Hey, Did You Know Mitt Romney's A Mormon ?

[...] All Da King's Men placed an observative post today on Hey, Did You Know Mitt Romney's A Mormon ?Here's a quick excerpt [...]

It is ironic that the Mormon is the one guy who stayed faithful, when St. McCain and Rudy have 6 wives between them.

But I wonder what the fundy right will do if Mitt is the nominee? Do they really see Mormonism as a false religion or as a cult? If it is the case that is more room for irony. Or will the Perkins' and Dobson's get their base to vote for Mitt just protect their interests? It would be fascinating to watch.

Hey did you know that Da King is a complete idiot?

Now don't go thinking he became an idiot over time, that would suggest that people change and evolve. No God made him and idiot. He probably didn't even exit his momma the right way.

But of course we all knew he was and idiot. He proves on a daily basis with his Libertarian idealogy.

Be careful in disparaging the Red Neck. His posting may be crude and off base, but this "good old boy" is head & shoulders above, say, the Akron Atheist.

I mean, look at what Red Neck says. He disparages evoluton and recongnizes that there is a God who creates man. Nice. Now compare that with the ravings of the ever clueless AA who is still in denial on both matters.

I don't agree with the Red Neck sentiments regarding "da King," but as he's at least properly grounded in the fundamentals of reality, the Red Neck is educationable.

See?….what you boys need over hear at King's place is a Reverend to help get this here Romney Mormon stuff cleared up.

The Latter Day Saints, aka Mormons, are side by side with Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists and Seventh-day Adventists in their historic timing and their outside the mainstream teachings. Evangelicals still regard these four as cults.

The question Jimmy needs to answer is: Would American evangelicals balk at voting for a Jehovah's Witness candidate. Because the evangelical koolaid drinkers regard Mormons and Witnesses the same.

One example should suffice. The Mormons do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. I don't either…..simply because it's nonsensical in every way possible….but I digress.

Movement neo-con GOP'ers will do their best to avoid placing the Mormon on the ballot. Thompson was supposed to be their way out. He's a dud and too lazy.

If Romney is somehow the candidate, the most that will happen is a few less koolaiders will vote. All of the evangelical name brands would vote for Satan if they thought he could win.

It will be interesting to see Republican and the country's reaction to the neoconservative agenda in the next year. Rudy is clearly their guy and he has embraced them, as well. Obviously, some evangelicals have also aligned with the neocons.

[...] "Hey, Did You Know Mitt Romney's A Mormon?"  It's this election's "Did you know John Kerry served in Vietnam?"  (Thanks Article VI blog) [...]

[...] Sarcasm works. [Lowell:  This is really funny.] [...]

The "liberal media" brings up Romney's cult membership because it's an issue for many people.

Thanks for the much needed comic relief. This week was getting just a bit too serious for its own good.

[...] All Da King’s Men provides some much needed comic relief.  [...]

Anybody who thinks that da King provided comic relief with this little entry tell me how funny the quote below is.

***For the record, Mitt Romney married his high school sweetheart and has been married to her for 39 years. He has ONE wife, and five sons. He doesn't cheat on her and they waited until marriage to have sex. There are no scandals I know of in Romney's past or present. In other words, he's the anti-Clinton. Sounds good.**

I see nothing funny in any of that but see some very serious reasons for voting for a family man who has only one family. I have been married twice myself so I guess that makes Romney something special.

I saw the crap about Romney's church as a way to point out the fact that the MSM tries so hard to discredit him with as many people as possible from a religious standpoint. They do do things like this, you know. Remember how they killed John Dean in 2004. They did a job on him since Carry was their man.

I think that da King and I agree on too many things in this area not to be thinking about how the media handles these things.

For any of you who are old enough to remember, JFK's Catholicism was a big issue in 1960. Back then, many didn't think the country would elect a Catholic. Some thought that religion was a cult. I guess this is progress ?

The leftwing media is making a big deal of Mitt Romney's religion as a way of trying to drive a wedge between traditional religious voters.

In this way, they hope to increase the odds that a screaming secularist (Algore) or a New Age-type (Hillary, Obama) can win the presidency.

Ozone-Al is included here because, if Comrade Hillary craps out in Iowa like that nut-job Dean did in 2003, the Dims will panic and could quite possibly reach out to the former v.p.]

By golly, Vince, I think you have possibly extended some real truth here. I believe that they are trying to drive that wedge and sure enough, I agree with you that they would run Algore in hopes that he could salvage their sure enough loss.

You can't be serious. Not everything is consipracy theory. Evangelicals may not vote for Romney, just as a variety of social groups may not vote for a candidate for a variety of reason.

Hell, Romney's religion gets minimal press coverage anyway.

I don't know, Graham. I bet more people know Romney is a Mormon than know he was the governor of Mass. The media put the Mormon message out so hot and heavy right off the bat that they don't have to mention it much now. Everybody already knows. Compare that to Hillary's religion. Does anyone even know what it is ??? Why not ?

I do think it will be an interesting choice for the evangelicals if it comes down to a choice between Romney and Hillary, or Giuliani and Hillary. I don't see them choosing Hillary in either case.

King says: "For any of you who are old enough to remember, JFK's Catholicism was a big issue in 1960. Back then, many didn't think the country would elect a Catholic. Some thought that religion was a cult. I guess this is progress ?"

Firstoff…..Christianity is a cult. Judaism is a cult. Islam is a cult. If people disagree, it's because they haven't researched the topic deep enough, if at all.

Second….This isn't 1960. Much has changed. The biggest change has been the political action groups coming into existence with purely religious foundations. Moral Majority, Family Research Council, etc. Religious extremists, like the evangelical noisemakers and conservative Catholics, decided to MAKE RELIGION AN ISSUE in politics.

Now, the way I see it, since these nutjobs started it…..all religious questions are fair game. And if Romney can't deal with the questions, maybe he should drop out…..or just flip-flop, like he has done on almost every issue.

King, I can't imagine evangelicals voting for Hillary, unless I'm seriously underestimating their dislike for Mormons.

I think your American would vote for a candidate regardless of their religion. It's just not an issue for many. But like Reverend, said powerful political religious groups really has pushed the issue since the 1980s, and that in turn caused an unfortunate backlash against religion. There just isn't a healthy dialogue at this point it seems.

Actually, if you go back through the history of this country, religion has probably never been LESS involved in politics than it is in modern times. We have become much more secular on the whole. If you listen to George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, you will hear references to God left and right. In the old days, religion was pretty much a given in politics. Nowadays, if you hear any references to God from a politician, there is a segment of our population who act like the pol has gone stark raving mad (but only if that pol is a Republican. Democrats can say whatever they want without being called religious nuts. Go figure). Our Reverend here is a good example of that type of narrow-minded thinking. He tolerates all ideas, as long as they agree with his own. There is nothing liberal in that, in the classic sense of the word. That isn't tolerance, it's just anti-religious neo-fascism at work. I'm no evangelical, but I don't deny their right to push their political issues. They have as much right as anyone else, whether I agree with them or not, and I think if your big issues are moral ones, informed by christianity or another religion, you don't have to look very far to see the decadence at work in our culture.

Decadence? Isn't that what the atheists should call themselves when they form a party pushing lawyer Newdow for the High Chair? I sincerely believe that the real force behind secularism is atheists and their thinking. How much more decadent can you get?

Newdow is running for president ?

Does our Reverend know about this ? Sounds like his kind of guy.

King says: "Democrats can say whatever they want [about religion] without being called religious nuts. Go figure. "

There are at least two reasons for this. First, the Democratic Party exists as a national force only because it gets the an overwhelming percentage of the black vote. Without this, the party would disappear. And since blacks tend to be religious, even conservatively religious so, the Dems must patronize the blacks with religion-speak. And, the liberal media, knowing the game, applauds & encourages such behavior.

Secondly, the Christianity of the Democrats is destorted to the Left. To them, Jesus was a socialist, if not an outright commie, who demands Big Government. And since the Dems look the other way on moral and other theological issues (homosexuality, abortion, original sin, Judgement, etc), the liberal media again approves of the Dems' use of religion.

2. Roysoldboy says: "I sincerely believe that the real force behind secularism is atheists and their thinking. How much more decadent can you get?"

Answer: There is no depth to the depravity to which atheism can take society. Just look at Mao's communist China, Stalin's USSR, and Hitler's Nazi Germany.

Mr. King,
How disingenuous! The people making an issue of Romney's religion are right wing Christians who insist in a literal interpretation of the bible. The media is simply reporting it as a factor in his electability.

P. S. You have advertised yourself as a libertarian. When are we going to see this?

Mr. King,
How disingenuous! You are astute enough to know that those most uncomfortable with Romney's religion are the religious right. The media simply report the subject as pertains to his electability.
As to the old shibboleth of the "liberal media", can't you recognize the symbiotic relationship between the media and those on whom they report? Also, those in the media who get to express actual opinions make a lot more money than the average person. How do you expect them to walk in the average person's shoes.

p.s. You call yourself a libertarian. When will we be seeing ssome evidence of this?

Frank, are you stuttering ?
And I believe I mentioned the right-wing talking about Romney being a Mormon. Maybe you should have read all the words I wrote. I exempted no one from the obsession with Romney's religion.
But if you want to deny that the media leans predominantly to the left, you'll have to find another sucker. I know better.
And I didn't understand your reference to the 'average person's shoes' or how I am contradicting my Libertarian bent here. Could you explain ?

Forrester,
The Democratic Party is around for a variety of reasons, only one of them being the minority vote.

You're assessment of the Democrats' view of religion pretty much illustrates my point. You stereotype Democrats along the same lines as the discourse of the Christian right, which has led to extremely partisan views. Most Democrats don't believe what you posted, just as most Republicans wouldn't agree with you either.

King, my point is that political religion has led to an unhealthy discourse in America that seeps into politics. Perhaps religion is not invoked as much as back then, but actually politicians in American history were much more in the "realist" camp than today's politician. Washington and Lincoln were very much realists even though they invoked religion. Nationalism became the American religion (as it did in many other nation-states) after the founding fathers century and its evident in the revival of the religious right.

The problem is that the religious debate is being shaped by those to the far right AND far left, when the vast majority of Americans do not agree with either side: Most are religious to some degree and understand the importance of religion, but don't want values and value-driven policies shoved in their face.

Mr. King,
No stutter here. I didn't read anything about the right wing and Romney's religion. What I read was about the mainstream media's reporting about it. You then go on to identify the MSM as left leaning.
My point about media pundits is that by the time they get into positions of influence, they are making 6 or 7 figure incomes. They know as little about how the average person lives as the average person knows about challenges facing millionaires. All that information is anecdotal. Their circle of friends whom they talk with are divorced from the average person's reality.
Libertarians believe in limiting the scope of government's influence in our lives. As such, they are against many things from gun control to prohibitions of abortion, prostitution, drug use, etc. They also tend to be isolationist. They believe that using government to help people is ineffectual and counterproductive. They believe in a literal interpretation of the Constitution.
You seem to support this administration in nearly everything they do despite their antithesis of libertarian tenets. The only thing libertarian about this administration is their tendency to privatize government functions and this seems to be more about rewarding supporters than any philosophical position. The president has claimed powers that the authors of the Constitution tried to prevent. He has made a mockery of the Bill of Rights. In fact, he even calls the Constitution a "goddamn piece of paper". I could go on and on but suffice it to say that this administration is to libertarianism as black is to white.

Ya' see…I was catching up on comments and what do you know?……I come across my bud Roy…

"Decadence? Isn't that what the atheists should call themselves when they form a party pushing lawyer Newdow for the High Chair? I sincerely believe that the real force behind secularism is atheists and their thinking. How much more decadent can you get?"

Let's see….I look at the definition for atheist and it is…

"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

…and then I look at the word decadence….

"the act or process of falling into an inferior condition or state"

….and then I consider that Mr Newdow is not only a lawyer but also a doctor….

…and I conclude: Roy out there in Dry Gulch, Kansas is off his dimensia meds again.

Graham disputes my assessment of why the drive-by media gives the Dims favorable coverage for being "religious" but excoriates the GOP for doing the same.

Sorry, Graham, but the data supports me, not you.

The Dims are highly dependent on getting an overwhelming percentage of the religious Negro vote. And since the media is the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, the media allows the Dim to shamelessly partonize the blacks in this regard, all in the hopes of securing Democratic victories.

And if that is not the case, how do you explain the reality that the media treats the Dims different from the GOP on using religion???? Surely you're not in denial about that fact, are you?

The reason the media deals with the Democrats differently about religion, assuming they actually do, would be simple to evaluate.

The Democratic Party is a progressive party, which would specifically carry with it a progressive view of religion in society….not a fundamentalist, supernaturalist, anti-science view of religion. That's the view of religion that the conservative, (not to be confused with progressive), Republican party, clings to.

The media coverage of Republican religiosity is, you know, kind of embarassing….with the Terri Schiavos' and the Larrry Craigs' and the Ted Haggerts' and all. Falwells' and Robertsons', etc,…you get the picture. The media coverage of these "religious" people and their stories may seem slanted because the people and the stories are so fringish and bizarre. Simply covering that type of stuff at all makes Republican style religiosity look silly and outdated, much like the flat earth society.

The media coverage of the more practical, sensible approach to the practical, sensible teachings of Jesus about the poor and those who are suffering and the downtrodden, you know, the non-supernatural part, may appear to conservatives as biased because the social Gospel demanded by their Lord is so threatening to their "god wants us to all be rich, the hell with the others", divisive and judgmental style of hypocrisy.

The same hypocrisy witnessed in the Jesus-and the-pharisees stories.

Frank,

My original column included conservatives along with the media in the Romney Mormon obsession. I wrote, "I've also heard some conservatives are spreading anti-Mormon spew in Iowa. Shame on you. They do it because Mitt Romney's resume is very impressive".

The vast majority of the MSM IS left-leaning. That's pretty obvious.

Thanks for explaining what you meant about my seeming anti-Libertarian views. I see what you mean now. I'll try to explain. One Libertarian definition of freedom is that your freedom stops at my nose. That means you are free to do what you wish as long as you do me no harm. I do adhere to that principle, but I don't think our enemies (Islamists) adhere to it one bit, which renders the whole idea moot. The prerequisite for Libertarianism is an ordered, responsible, and civilized society. That's the only way it can work. Once america was attacked, or when our allies are attacked, or even strongly threatened, that Libertarian freedom principle is violated. I believe we are in a state of war due to the violation of that principle, so it's my intention to preserve liberty, which means I strongly take america's side in the battle. I know other Libertarians disagree on the Iraq war, because they don't see Saddam as having violated that principle, but to me he did by invading Kuwait, along with violating all the terms of his Desert Storm surrender, and a long list of other things as well, which you've probably heard me spout off on before, so I won't repeat it all. Let's just say Saddam deserved his fate and then some.

Since we are at war, the rest of it falls in line. I believe in wiretapping Al Qaeda calls coming into the US. I believe in detaining enemy combatants pulled off the battlefield. I believe in using harsher interrogation methods at times (short of torture) on those that have key information. I don't see any of that as destroying the Constitution. We aren't playing tiddlywinks here.

Was it Washington who said to beware foreign entanglements ? He was right, of course, but I don't know if such a thing is really possible now, especially since WWII. If it is possible, then I have to concede we are pretty far away from it right now.

Rev,

You said, "a progressive view of religion in society….not a fundamentalist, supernaturalist, anti-science view of religion".
I'm trying to imagine God without the 'supernatural' part………
Sorry, can't do it. It sounds to me like you are saying the 'progressives' (boy, that term makes me laugh) would like to just make up their own God according to how they feel that week. It strikes me that if there is a God, God defines himself. He is not defined by man. God doesn't change because progressives decided that abortions and cloning were cool one day.

You wanna know why they call them 'progressives' ? Because they progressively take away your income, they progressively take away your rights, they progressively take away your freedom, they progressively destroy capitalism, they progressively destroy the Constitution… The true stuff is always the funniest. Maybe I have a weird sense of humor.

Mr. King,
One could apply your definition of libertarianism to most political movements. I once considered myself primarily libertarian and my reading was more along the lines of Ayn Rand. Be this as it may, it seems to me that the proper response to 9/11 would have been to find the perpetrators, and with swift and overwhelming force, destroy them. Our response should have dissuaded other would be terrorists.
No tears for Sadaam. He was a bad guy, but he was our bad guy. It's easy to say that he should have never been our ally. I believe this is the type of mess that Washington was warning about. Sadaam believed that Kuwait was slant drilling at their border and stealing Iraqi oil. Before invading, he sought US approval and received a pledge of neutrality from April Glaspie, undersecretary of State. We then turned on him, probably at the request of our Saudi allies. Our stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia is what motivated Osama to attack us. Sadaam may have deserved his fate, but the Iraqis didn't deserve theirs. We can disagree on what we owe the Iraqi people but surely you can't at this date believe our invasion 5 years ago was a good idea.
You believe that our "war" justifies the administration's violations of the Constitution. Perhaps if it were a declared war. However, the government is not merely wiretapping Al Qaeda calls. Recently a former ATT employee in San Francisco reported that he helped install machinery that provided the government with all the calls and internet traffic on the west coast.
Many of our "enemy combatants" were the result of a $5,000 bounty provided to warlords by the CIA.
What you refer to a "harsher interrogation methods" are ineffective because those undergoing such methods will confess to anything to end the harshness. The Geneva Accords give as clear a definition of torture as possible and we have definitely crossed that line. Waterboarding, for example, has been recognized as torture since the Inquisition.
I suppose we should to agree to disagree, but I do feel that the threat to the Constitution is as real as the threat of terrorism. There are many things the administration could be doing within the Constitution to thwart and deter terrorism. When the Constitution is violated, however, a precedent is then set that will be extremely difficult to reverse.

Rev Red, you have accused me of a disease that doesn't exist. You say that I have run out of demensia pills and there just isn't ant such a thing. If I were taking medication for dementia that would work. You just have to stop spelling words like they sound when you don't know they are spelled.

Red, have you seen me talk about my new name for libs? Some of them were howling about being called such so I just abbreviated the word they seemed to like best and now call all of you that think you are progressive by the shortened name of progs.

Frank, you and others who think like you do keep talking about the Geneva Accords but it seems that you don't realize that that agreement was among signatory NATIONS and al Queda wasn't one of them. Those who fight for al Queda don't deserve all the things that signatory nations agreed to do to the people of those nations. Someday I hope some of you Bush haters will realize that only signatories deserve the protection of the Accords. You seem to not understand that only soldiers wearing the uniform of the nation they represent get these guarantees, also. Try reading the Conventions some time instead of taking the word of prog thinkers.

I think that you need to tell us what some of those things the administration coud be doing within the Constitution to thwart and deter terrorism. People like you keep saying that but never suggest any of those things. While you are at it please let me know what part of the Constitution applies to people other than American citizens.

Mr. King,
As a signatory of the Geneva Convention we only promise to abide by it with other signatories? News to me.
Things that can be done within the Constitution-
Securing our borders, inspecting all cargo entering our ports, inside our planes, trains, etc. Guarding our transportation systems, nuclear, chemical and other vulnerable facilities. When 9 other nation's intelligence services warn of impending attacks, we could take them seriously. When a presidential briefing warning of imminent attacks arrives, it could be taken seriously. To deter terrorism, one could use the full power of this nation to hunt down and destroy people who dare to attack us.
p.s. I don't hate Bush, I hate what he does. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

Hate Geroge Bush's effort to grant the millions of illegal aliens here a pathway to U.S. citizenship

No, Frank, my definition of Libertarianism could NOT be applied to most political movements. Most political movements do precisely the opposite of that Libertarian ideal, which could also be stated as 'live and let live, as long as you do others no harm'. Most political movements are about restricting liberty. Communism, socialism, monarchy, feudalism, oligarchy, totalitarianism, theocracy, fascism, dictatorship, none of them adhere to the principle. Even democracy often falls short, though democracy is the best of the lot. We still have tyrrany of the majority in some cases, and tyrrany of the judiciary in others.

As for your statement that after 9/11 we should have gone after the perpetrators, well, that's exactly what we did. We went into Afghanistan and routed the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Are you proposing we invade allies like Pakistan as well, even though we don't know Bin Laden's whereabouts ? Should we just randomly invade any country where we get a lead ? That sounds pretty crazy to me. Al Qaeda is estimated to be in over 60 countries. Should we invade them all ?

And gimme a break about Saddam being 'our guy'. We didn't put him in power, and we only gave him help against the Islamofascists in Iran in the 1980's.

You said: "You believe that our "war" justifies the administration's violations of the Constitution".

We are at war (without the quotation marks), but I said no such thing about violating the Constitution. In any case, you didn't describe anything that the Bush administration did that expressly violated the Constitution in your last post. Wiretapping foreign terrorists isn't unconstitutional, neither is asking ATT for phone records. Harshly interrogating terrorists isn't unconstitutional, and neither is paying Afghani warlords to bring in Al Qaeda members. You COULD make a case for the warrantless wiretapping of international calls with one end being in the USA being unconstitutional, but rather than cut the president off at the knees for making an executive decision to keep the country safe following 9/11, maybe we should let Congress find a legislative solution that allows us to effectively fight the terrorists, that will address the needs of the 21st century, eh ?

Roy and I are two different people. You should have directed your comments about the Geneva Convention to him.

Hi…Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts ! it was a great Tuesday

Isn't it nice to finally learn about the Geneva Conventions and who they apply to? Why don't you look at them to see if I am wrong?

***When 9 other nation's intelligence services warn of impending attacks, we could take them seriously. When a presidential briefing warning of imminent attacks arrives, it could be taken seriously. To deter terrorism, one could use the full power of this nation to hunt down and destroy people who dare to attack***

How does one take information from others that you know is going to happen and run with it when they don't give out any specifics? I do wish you Bush bashers would someday explain just what you would have said if the government had clamped down on every possible way they could attack us. Nobody ever said they would attack at a certain time or how they would do it. I can just hear the bashers squealing like a pen of pigs if they had grounded all air traffic on September 9 to avoid any use of air liners as bombs. My God, the squealing would have been so loud and incessant that we couldn't have heard ourselves think.

Don't you think that looking at things like 9/11 in hindsight with all that loud talk is just a bit putting the cart before the horse. I just wonder why Bush bashers can't see that even Bush with hind sight can see that he should have chapped us all by cutting out all air travel for a period of time. The problem is when and for how long. Could the terrorists just wait until the ban on travel was over and then go ahead?

All the things you listed that could be done within the Constitution were capped off with your last suggestion. How in hell can we use our superior power to defend our people from terrorists when we aren't allowed to use our communication supeiority to help do that? You know, the NSA.

Excellent post, Roy.

I also wonder what the president was supposed to do when warned that Bin Laden wanted to attack the USA. That wasn't much of a specific lead. You might as well say, 'a murder will be committed in the country today', and then blame Bush for not stopping it.

I think you highlighted perfectly the stock ABB position: Blame Bush for everything he does, and for everything he doesn't do. As proof, I think it's safe to say that Bin Laden still wants to attack the USA, and now the libs are bitching about Bush wiretapping Al Qaeda, keeping Al Qaeda members in prison, and interrogating Al Qaeda. Logical, they're not.