only call us “baby killers.”
But maybe you’re right, “Econ101.” I don’t know how you define the term “pro-life,” but if the typical abortion abolitionist rhetoric that shows up in this forum is any indication, there aren’t a lot of Democrats to profile. Perhaps it’s because they accept the Democrats’ moderate position on reproductive rights. Or maybe there are more important issues in their lives than forcing full-term pregnancy on desperate women. But that probably wouldn’t qualify as adequately “pro-life” for the Republic Party faction that obsesses on the issue.
kitrell – it has been the “religious right” who have been raising Romney’s religion; I know several Terry Foxians who tell me Mormon is a cult. Many of the positive comments about the speech have come from ‘my side of the fence’ and I commented that it reminded me of JFK. I remember the old “fundy” opposition to him because he was catholic.
it is the press, whether liberal or not, that keeps this issue going.It has been speculations from the media from the very beginning that it is a “roadblock” to evangelicals, and they will not vote for a Mormon. There may be a fringe, but the majority, while disagreeing with his theology, could care less one way or the other. It is the media that keeps stirring this up, if for no other reason, to stir things up so they can report it. Media BS. self serving media bs.
In 2000 it was not the media or liberals or Democrats who did the ‘push polls’ against John McCain suggesting that he had an illegitimate child. It was those darlings of the Republic; Bush and Rove. Today’s similar push polls that led to today’s speech have similar fingerprints.
What I found disturbing about Romney’s speech was the implicit message that atheists and agnostics need not apply. The irony of making a speech full of righteous indignation about being subjected to a religous test while implicitly arguing that there should definately be one. Also, when asked a few weeks ago about his thoughts on allowing a Muslim to be a member of his cabinet, he stated that he did not believe that Muslims would be appropriate for the higher level positions.
His whole schtick seems to be that all religions are equal, but some are more equal than others. Just like Edwards, the sleaze practically oozes from Romney’s pores.
monkeyThere is an alternative media out there, with the internet and talk radio.Unfortunately, many on the left do not inform themselves of what is really going on, or perhaps they only watch the “MSM” —
The fact is, Harry Reid, the Democrat and Majority Leader in the US Senate is a Mormon AND is ProLife.
But the MSM rarely brings that up.
The fact is, MANY of the Freshman members of Congress are ALSO ProLife and Pro 2nd Amendment.
The MSM doesnt talk much about that, either.
By the way, Monkey
Immigration is NOT one of my top issues, I am simply a realist.
No Republican can hope to win without addressing this issue.
I also live in a Democrat State Reps District who plasted every mailbox with huge, oversized mailers depicting illegal aliens crossing the border, and claiming Republicans were not doing anything about the issue. (The same mailer was sent, by the Democrat Party, into several different districts, attacking incumbent Republicans).
There is also a rather obnoxious Democrat poster to THIS Blog who frequently promotes his pet idea: Planting land mines on our Southern Border!
The immigration issue is very important to many Democrats and Republicans alike.
If nobody cared, as you claim and your completely bogus pole claims, why didnt the “amnesty” bills pass Congress?
Again, there are HUGE splits, huge differences of opinion in the Democrat Party.
The MSM glosses over all of them, most of the time.
To be fair, Econ, it seems to me that the immigration issue and how to deal with it results in huge splits in both parties; the only Congressional action I can recall passing in my adult memory about immigration and amnesty occurred during the Reagan years, and was a bill subsequently signed into law that was proposed with the blessings of the administration and passed by the Congress which, IIRC, was “controlled” by the Dems.
By the way, “employment” is a “lagging indictor” of good policy decisions.
It can take several years for bad policy decisions to affect employment.
Our low unemployment, today, is the result of good decisions over the last several years.
We may well be making bad decisions, today, like not allowing more domestic oil production, and not building our own refineries, that might well cause high unemployment, later.
Also, Bush said we need to reduce our dependence on FOREIGN OIL!
I agree.
Part of the answer is produce more of our own oil!
I thought that President Bush said we needed to cure our addiction to oil, without regard to the source thereof (from memory, of course).
That’s it, “Econ101″ –
If the polling doesn’t fit your preconception, call it “bogus” and keep on babbling.
The 1987 immigration legislation signed by Ronald Reagan called for strict regulation against employers of undocumented workers. My sister was working for the Social Security Administration at the time. About two weeks after enforcement began, Republic Party donors demanded that part of the new immigration bill be ignored. And the Reagan Administration complied.
As for the “HUGE” differences within the Democratic Party, you’re right. Ours is a legitimate Big Tent. Always has been. Always will be.
Will Rogers quipped, “I belong to no organized political party… I’m a Democrat.” Perhaps you’ve forgotten about the 1968 convention in Chicago.
The thing about Democrats (which makes your frequent claims of “marching in lockstep” patently absurd), is that we share common goals and values but have to work with others’ opinions to achieve them.
Bill Clinton worked with Republicans to achieve welfare reform in the 90s and the Republic mouthpieces shouted (in unison, btw) that he’d “highjacked *their* issue! The last Republican to actively work with Democrats for compromise was then Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and the Republic Party zealots refused to back his presidential bid.
Romney might as well face the fact that he is in the WRONG party. He is in a party full of southern Baptist bigots who think their God is the only real God and that they have a mandate to force their God on everybody else. He has NO chance of winning the Presidential nomination as a Republican. He should have become a Democrat where people of all faiths are welcome. We have many Mormons including Harry Reid.
“Kev” –
Mitt probably will change party affiliation. He’s changed his views on just about everything else!
It’s not the Dems. that are push polling against Romney, Nay, I say unto you, it is another Man Of Faith!
Bill Clinton used to be prolife.What is your point?
Also, I would say that Bush worked with the Democrats far too much.Ted Kennedy and the “no child left behind” education stuff, for instance? W put Kennedy in charge of it.
VTNo, Bush wants to end addiction to foreign oil:http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/bush.sotu/index.html
Thanks, Econ; the old memory just isn’t what it used to be.
There is also a rather obnoxious Democrat poster to THIS Blog who frequently promotes his pet idea: Planting land mines on our Southern Border!
Who is that Paul? And PROVE that he is a Democrat.
BenI promised myself, and the Blog, that I would never use his name here again.
Go to the last few immigration threads and posts, however, and you will find it.
I have looked; I recognize no such poster who is a member of the Democratic Party. PROVE he is not really a Republic.
The real issue with Rommey isn’t his faith its his immigration stance, he’s against illegal immigration but its OK to hire them, then deny hiring them, still keep them hired after denying hiring them. The fire them when caught.
econ means me.
And no, I am no longer part of the Democratic party. I’m an independent.
I’m also not the only person who thinks the illegal immigrant invasion requires serious attention that it will NOT get from either party.
But.
I have decided to change my position.
The problem: Illegal immigrants sublimate American wages and working conditions.If this is not mitigated, this issue and outsourcing of our manufacture means the end of the middle class and the American way of life as we have known it.
Since neither party will (GASP!) secure our border and (oh NO!) deport the invaders.There is only one other option.
TOTAL AMNESTY NOW! If you are here you are a citizen. If you get here you are a citizen.
That will end the exploitation of working people and force employers to play and pay fair.
Oh and just to clear up my politics.
I started out as a Republican.Well they aren’t about anything but money and issues they are not honest about.
“”"”Kev” –
Mitt probably will change party affiliation. He’s changed his views on just about everything else!”"”
Well he has a choice. He is either gonna change his party or change his religion. The combination he is trying to work ain’t gonna cut the mustard. The Republicans don’t even really like Catholics. They tolerate them because they need the votes in a few states like Ohio. But they don’t need Utah (it is solidly red) and they sure as hell ain’t gonna run with Mormons.
I heard a bit more of Romney’s comments and heard things that trouble me. He referred to ’secularism’ as a religion and pretty much said that secularists should be marginalized. It seems like he is saying whatever denomination you are is fine as long as it is one of the ‘right’ ones.
Hmmm I’ll have to listen for that.
Interesting tac that. Yourself a member of a margin religion, dis on those just beyond that margin.
Or…
“Hey at least I think a LITTLE like you! Help me fight the people who don’t think like either of us!”
Right now Hickabee’s people are making an add about Romney’s stars and bars comments. Count on it.
I can sink him for the folks of my generation.
His first name is Willard.
He’s done a good job keeping that quiet. I didn’t know.
heh Willard for folks around my age was a movie about this creepy loner kid who hung out with his own private army of trained killer rats!
I bet there is a Willard ad too.
And the rat was the smart one!
The idiot talks about first names and movies. Such intelligence on the wings of the blog, but none aggressive enough to tell this little freak to screw off.
77 million baby-boomers. Add all the rest up, and you got shit.
The future belongs to the retiring generation. They will rule not only the USA – but the world.
And the village idiot who posts all day and doesn’t hold a job, except maybe to fill the dishwasher for his mother – continues to blow with the wind.
Perfect example of the doper commercial, “Mom, I’ll be right down!” says the forty year old freak.
I dont recall seeing JR post that he is in favor of mining the borders… I do recall seeing Nathan post something to that effect… JR did you post that too??
Yup JR. There is a Willard ad. I’m writing it now for a taxpayers association.
Remember when Willard read the box of poison, then sounded the alarm to warn the other rats?
One of you Dems will unveil the curtain on Hillary’s true agenda, and then you will all turn on her!
(And you thought Hillary was taking good care of you!)
And the village idiot who posts all day and doesn’t hold a job, except maybe to fill the dishwasher for his mother – continues to blow with the wind.
Perfect example of the doper commercial, “Mom, I’ll be right down!” says the forty year old freak.
Posted by: Pat Herron
You really ought to be careful, Patricia. You’re describing your pal Kansas to a T.
Chas
Mine the borders or total amnesty.
We have to do something one way or the other. Too many people are being exploited and hurt by inaction one way or the other.
Pat dear?
I don’t post all day. Look to one of your own for that.
I HAVE noted that when I DO post, you are right there.
Is that love? Do you simply have nothing better to do?
You want to call me out do it. You want to date me no thanks. Liberal as I am, I don’t do con charity cases.
But if all your goal in life is is to chew my ankles? I can spare a few bucks an hour if you can take out your false teeth.
I read the speech, and Phillip got it exactly right. Romney DID try to have it both ways. And–by the way–DUH. He had the convince the religious extremists in party that he wasn’t the spawn of Satan and–more importantly–that he would support their agenda and–at the same time–plead for tolerance of his OWN faith–and, thinking of the general election, give some solace to more moderate voters.
A pretty close-to-impossible task.
If it wasn’t so fun to watch the man twist in the wind (sorry, I don’t like him, at all), I might have felt sorry for him. Still, it was fascinating (and surprising!) to see him raise all the valid points us separationists have been raising for years, but then bash the very principles that made religious freedom in this country possible.
Schizophrenic, yes, but–from a purely political perspective–about the only thing he could have done.
P.S. Go to a “public square.” Pray. No one will stop you.
P.P.S. JR, as someone who actually lives with 60 miles of the border, if you REALLY the choice is between amnesty and random explosions, I’d go with amnesty.
Sonora already has enough problems. But hey, maybe we should mine BOTH sides:
“An iron river of weaponry flows south from Arizona. It runs through Lukeville, then along lonely Highway 2 to Caborca, slipping through the only route with no Mexican checkpoints in Sonora.
Stash houses have been popping up in the Catalina Foothills–$500,000 homes serving as nothing more than storage units for Mexican brick schwag. It’s safer here in Arizona; there are no arguments that deteriorate into gun battles. There are fewer officials to pay off.”
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=97261
There is also a rather obnoxious Democrat poster to THIS Blog who frequently promotes his pet idea: Planting land mines on our Southern Border!
Who is that Paul? And PROVE that he is a Democrat.
Posted by: Ben | December 06, 2007 at 05:40 PM
Thanks for stepping in, J R. I thought econ was refering to me, since I advocate mining the southern border. I’m not a Democrat, but I guess paul might think I am.
My my Pat – aren’t you full of yourself! A little wry humor and you go even more nutcase than usual.
But thanks for reminding me to fill my dishwasher – evening dishes were still in the sink. After my typical 10-hour work day I sometimes overlook such things here at home.
I’ve given it a little thought, mining the border wouldn’t work, they would just tunnel beneath the mines.
Sigh. . .read the article, folks. Jose and and kids are going to become the LEAST of our worries.
And even if that wasn’t so, mining the border is a uniquely moronic idea in its own right. All that’s required to understand that is to think about what would happen if we actually DID that.
Reality, folks, reality.
Here’s the thing that Mitt Romney can’t say: The Mormon Jesus has about as much in common with Jesus of Nazareth as the Los Angeles Kings have with King Tut. They have the same name, kind of, and that’s it.
The Gospel Jesus lived in Galilee. The Mormon Jesus lived in Albany. (Where he fought the Indians. Because he wasn’t just the Lamb of God, he was also the Last of the Mohicans.) Mormon Jesus? Three wives, a planetful of kids. Gospel Jesus? Living alone and loving it.
—
Read Chris Kelly’s entire piece here:
http://tinyurl.com/2a4ck5
This cartoon should make clear what the Mormon’s believe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo
Not any nuttier than the other Christians.
Thanks for the link, “Doug” –
I have to believe it’s a hit piece produced by loving evangelical “christians,” but it is enlightening.
No crazier, really, than just about any theology. As I noted on another thread, the philosophy of Bart Simpson seems appropriate: “Your little stupid differences are nothing compared to your big stupid similarites”.
Whoa that was freaking hilarious!
Christianity meets Star Trek?
But as has been noted, not a lot crazier than some other dogma.
Oh folks, if this doesn’t sink Romney I weep for our future.