« PBS & Intelligent Design | Main | Thanksgiving Thoughts »

November 20, 2007

Comments

I do see the concern Melinda brings up for future elections if Christians do not promote the material that Christians are producing to refute the atheists. I guess the media doesn't pick up on the refutation materials because they're not as sexy as atheist literature that calls religion "poison."

In thinking about Romney, I do find myself agreeing with many of his ideas. That being said, I also find myself very leary of the thought of electing a Mormon as my leader. As I've said before on an earlier thread about Romney, it seems to violate my conscience to intentionally elect someone whom I believe follows a false Christ. Perhaps my conscience is wrong, but the thought of knowingly electing someone whom I feel prays to an idol (an invented "god") as my leader bothers me.

I have thought about the fact that I cannot, of course, know the spiritual state of any candidate - despite what they claim to believe. So, there's the rub - I like Romney's stand on a lot of issues. It's my conscience that keeps me from being a Romney supporter.

I agree that the push polling is bad but this doesn't really make much sense: "you can bet Christian candidates will become the regular victims of such interrogation." With the exception of Tom Jefferson, has there ever been a major party candidate for president who wasn't a Christian? Most of the nation self identifies as Christian. I don't see how being a mere Christian will ever be a problem.

Alan wrote,

"With the exception of Tom Jefferson, has there ever been a major party candidate for president who wasn't a Christian? Most of the nation self identifies as Christian."

She probably meant Christian the way the majority of this forum's readers understand it. Of course, had this been some neutral forum, she would have had to clarify her terms.

Atheists of course have the same liberties on their forums.

You want to "defend the Mormon" yet you call him a cultist? If you're going to "defend" someone it might help if you mustered up enough respect to call their faith a religion instead of a cult.

"It's my conscience that keeps me from being a Romney supporter."

I'm sorry, the correct answer was your prejudice, your inability to look past religion and see that people who don't share your religious beliefs can have some integrity.

Steve wrote,

"You want to "defend the Mormon" yet you call him a cultist?"

One can defend a person in one thing and oppose him in another.


"I'm sorry, the correct answer was your prejudice, your inability to look past religion and see that people who don't share your religious beliefs can have some integrity."

Of course they CAN have integrity, but we are not omniscient. We draw our conclusions based on the information that we actually have, and that is a probabilistic process.

Being a Mormon diminishes that probability in somebody's judgement and increases in another's.

You call this prejudice, I call this wisdom. But arguing about the proper term to use is useless. Only arguing about the facts of the matter will do any good, and then perhaps cause someone to change their opinion on which word to use.

Absolutely. This type of criticism towards Romney may seem all too natural and easy for Christians, but it is a dangerous path to follow. Further, the seeming absurdity of mormonism, which is obvious to Christians and secularists alike, is not unlike the seeming absurdity of Christianity, as understood by secularists outside the Christian sphere. Criticizing Romney on his religion is short-sighted (as indicated by Melinda) and I'm afraid it is coming from people who wouldn't be capable of likewise answering a tough question about Christianity if they were to find themselves in the 'hot seat.'
More discussion of theology needs to take place, but NONE of this should occur in the political sphere. This sphere is only for talk about values, and beliefs that have public policy implications. And these are things which good JWs, mormons, virtuous pagans, and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of global warming can hopefully agree about; irregardless of their other preposterous views.

For any Christian conservative to support Mitt Romney is to fly in the face of scripture. Mormons believe that God the Father has a body, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are each gods by themselves. In other words, there are three gods in the triune Godhead; unlike scripture which teaches that God is make up of three persons, yet one God and Lord. Mormons believe that they can achieve godhood by obiedence to the their commandments and observence of their endowments. If that isn't enough reason to toss out Mitt as a Christian then Christ is being mockeddd.

"For any Christian conservative to support Mitt Romney is to fly in the face of scripture."

No, but it may fly in the face of YOUR interpretation of scripture and your precious Nicean creed. I was raised Mormon, so maybe I'm a just a little biased, but the Mormon idea of three separate beings makes a lot more sense than the trinity. Jesus prayed to himself? Jesus asked, why have I forsaken myself? When he was baptized he looked down from the heavens at himself?

Jeff Lindsay does a good job showing that Godhood is a Biblically sound idea in this article.

mormanity.blogspot.com/2007/11/god-makers-quiz-five-quotes-on-divine.html

god-makers-quiz-five-quotes-on-divine.html

There's the rest of it.

Steve said:

"Jesus prayed to himself? Jesus asked, why have I forsaken myself? When he was baptized he looked down from the heavens at himself?"

I realize this is off-topic for the thread, but I'd like to suggest to you some areas for further study. These questions you ask are understandable. But they reveal that part of the reason the Trinity seems irrational to you is that you do not actually know what the historical orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is. (That's not an insult; many or most American evangelicals are just as unclear about it.)

The answer to those questions is no, no, and no. Jesus is not the same as the Father. The Father is not the same as the Spirit. The Spirit is not the same as the Son. The Trinity is one God, and you seem to understand that. But the Trinity is three separate "persons", and that's where you're going wrong.

What you're describing seems to be closer to an unorthodox view called "modalism", in which God reveals Himself in different way at different times--as either Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. (You can Google or Wikipedia modalism for more info.) That doesn't do justice to the distinctions between the Persons of the Trinity.

The word "persons" was chosen very carefully, but unfortunately, we're speaking English now. And the English word "persons" isn't identical to what they originally chose to express the idea. Maybe it's time we identified a better word to translate. Maybe "persona" would be better, or "consciousness". (But those probably have problems of their own--implying something too close to split personalities.) Or maybe "persons" is the closest we're going to get. Just please be aware, there is more distinction between the Persons of the Trinity than you currently understand.

Anyway, I recently listened to an excellent series of broadcasts on the subject. They're done by Theology Unplugged, with Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. I'm not sure if we can post links, so if you're interested, just google "theology unplugged archive" (no quotes). The first result is the archive page. Go to category 10.

I hope you'll at least give it a try. The shows are quite pleasant to listen to, and they do a great job of presenting things in an accessible way. So, you could listen to one episode and see if you're interested in the rest.

One more thing:

The questions you were asking were *good* questions. They were some of the questions that led Christians to deny modalism.

You were right. Jesus prayed to the Father. The Father looked down from heaven and said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." The Bible is clear that the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct. But Bible is also clear about their unity--that the Father is God, that the Son is God, that the Spirit is God, and that there is only one God. There is distinction, and there is oneness. We use philosophical-sounding terms like "being", or "essence", or the Greek "hypostases" or "ontos"--but we're using them in our struggle to describe the oneness that we see clearly taught in Scripture.

Now, you probably question how clear the Bible is about the oneness, about them each being God. That's the important question. So, ask that question and probe our basis for saying it--but please do so with an open mind, and a willingness to seriously explore the possibility that the church actually has correctly understood God's word on the subject all these years.

Another resource for further study would be the book The Forgotten Trinity, by James R White.

Tim, you're welcome to post the link.

Steve,

Some helpful advice...Your comments seem very bitter. You'd do well to follow your own advice.

"I'm sorry, the correct answer was your prejudice, your inability to look past religion and see that people who don't share your religious beliefs can have some integrity."

Please look past most of ours (religious beliefs) here at STR and know that we can have integrity as well. Your name calling and disrespectful attitude demonstrate your contempt for us.

I say disrespectful because of this..."your precious Nicean creed." You'd have done better to simply write "the Nicene Creed", but to write "your precious" drips of contempt for our beliefs.

That bit out of the way...I agree with you on this point, Romney's Mormonism does not affect my opinion of him. I'm electing a president not a pastor. As long as his religion doesn't conflict with Christianity on major policy issues, I see no problem with him being president. As far as I can tell, Mormons would hold most of the same values as Christians.

The Trinity is a very difficult concept to grasp. Every human analogy ultimately fails at some crucial point.

As far as not being able to fully wrap our minds around this truth given our limited human capacities, I say this need not be seen as a liability, for a God that could be totally understood is likely one of human invention.

Melinda is right on with her assessment. Religious persecution of Catholics in the past has returned to haunt Protestants in the current socio-political climate. See Philip Hamburger's book on separation of church and state, and if I remember correctly, one of the early screeds casting the relationship between science and faith as a "war" was similarly-motivated. Evangelical and other conservative Christians need to bear this in mind, and realize that the tables could very easily be turned on us in future elections. Let's build bridges and don't alienate our fellow-citizens (Mormons in this case) unnecessarily.

Furthermore, as has been said elsewhere, we are electing a Commander-in-Chief, not a Pastor-in-Chief. If my house is on fire, I really don't care that the guy throwing water on it is a Mormon. Similarly, unless there is a clear reason to believe that being a Mormon undermines the duties of a President, we should not discount such an individual. And we shouldn't forget that religious freedom and the no-religious-test principles are pretty central to American History and culture.

I say this as an M.A. Candidate in Christian Apologetics at BIOLA, one who understands and disagrees strongly with several points of Mormon theology (see Frank Beckwith and Carl Mosser's great book on the subject). Still I believe, all things considered, that Mitt Romney may well be the best candidate for the job at hand.

Blessings,

Steve

Hmm, the link HTML gets stripped out when I look at the preview of my post. So apparently we can't post links, but I can just paste the URLs.

Theology Unplugged Archive
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/tup/archive

The series on Trinitarianism
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/tup/archive/0010

The same ministry has something called The Theology Program, which is an academic study program for lay people in the basics of the Christian faith. One of the six courses is called Trinitarianism. (It's not entirely about the Trinity specifically--there are 10 sessions on different theological and philosophical aspects of God.) Session 7 is on the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity, and session 8 is a Biblical defense of the doctrine.

Session 7
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/ttp/courses/TR/07

Session 8
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/ttp/courses/TR/08

(Incidentally, the Theology Unplugged series also discusses historical development. They do it through some role-playing--one of the hosts pretends to be, say, Justin Martyr, giving his suggestion for how to understand the Trinity. Then the other hosts discuss his suggestion with him. It's pretty effective, I think.)

I also have an on-topic thought or two.

I think Melinda raised some valid concerns. If the media makes Romney's Mormonism an issue on the grounds that it's "weird", and we allow that situation to develop unchallenged, it will most likely come back and hurt us in the future.

However, there are dangers in the alternative as well. We also do not want to encourage a growing viewpoint that the LDS is just another Christian church. Joseph Smith self-consciously defined the Mormon religion as a denial of all existing Christian religion, restoring a truth faith that had been lost; they have a fundamentally different God, a fundamentally different understanding of man, and a fundamentally different gospel. They are not just another denomination, but the truth may be obscured for the sake of being accepting, for the sake of a false sophistication.

So, as a Christian, I'm concerned about that aspect of the media coverage of Mormonism.

And I am also concerned that Mitt Romney's election & service would have a legitimizing effect for Mormonism in the eyes of the public. It's not something I take lightly, and I have to take into consideration *all* the effects of my vote.

>>So apparently we can't post links, but I can just paste the URLs.

Sorry, Tim--that's what I meant. Very unclear of me!

I'm sorry if you're offended by my contemptuous, bitter tone. Melinda set the tone by using the word cult, Justin and Fred continued it. If you're going to call Mormonism a cult and accuse them of worshiping a false Christ then you should go all out and show your true colors, be a total bigot and refuse to vote for a Mormon. If you're going to "defend" someone show a little more respect. If you think theology shouldn't be a factor in politics, don't make it a factor yourself.

Steve wrote,

"If you think theology shouldn't be a factor in politics, don't make it a factor yourself."

There is a difference between the political machine making a factor of it, and the voter doing the same. That kind of decisions should be left to voters.

Melissa, I must disagee with you regarding Romney "He's not going to shift in the wind, though he may improve his views (i.e. abortion and ESCR) when he becomes better acquainted with the facts."

Romney is first and foremost a politician, not a Mormon. He checks to see which way the wind is blowing before making a statement or taking a position.

His modified position on abortion had nothing to do with becoming better acquainted with the facts. It was expedient for him to be "moderate" when trying to get votes in Massachusetts, and now it is expedient for him to appear more opposed when trying to gain the Republican nomination. He is not a man of principle, he is merely another shameless politician who sells his soul for votes. I am surprised you are gullible enough to believe otherwise.

Steve,

Nobody really wants to discuss volatile issues of religion with someone who cannot leave his feelings behind. To call a religion a cult is not bigoted; academics do it all the time. When an "accusation" is made about the worship of a false Christ, that also does not necessarily imply bigotry. I would not understand you as a bigot if you had stated that evangelicals worship a false Christ, especially if evidence were presented. If you really see these statements as offensive, give reasons other than your personal feelings. As a scientist and evangelical, I am confronted all the time with arguments about the "falsehood" of my beliefs, but I weigh the evidence and then give my own. I will not convince anyone by ranting about unfair treatment.

By the way, American politics amuse me to no end. Mud slinging in Finland is so rare, that when in the last election The Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions gave their support to the foremost left-wing party by making an abusive TV-commercial, everyone was absolutely shocked.

It portrayed a fictional right-winger mocking the working public and generally behaving badly. It was all over the news (the commercial was quickly censored), and it was widely speculated that it eventually lead to the left-wingers losing the sympathies of the people. Now we have a right-wing government, which is VERY rare here.

This is not to say that our parties respect each other any more than yours. But the jabs are always so subtle that you have to be politically quite literate to even notice them.

Markku said, "There is a difference between the political machine making a factor of it, and the voter doing the same. That kind of decisions should be left to voters."

Hmm. Thanks, that's a very helpful way of putting it.

Steve,

You are only digging yourself deeper.

"If you're going to call Mormonism a cult and accuse them of worshiping a false Christ then you should go all out and show your true colors, be a total bigot..."

Here are some factual categories.
See which one fits you.

a) Christians - believe Mormons worship a false Christ

b) Mormons - believe Christians worship a false Christ

c) Atheists - believe both Christians and Mormons worship a false Christ.

I'm guessing you fit into b or c (or possibly some other group not mentioned that also believes Jesus is not God).

Since you believe Jesus to not be the Christ or God, does this make you a bigot when it comes to Christians? Given your definition, the answer is yes.

Luckily, most Christians don't consider those who disagree with them to be bigots. They simply disagree. We think they're wrong, they think we're wrong.

But according to you, disagreement = bigotry. Wow!

We can disagree and still show respect. So far in this post, you've used "bigot" and "prejudice" to describe fellow bloggers and ridiculed our doctrine of the Trinity and the Nicene Creed.

I had another thought for Steve.

You may not be in the least bit interested in any of the resources I recommended to you. If not, OK. But in that case, I want to make a request--or maybe I should call it a suggestion.

You've had it brought to your attention that you do not have a correct understanding of what we believe about the Trinity. You spoke from misunderstanding. From a lack of knowledge. (I want to say "from ignorance," but that phrasing is more charged than I intend.)

Well, that happens. Please, just take this into account in the future. If you're not interested in taking time to learn what we do believe, then please, don't presume to tell us how wrong and irrational we are about the Trinity. Don't speak about that which you do not know. Or at least speak somewhat tentatively.

I'm impressed and disappointed at the same time, despite my best efforts to provoke you, I see mostly calm, rational responses. Normally I'd be glad, but the problem is, you're defending the bigoted, prejudiced views that I'm attacking. Those of you who are replying to me are not the ones that my previous remarks were directed toward. Those of you replying to me so calmly are the fence-sitters, the moderates, the ones who want everyone to get along. Take a good look at what you are defending. Do agree that Mormonism is a cult? Do you agree that we shouldn't vote for someone based on their theology? If you do, say it yourself. If you're going to be a Christian why not go all out? If you really believe the Bible is the word of God and Christianity is the one true religion, why don't you just join the fundamentalists gleefully condemning non-believers to hell, bombing abortion clinics and publicly mocking other religions? If you want to keep Christian theology from being questioned in politics, I suggest keeping the fundamentalists in check, they're the reason Christianity is under so much scrutiny these days.

"Mormons - believe Christians worship a false Christ"

Not true. The way a Mormon would say it is: every religion has some of God's light and truth in it, Mormonism just has more.

"Atheists - believe both Christians and Mormons worship a false Christ."

Atheists don't see a need for a savior at all, so "false Christ" is redundant.

Steve,
are you ready for this? I think Mormonism could be called a cult (though I think it's stretching the term) and it wouldn't effect my voting for Romney at all. Given your average Christian liberal pushes the exact same humanist, relativist drivel as an Atheist liberal I don't vote by religion. If I found a Ronald Reagan conservative who was a gay Jehovah's Witness I'd vote for him and probably work the phone banks on his behalf.

I think Romney comes off a little too "tanning bed" but he looks a hell of a lot more Christian than a "baptist" like Baby-Killary.

When we (Melinda included) go to the movies we don't ask, "Was this movie made by a Christian or a Mormon?" Instead, we ask, "Is the movie any good?" Because a Christian could have made Left Behind while a Homosexual may have made The Usual Suspects.

Frankly, I'm ashamed at the level of religious bigotry Christians show against Mormons...not by calling them a cult. We are allowed to classify them as a cult. But to disqualify an otherwise decent candidate for his cult, as we give a miserable candidate a pass because he isn't in a cult seems lame, and the kind of actions we would condemn if someone did that to us. If the Mormons are discriminated against first, we're next on the list.

If cult is defined as:

A system of intense religious veneration of a particular person, idea, or object, especially one considered spurious or irrational by traditional religious bodies; as, the Moonie cult. (Webster)

...then I believe Mormonism IS a cult. Not due to intensity, but spuriousness and irrationality.

And as to whether I would vote for a Mormon if I were in that kind of situation: Yes, but it would affect my views on the candidate the same way as if he were an atheist.

So, if the candidate seemed the best one in other regards, I would vote for him. But if there were another candidate who was pretty much the same except he were a Christian, I would rather vote for that one.

Steve, I think part of the reason you're disappointed--suffering a from let-down, a difference between your expectations and the outcomes--is the sheer irrationality of your expectations.

Part of this is seen in the following: "If you really believe the Bible is the word of God and Christianity is the one true religion, why don't you just join the fundamentalists gleefully condemning non-believers to hell, bombing abortion clinics and publicly mocking other religions?"

My goodness! If we believe that God might actually have spoken, we should bomb abortion clinics and speak with a mocking spirit. Your logic is stunningly compelling.

I'll try it this way. You call the view that the LDS is a cult "prejudiced" and "bigoted". Please, define for me what those terms mean, and precisely what they apply to in this situation. Don't just emote. Explain. Be rational. Use a style different form the fundamentalists you condemn--cut down on the wild-eyed accusations you throw out so liberally.

Let's also analyze your response to Michael Speers. He critiqued your wild accusations of bigotry. He argued that you where characterizing simple disagreement as "bigoted", and then tried to show that you were being inconsistent--that you don't seem to think your own or others' disagreement is bigoted. He asked a good question: "Since you believe Jesus to not be the Christ or God, does this make you a bigot when it comes to Christians? Given your definition, the answer is yes."

You could have done a couple things here. You could have said that he was wrong about your reasoning--it's not disagreement you were calling bigoted, but something else. You could have explained where you see a difference between your own beliefs about Christianity being wrong and our beliefs about the Mormon religion--just what it *was* that you were calling bigoted.

Instead, you come back with:
-------
""Mormons - believe Christians worship a false Christ"

Not true. The way a Mormon would say it is: every religion has some of God's light and truth in it, Mormonism just has more. [Note: Some modern Mormons might well answer that way. Some "mainstream" Christians might, too. Whether Joseph Smith would have said the same is still a question, but we can leave that aside for now.]

"Atheists - believe both Christians and Mormons worship a false Christ."

Atheists don't see a need for a savior at all, so "false Christ" is redundant."
-------

So, did you give *any* response to Michael's point? Nope. Perhaps you didn't respond because, as you said, we "calm, rational" ones aren't the ones you had been talking to. And yet you did choose to respond--in an empty manner. Even if we accept your correction of what Mormons would say, it doesn't affect in the least bit the point that Michael was making. (Or if you think it does, you didn't bother to explain why.) You chose to ignore it. You quibbled about the redundancy of "false Christ" from an atheist's perspective, ignoring the question Michael asked you. Faced with direct, probing questions about the rationality of the way you're throwing around the label "bigotry", you...well, you ignored them, and continued to throw it around while giving non-response.

Can you understand why I'm finding that a tad frustrating?

This month's collection of Walter Martin's tapes includes pretty good ones on Mormonism.

http://www.waltermartin.org/realaudio.html

Note: This is in-house discussion. The tone would probably be much too harsh for these to be effective evangelistic tools. Rather, they are for informing Christians.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion. This article http://mormonsarechristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early Christianity's comprehension of baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres more closely to First Century Christianity and the New Testament than any other denomination. Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”

Perhaps the reason the pastors denigrate the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is to protect their flock (and their livelihood). It is encouraging that Paul Weyrich, Wayne Grudem and Bob Jones III, (along with Jay Sekulow and Mark DeMoss) have rejected bigotry and now support Mitt Romney on the basis that he is the most moral candidate with the best qualifications.

Regarding presidential elections, keep in mind Proverbs 21:1:
"The king's heart is in the the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases". God will influence whoever is elected such that His will shall not be thwarted.

"God will influence whoever is elected such that His will shall not be thwarted."

Jimmy Carter is an empirical refutation of that scripture.

"Jimmy Carter is an empirical refutation of that scripture."

As is every other American president unless JC is the only one with original sin.

Jimmy, Billary Clinton, Gore and Kerry are all 'Christians', which is why I'd never use a religious litmus test to choose a candidate. In the end, many will say "Lord, Lord" and I'll say, "Depart from my ballot, for I never knew you Bolsheviks. Where were you when they turned on the suction hose?"

Careful, Doug - which "will" do you mean?

Aaron wrote,

"Careful, Doug - which "will" do you mean?"

I guess it would be their permissive will, the perfect one being something equivalent to Sweden's religious climate.

You've some good points, but your histroy is faulty. When Jefferson ran against John Adams, Jefferson's theology became a central issue. That's when the question of whether or not a Christian could vote for a non Christian first really came to light. I don't know if Jefferson ever came to grips with Jesus as God and the second person of the trinity or not. The point was that he strongly questioned these two points.
The second issue that concerns me is our present time. One of the mojor reasons Gov. Romney's theology is an issue is because of Hugh's book,'A Mormon in the White House?'. Forgive me for being blunt, but if his theology isn't important or shouldn't be an issue, then Hugh's book was a stupid move.
I don't see anything in scripture that excempts political candidates from 'confessing Christ before men'. The danger of course would be to use one's faith as just a tool to get elected. As far as the tough questions about the Bible, if you study it you should be able to give solid answers to it if asked. If you don't study it, then you would have to say ,'I don't know', to those questions. That would also disclose the pretenders.
Finally, if Galatians 1:8 is accurate, you know an angel from heaven preaching another gospel( the angel Moroni), is accurate, then we would be electing a man who is under God's curse as our president.
Look, he either is or isn't a Mormon doctrinaly. The cat is already out of the bag. If he truely is a Mormon, then his faith must stand the scrutiny; if he isn't, then he is just playing the religion card. I totally reject this notion that our faith is something that needs to be in the back ground. It needs to be clearly stated. Know what you believe and why. Give the American people a clear choice, if they reject it, so be it.

"Give the American people a clear choice, if they reject it, so be it."

Tim, the only reason why it's taboo to bring up Mormon theology is because it doesn't effect a President's ability to govern. If my house is being robbed and a cop shows up to save my family I don't first ask what his religion is. An atheistic gay cop doing his job will take care of my family just fine. A pacifist cop might not.

The question isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of how our faith allows or disallows us to do our job. We have Muslims in our army. We have Jehovah's witnesses as employers. I work for secular humanists in Hollywood. I COULD go work for Christian production companies that only make films for TBN but their particular religion doesn't make for good entertainment.

Most of the questions about Romney's faith have been straw men meant to manipulate the very worst of our judgments for public service. I don't care about Romney's Mormonism any more than I care about Hillary's being a Baptist...I care far more about how they create policies. Hillary's Christianity appears to have no effect on her choice of Supreme Court nominees, or I should say that she thinks Christ wants her to protect a woman's choice to kill her baby up to birth.

There are legitimate criticisms of Romney and Huckabee's voting records, but their opinion of the scriptures might as well be identical or opposite to all other candidates. I want a public servant who acts right, not believes right but acts wrong.

Adams gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts and imprisoned his political enemies. Jefferson pardoned them. I believe that election showed the irrelevance of a candidates' religion.

This time around, out of the five folks that will likely be president we have two competent Senators, two competent governors and a somewhat unbalanced, mobbed-up fascist.

1800 gave us a president who pardoned the folks who had been jailed and their fines were returned. He also greatly enlarged the country.

Religion was irrelevant then and it's irrelevant now.

Hi Doug, there are far more important considerations when deciding on one of the Supremes.

"Hi Doug, there are far more important considerations when deciding on one of the Supremes."

Alan, it has to start with a Supreme who will interpret the Constitution in context not mangle the Constitution since it's "a living breathing document subject to the opinion of the world community".

Religion was and is irrelevant, including your religous belief that Rudy is more fascistic than the left.

Hi Doug, given the last seven years, I would think one would be more more concerned with a candidates' views on Article Two than on pandering promises on judicial appointments.

If you have a problem with those who are concerned with world opinion re; the United Sates, you have a problem with the folks who wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Re: Rudy, I invite all to tead the record. Obscure theological differences should count for less than ones associates and temperament.

Those interested in the presidential race should arm themselves with the following two articles that they might understand how flawed our MSM actually is:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/11/pigs-fly.html#comments

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/25/klein_fisa/index.html

The comments to this entry are closed.