… but (I hope) less contentious.
I was going to suggest to Kristofer that, since he seems determined to post on religion instead of politics, that he do his posting at GetReligion.org, which I find to be an excellent religion blog, covering mostly how religion is portrayed in the mass media.
Instead of sending Kristofer to GetReligion, though, I’ll drag GetReligion here. I visited it after reading as much as I could stomach of the interview with the scumbag Deace, and found that their first post currently is this one, which could be number 387 in a series on Can You Imagine How This Would Be Reported If Bush Were President.
This is the Virgin of Guadalupe, described by Wikipedia as follows:
The Virgin of Guadalupe is a symbol of significant importance to Mexican Catholics. The Virgin Mary in this aspect has been given the title: “Patroness of the Americas”, and the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City is the second most visited Catholic shrine in the world.
Hillary Clinton visited the Basilica during her visit to Mexico, which was a very nice gesture, I think.
Unfortunately, she then proceeded to ask who painted the image.
The problem with that question is that it was not, according to Catholic belief, painted at all. Or, as the priest, no doubt surprised by the question, answered, “God.”
Whether one believes in the miraculous provenance of the image, and whether one thinks Hillary should have known the story behind it, is not important. What is important is whether anybody at the State Department or the US Embassy in Mexico City knows the story. If not, why not? Isn’t it important to an understanding of the culture of the country? If so, why would they not explain it to the Secretary of State before she goes to the Basilica, so that she doesn’t embarrass herself and her country?
March 29th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Steve Deace is a good man, not a scum bag.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
1 – We can agree to disagree.
Bob – They are probably still trying to help Hillary find that “reset” button.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Bob, thanks for being a decent and honest person on these issues.
Not too surprising about Hillary. I don’t think she cares much for religion.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
DanL: It’s certainly her right to not care about religion. And I don’t see any reason why she should be expected, even if very religious, to know the story of the Virgin of Guadalupe — there are probably a large number of American Catholics who don’t know it (I do, but I attended Catholic schools in Arizona, where it has some importance).
It stuns me, though, that nobody briefed her prior to her visit to the Basilica.
Together with the “reset” button that GetReal mentions, and the Gordon Brown videos, it just shows a pattern of carelessness and amateurism that should be concerning to most Americans (and probably would be if the media were reporting this stuff).
March 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
As a devout Roman Catholic, I don’t really consider it that insulting or insensitive that Hillary Clinton wasn’t familiar with the background of the tilma. I kind of suspect it was just a moment of honest curiosity on the part of (gasp!) a human being. I’ve had plenty of non-religious people ask me questions that displayed a startling lack of familiarity with basic Catholic ideas, but I never assume that they’re doing it maliciously.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Also, I wouldn’t consider the tilma to be such an integral part of US/Mexico relations that Hillary Clinton should be familiar in detail with it and its story. I’m much more concerned with people at the state dept. focusing on actual policy issues than “culturally significant” aspects of other countries’ lifestyles…
March 29th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I totally agree with you about the amateurishness of our State department lately.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I wanted to post in the previous discussion which is now locked down. But I’ll generalize it some to be applicable. It seems that a number of religious folk here who frequent this site have really thin skin. Calling for bans or punitive measures should only be reserved for the most egregious of acts, not the silly pidgeon-holing or ideological games that have been going on.
I would rather a biased or bigoted remark remain so that it could be discussed and proven wrong. All statements should be held up for scrutiny, whether religious or anti-religious.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Bob, I posted comment #110 on Lorelli’s post in response to you calling on Kris to come clean. It has been removed, apparently because Kris didn’t like what I said.
I said that Kris emailed me with his purported proof that Goldman had posted Trig-truther stuff. The link showed no such thing, not even close. It was basically just Goldman posting excerpts from people who say Palin was not ready for office, with a few mild comments from Goldman. Nothing close to what Kris alleged. I also said Kris was caught with his pants down, which he is.
Kris has no proof that Goldman ever posted anything close to the ridiculous nonsense about Palin.
The post is now closed. I think this clears up any doubt anyone ever had about Kris’s lack of ability to be not only be intellectually honest, but to also not flat out lie.
Kavon, this entire episode is disgraceful, and beneath the level of discourse you say you want at race.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I’m so glad we got rid of those Bush people who obviously were boorish and undiplomatic and replaced them with these adult Democrats who are so much more worldly and knowledgable.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Bob, if you want the link Kris gave me with his “proof” email me. pmweste@yahoo.com
I am off to church and will be gone for a few hours. I hope someone holds Kris accountable for this entire debacle.
Basically, Kris wants to re-ignite the battles of 08, in order to benefit his gal. He thinks he can distance himself from these shady characters, but he cannot. He posted it, he thinks they are relevant. It’s all very self-serving to Kris.
He appears to lack the ability to advocate for Palin in an honest and above board manner.
Kavon, Do you justify this by saying that the whole thing is relevant because it exposes these bigots for who they are? That is just so much BS. If that were the case, you would allow all sorts of nonsense to be posted here. You don’t.
Double standard run amok here.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
A couple quick points re the previous post, and then I will ask that it not be brought up again here.
In the last post there, Kristofer made the point that he believes this site is fair and balanced and called on me to stand by that point. I tried to respond that I do so, but was unable, because in the meantime the thread was closed. I would not be at this blog if I did not believe it to be fair to all (however any of us may feel occasionally).
Second — I think it was wise that it was closed down, and that is why I do not want to see it re-opened here.
Please feel free to comment to your heart’s content re the Virgin of Guadalupe.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Bob, pretty disappointing that you don’t care Kris lied about Goldman.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I appreciate Richard’s efforts to defend me as I am only able to sneaky away to a computer for a few minutes every now and then today for reasons I explained earlier.
There are several people who have my cell number here (commenters and FPP). They can call me whenever if an explanation is really needed.
To me, it is pretty obvious what is going on here. I really can’t believe that it has to be explained to people.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Just reviewed the latest article by Palin/Kris. And I am serioulsy done with this place.
Before I go, however, I will now add Palin to the list with Huckabee as the 2 candidates I will NEVER support under any circumstances.
Also, what idiots like Kristofer don’t understand is why you are even having a discussion on whether Mormons are Christian? It SHOULD be irrelevant. The truth, of course, is that there is a fringe element of the evanelical base that will not vote for a Mormon under ANY circumstances. Several leaders at hucksarmy made that VERY clear last year. THAT IS WHY HUCKABEE AND NOW PALIN ARE AGAIN BRINGNING UP THE ISSUE–TO APPEAL TO THE BIGOTS OUT THERE TO GET THEIR VOTE. This is why Huckabee and Palin want to bring up LDS doctrine and whether they believe Mormons are Christians. As many recognized at the time, tryng to appeal to other’s bigoty and use another’s faith against him or her is simply UN-AMERICAN and, in my humble opinion, disqualifies them from being worthy for political office. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding upon the ideals upon which our country was founded.
That said, there are lots of other sites out there. Bye folks.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Eh?
March 29th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Hm. Nothing that I write is being posted. Post! Post!
March 29th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Alex: As far as I know there’s nothing preventing you from posting.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Let me make a few points here that I’m sure will tick off ppl from both sides of this argument over Kristofer’s post…
1. As someone who has studied Mormonism in high school, I cannot say swith all honesty that Mormonism falls completely in line with Orthodox Christianity (because they believe Jesus Christ is not the Son of God or God Himself… without whuch, the life, death, and resurrection through which humanity receives salvation and eternal life would not be possible). I’m not ashamed to make that statement. It does not make me a bigot. But I also must say that as far as political issues that matter much to me (esp. traditional values ones), many Mormon politicians (including Romney on some issues) line up with my values. That is why I could vote for a Mormon candidate if they lined up with my vision of the right person for the office to which I am electing them.
2. I do not vote based on someone’s religion. If Mitt Romney were a Baptist and John McCain were a Mormon, I would’ve voted for McCain based on their political principles and personal style of leadership and electability. I can have personal beliefs about someone;s religion that dont seep into my vote preferences. If people voted against Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon or Mike Huckabee cause he is a former Baptist minister or Barack Obama because he is black, they have the right to do so as Americans and free voters, but I do not approve of it and would advise everyone I know to NOT vote with such motives.
3. As some have pointed out here before, just saying that Mitt Romney is not the best person for the job or more honestly, electable is not an attack on his religious faith. Many Mitt Romney supporters need to learn that and keep that in mind cause the what I like to call the “fake bigotry” card is not gonna work in 2012 (just as the “fake gender bias” crap wont work for Palin or the “fake racism” one wont work for Obama if hes unpopular).
March 29th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
“As someone who has studied Mormonism in high school, I cannot say swith all honesty that Mormonism falls completely in line with Orthodox Christianity (because they believe Jesus Christ is not the Son of God or God Himself… without whuch, the life, death, and resurrection through which humanity receives salvation and eternal life would not be possible).”
Pure unadulterated falsehoods. Mormons do indeed the Christ is the Son of God and also that He is God. And they do indeed believe and testify that Christ atoned for our sins, died, and was resurrected thus breaking the bands of death. If you had bothered to study Mormon doctrine from the source instead of from the lying anti-Mormons you would know better. The opinions of the folks who say that Mormons aren’t Christians is directly analogous to the falsehoods perpetuated by Islam against Judaism and Christianity.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
*do indeed believe*
March 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
1. As someone who has studied Mormonism in high school, I cannot say swith all honesty that Mormonism falls completely in line with Orthodox Christianity (because they believe Jesus Christ is not the Son of God or God Himself…
Utter nonsense.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
The Party MUST stand against religious bigotry and especially anti-Mormonsim. The LDS is the fastest growing Church body worldwide and Mormons are arguably the geographic backbone of the modern Republican Party. Mormons should be accepted and acknowledged as Christians and welcomed to participate in full communion and prayer with global Christendom. I believe that our Party must advance the ideals of ecumenicalism and invite all religions together in full dialogue and unity to share a common purpose.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
DanL,
As much as I disagree with MacisBack08, where did he state that he studied with anti-Mormons? It is this reactionary accusatory type rhetoric which turns people off from politically inclined Mormons and by extension, Mormon candidates. If indeed Macisback or anyone else is in error, please educate them without insulting them.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I did not learn too much about Mormons in High School, we were taught that Mormons were a Christian sect, but the teacher did not go to deep theologically, so I do not want to get into a contest about that per se. I think it is fair for Martha and DanL to give their points of view, but I do not believe it is fair to automatically call people bigot and liars. Yeas there are bigots are liars, but this charge is beginning to be overused.
For example, while Kristofer may not have used the best judgment, I believe it is unfair to call him dishonest and a liar without knowing the whole story. I give him the benefit of the doubt that it was not his intention to attack anyone’s faith. I know people feel differently, but the word lie has a serious connotation and I think it should be used more carefully.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
First, I’d like to commmend John Mark for his very insightful comments in Kristpher’s thread.
I’d also like to remind my LDS friends here at Race that, despite our theological differences, we are very much walking in step in terms of political orientation.
My hope, again, is that Mike will have Mitt on his show someday soon for a townhall meeting like the one he had in Elkhart, Indiana last weekend. It seems to me that those two guys can be instrumental unifying the GOP again.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
“Just reviewed the latest article by Palin/Kris.”
hahahaha, this could be the funniest thing I have seen written by an alleged adult. Sarah Palin really is blogging on this site under the name Kristofer Lorelli, hahahaha.
Sarah Palin hasn’t even uttered or mentioned the name Mitt Romney since early of last year, pal. I don’t remember her ever saying the name “Mike Huckabee.” Your allegation that Palin was involved in Kristofer’s post says a little bit about your mental health. Thanks for the laugh.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Kristofer,
I’m still perplexed by your reasoning since we are hopefully all trying to rebuild the party so it can win in the future and defeat Barack Obama. Your argument that since Deace holds some weight during the Iowa caucuses, his views deserve a full airing. But don’t you agree that one way our party rebuilds itself towards victory against Obama is to minimize the weight that a guy like Deace has on the Iowa caucuses? If you agree with my last sentence, I don’t see how giving him a full airing, without providing a disclaimer that you disagree with him, is helping the party minimize his influence.
Kristofer, I’m just perplexed bro about what you were trying to accomplish. The Romney folks have their opinions about what transpired in Iowa, the Huckabee folks have their opinions, the ones who didn’t support either have theirs…I just don’t get what you were trying to do. I hate to say that I agree with Martha in the sense that it seems that you are trying to stir up conflict between Huck and Mitt again.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I think that Deace’s comments speak for themselves. Sure they deserve an airing — for better or for worse.
It’s not like Kristofer agrees with him. Kristofer surely hates the guy. Kristofer supports gay marriage and partial-birth abortion, for Christ’s sake. He’s not doing this to hurt Mittens, but to help Sarah. Comments like Deace’s don’t really hurt Mittens.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
In defense of Steve Deace, he wrote a book that I’d recommend to all traditional conservatives called: Without a Vision, The People Perish.
In the book, he proposes that all people with traditional values (which, of course, includes most Mormons and most Evangelicals) band together to form a new organization that can wield influence on both political parties. It’s an interesting idea if nothing else.
Anyway, as I’ve said before, Steve Deace loves Orrin Hatch and would certainly vote for Mitt if he’d been the Governor of Idaho and governed as a conservative LDS. Deace is anti-Mitt, not anti-Mormon.
I’m not offended by the clean-cut, well-mannered guys that come through my neighborhood professing their Mormon faith. However, by the very act of proselytizing, you are saying that your faith is unique and ‘right,’ implying that other faiths are not. As Deace admits, he’s blunt, but basically what he said is just a less polite way of saying the exact thing that is conveyed by door-to-door proselytizing.
Regardless, again, LDS and Evangelicals are on the same team politically and I hope that Mitt & Mike make a move soon to mend this rift.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Alex,
I saw in the other thread where you wrote that Evangelicals are in politics for Jesus. You’re right! But ideally, not just politics, every aspect of our lives should be informed by our faith. We don’t compartmentalize our faith.
However, what we’re talking about is, at its core, a worldview. Your politics, all of your life is informed by your worldview, your religion, which, correct me if I’m wrong, is secular humanism. Or do adherents of Ayn Rand consider themselves something other than secular humanists?
Regardless, you’re accusing Evangelicals of something you do yourself.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
I’m not “an adherent of Ayn Rand,” although yes, I have been influenced by her work. I do not consider myself an Objectivist. I certainly consider myself in agreement with most of her principles, though: it’s classical liberal thought, basically.
Of course my worldview influences everything that I do. But I do not use faith to come to my conclusions — nor do I try to impose my worldview on others. My entire worldview is about individual liberty. Evangelicals’ is not.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
One of my daughters was orignally named for this Catholic saint. They called her ‘lupita’ for short. We had nothing against the name, but since were LDS and living up here in this part of america, we changed it to something less hispanic when we adopted her. Great kid, and she does know her original name, and knows the meaning of it.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
30 mac – Sure Dunce love Orrin Hatch, and all his best friends are Mormons, too! He just has a problem with one of them, who just happens to be the only Mormon running for pres.
Oh yeah, and I cal baloney on your last point defending Dunce on his anti-Mormon bile. This has no similarity whatsoever with LDS missionaries going door to door asking people if they would like to learn more about the Gospel. Nada.
Dunce is trying to take Romney down in round 2. His obvious first weapon of choice is bigotry. He is NOT a good man, not even close.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
“nor do I try to impose my worldview on others”
Alex, by pushing for same sex marriage, you seek to impose. Most Evangelicals and most LDS are merely seeking to maintain the status quo.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Mac,
Mitt has made many moves. He has NEVER said anything bad about Huckabee. It is Huck that wants (for political reasons, I’m sure) to keep it going.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
34, What bigoted statement did Daece make against Mormons? He said that they aren’t Christians, that may be theological wrong, but its only bigoted in a dangerous PC world where theological disagreements or misunderstandings are chalked up to bigotry.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Martha,
I think you’re right on one point, Steve Deace does not want Mitt Romney to be the GOP nominee, but not because he’s LDS.
Steve Deace doesn’t like Mitt for the same reason that Alex doesn’t like Mitt, they don’t trust him. Again, if Mitt had run for Prez the way he ran for gov of Mass, Alex would love Mitt. If Mitt had been a consistent pro-life, pro-marriage gov of Michigan (Deace loves the Wolverines) then Deace would be a mittbot.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
14. Kavon, I appreciate the position you’re in today, not being able to respond. Yes, we know what this is all about, (Kris using anti-Mormon bigotry to stir up the anti-Mormon wars again, with the hope it will benefit Palin.)
But, I’m looking for your opinion on all of it, and whether or not you believe Kris was right to have posted it, and right to have falsely accused Goldman of smearing Palin. (Kris closed the post when he realized he was caught in a lie.)
Anyway, I hope we hear from you on all of this. Like I said, the double standard is obvious. Remember when you came down hard on me for my tough posts on Palin? You asked me to stop, saying I shouldn’t want to offend Palin supporters because Romney may need them down the road. What about not offending Romney supporters, and the LDS people?
This is far more egregious than anything I’ve ever said. Do you feel this type of post represents the kind of site you want? Sure hope not. If this isn’t remedied, I guess a lot of us Romney people won’t come back. Maybe that doesn’t bother you, but I think it would be a shame. I’ve enjoyed it here, it’s different (or was) and better than any other site out there for us commenters.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Martha #39,
I am able to check the site from time to time.
If you have time, email me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com
As far as anything going on between Kris and Aron, I have no knowledge of that. I do know that they are both grown-ups and can probably work things out among themselves.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
BarkTwiggs, those claims that Mormons don’t worship Christ and don’t believe he is the Son of God as the Bible proclaims have been flung around by anti-Mormons since shortly after Joseph Smith came on the scene. They are standard talking points for all Mormon bashers and are completely false. I have heard them hundreds of times from people all across the country. I am not claiming that Macisback is a Mormon hater, just that he got fed lies. I will say that some people honestly believe what Macisback said and have just been to lazy to get the truth from the people who believe Mormonism. But then there are the people, like Deace, who don’t care what the truth is and just keep using the same dishonest talking points.
When people get to know Mormons who live their doctrine and have honest discussions with them they learn that Mormons are staunch Christians. Of course there are plenty of LDS who don’t live their religion or don’t know their religion, just as there are plenty of Evangelicals or Catholics who don’t live or know their religions either. And there are disaffected LDS who are happy to spread falsehoods about their former religion because they have an ax to grind.
Maybe I was a bit impetuous to state that Macisback heard these lies from anti-Mormons. There is some small chance that he heard them from someone who was to lazy to investigate the religion in an honest manner. But my experience, which is vast, is that the people who proselytize the anti-Mormon lies are in fact anti-Mormons themselves.
I want to echo Illinoisguy in saying God bless all of the decent people here like Ohiojoe. There are a lot of you. I hope we can all see the GOP take back Congress in 2010 and the presidency in 2012. It’s time though to find a site, though, that doesn’t allow religion baiting.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Good grief… How in the world did we end up having theological arguments again?
March 29th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
“But I do not use faith to come to my conclusions”
You do, when it comes to belief in free choice.
“nor do I try to impose my worldview on others.” You do in the same sense evangelicals do, you’re worldview determines how you relate to others privately and through government. Neither you, nor evangelicals try to force their belief through the government, but you both try to interact with people according to your beliefs.
“My entire worldview is about individual liberty.”
Seems to me its more about the freedom of the strongest.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
42, Life doesn’t fall into neat little categories like school subjects.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I never thought I would say this: thank you, Knickers — for posting a comment that was related to the post.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
37. All of Deace’s comments together in the post are grounded in bigotry. I don’t see how you miss it. His purpose is clear, and his feelings about Mormons are clear. He is not a man who respects my faith because he is willing to knowingly lie about it, and to make use of his lies politically.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Mormonism appeals to Conservatives in that it is a manifestly American Christian religious denomination, separating itself from the more humanist European denominations. Mormonism is by no means a weakness of Mitt but I would argue that it is a strength, an asset and the foundation of his appeal. Many of the Evangelicals that I have talked to recently regard Mormons as fellow Christians and believers in a related faith tradition. Ecumenicalism can bring these and other religions together and dissolve doctrinal differences and obstacles to unity.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Where in here is anything bigoted about Mormons:
“Well, I’m a Christian. I’m not a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Jew, or Muslim, but a Christian.
No I’m not, because Mr. Keller is correct. About the one thing Mr. Minnery said in my interview I agreed with him totally about is when he said Mormons aren’t Christians. They have a different religion, and it would take too long to articulate those differences in this forum. Even Hugh Hewitt, the Tariq Aziz of the Mitt Romney campaign, agrees that Mormons aren’t Christians. But don’t just take my word for it. Research the works of recent American Christian leaders of various theological stripes like Walter Martin, Adrian Rogers, D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, Albert Mohler, Josh McDowell, John Piper, and John MacArthur and you’ll find they would all agree Mormonism isn’t Christianity. If it has become bigotry to say something is true and something else is not, then I guess I’ll proudly wear that.
Now, one more thing on this question. While I often say on my show Mormonism isn’t Christianity, I have also said repeatedly Mr. Romney’s Mormonism isn’t automatic grounds for me as a Christian not to vote for him. Great statesmen like Jefferson, Franklin, and Lincoln also weren’t trinitarian in their theology. Yet they also demonstrated a clear respect for the “laws of nature and nature’s God” that our Declaration of Independence discusses, as do the vast majority of Mormons today. Thus, from a political perspective, my problem with Mr. Romney is he wasn’t Mormon enough. Had he governed in Massachusetts with the orthodox morality the Mormon Church has stood for over the last 150 years or so, I would have had no problems supporting him. Frankly, given his signing into law $50 abortions after his alleged pro-life conversion, and his illegally and unconstitutionally enacting sodomy marriage without a valid court order, I’m struggling to figure out why his fellow Mormons supported him. Perhaps it’s time folks such as yourself start asking Mormon leaders that question.
Your question again asserts the false premise this is about Mormonism for me. Did I not already address this issue? I’m a pretty blunt guy. If I wasn’t going to vote for someone based on religion, I would say so. That’s not the case for me in this case.”
All he said is that Mormons are not Christians. Now, you can disagree with him on this, but shutting down debate on a theological question, by yelling out bigotry is harmful to free debate. One is free to even have nagative opinions about another religion without it being bigotry. As a matter of fact, protestantism was founded on a rather nagative view of catholicism. But now I guess it would be bigoted to criticize the Papacy. I guess now we’re supposed to treat religous differences like differences in tastes for spicy food, and its not something to be debated. Now, before you say this isn’t the place for a religous debate, I wouldn’t argue you on that point – but that hasn’t been your arguement, you made this a religous debate by trying to conflate theological differences or even misunderstandings as bigotry.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
John Mark: What makes you a Christian? Why study these authors and not study the Bible. I say to you, that if Mormon’s are not Christian, then neither are you!!!!!
What Name is one the Church you attend. Is it Christ? It is on mine. I say to you, that you are less of a Christian than you think! For if you truly followed Christ, you would say no such thing, for Christ never attacked other religions but taught his truths.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
John Mark,
Saying that “Mormons are not Christians” is similar to when the Catholic Church of the past asserted that “Jews did not go to Heaven.” Both of these false assertions are offensive, old fashioned and viewed as bigoted by their desired victims. Thankfully, the Catholic Church has since affirmed the salvation of the Jews and corrected this misguided doctrine. We need to be ecumenical in our outlook and not try to separate peoples based on doctrine.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
I really don’t want to get into a theological debate here, but I guess that’s why the video was posted in the first place, stirring up the hornet’s nest.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
“for Christ never attacked other religions but taught his truths.” That couldn’t be further from the truth. He attacked the Judaism of the religous leaders of his time quite strongly – why do you think they crucified him? And for the record I never said Mormons were not Christians, I am simply arguing against calling theological disagreements, bigotry – doing so does two things, it weakens the term bigotry, and it shuts down honest debate.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
John Mark: Here you do error. He did not attack the Judaism. For as often he healed someone of the a desease, he sent them to the Jewish Priest to be declare them clean. Have you even read the bible? It seems not, Jesus never attacked any Jewish leader. But he taught in the wilderness. Jesus after all was Jewish and followed all of the Jewish law until he was crucified. He did not come to destroy the Jewish law but to full fill it.
You said: “I am simply arguing against calling theological disagreements, bigotry – doing so does two things, it weakens the term bigotry, and it shuts down honest debate.”
Then what is bigotry when you say that one is Christian and one is not. It is the very definition of Bigotry and you ware it well. And you not engage in a honest debate but have continually mislead the truth, and now is that Christian? Is that how you think Christ would act. Rather he would go about teaching correct principles.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
53, I know very well Jesus was a faithful practicing Jew. However, he also attacked the form of judaism taught by the religous leaders of his time, as I’m sure you know.
BTW is it all religions which you think should be free from attack? The fact that you proselytze implies that you believe other religions are inferior, so by the standard of bigotry which you are setting up, in which any theological attack is bigotry, you yourself could be called a bigot.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
John Mark said: “I know very well Jesus was a faithful practicing Jew. However, he also attacked the form of judaism taught by the religous leaders of his time, as I’m sure you know”
Here you do error also, it is not what they taught but their hypocrisy he taught about. As you have shown.
John Mark said: “BTW is it all religions which you think should be free from attack? The fact that you proselytze implies that you believe other religions are inferior, so by the standard of bigotry which you are setting up, in which any theological attack is bigotry, you yourself could be called a bigot.”
Here you also lie, for I do not teach others are wrong or right, but I would rather than you or any one here correct principles then pray to our heavenly father in the name of Christ if these things are true. For if I mislead someone the Lord will not suffer any one who asks in faith, believing in Christ, willing to accept what ever answer he will give without preconceptions. For Christ is not the father of lies but of truth, seek his word in prayer and fasting, having faith, and the Lord will lead you to truth, but of the precepts of men, they have their reward.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Whatever. If believing that certain beliefs can be wrong, is bigoted, I guess I am a bigot.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
While I am not LDS, the mormons could pretty much care less rather the right wing fringe element of the evangelical base represented by Deace/Huckabee think mormons on Christians. That has never been the issue!
THE ISSUE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE FACT THAT HUCKABEE/DEACE HIGHLIGHTED OR BROUGHT TO THE FORE THAT ROMNEY WAS MORMON TO CAPITALYZE FOR POLITICAL GAIN WHAT THEY KNOW TO BE RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY IN OTHERS.
Bringing up another candidates (minority) faith for politcal gain by Huckabee was simply despicable and, as Krauthammer called it, Un-American. But then, Huckabee has alwyas had problems with ethics as well as being a petty, mean-spirited and vindictive person. The reason so many evangelical leaders didn’t support huckabee is because these are the guys who KNEW the Huckster personally and couldn’t stand the guy.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Reply to Bags 57: Well spoken.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
As far as faith goes, I only believe we’re going to hell in a hand basket. Groping for the life raft marked “LDS,” “Babtist,” “C of E,” “RC,” etc., represents little more than last-minute attempts at personal rescue…
Kristofer needn’t interview folks for their anti-Romney views: I think we’re all already well versed in the complaints against Mitt as a politician. Summaries and links would suffice. All the gory details are pointless, tawdry, and embarrassing to any adult human being with empathic respect for his fellows. And how would Kris feel about a monotone anti-Palin poster with a singular front-page ax to grind? Annoyed, at best. But then, some of Kris’s critics might simply comment on such diatribes with “tl;dr.”
Mature individuals who dislike Mitt shouldn’t do so because of his religious affiliation unless they can demonstrate that it influences his politics in ways they disagree with politically.
As for Bob’s vastly ignored point: The left-eyed views of the MSM that Obama, the Clintons, and every leftist politician has a monopoly on deep knowledge of global cultures that will endear the US around the world will remain unchallenged. Such Clinton gaffes (along with Obama’s gaffes in front of Gordon Brown, Hillary’s mistranslated “Reset Button” in front of Russian FM Litvinov, etc.) add kindling to the same anti-American spirit that has always obtained around the world.
Clinton and Obama are just as emblematic of “American ignorance” paired with “American ignorance of the rest of the world” for anti-American sentiment as anything that two Bushes and a Reagan ever did or said. We can only hope that the American left will recognize, finally, that there is nothing that America or Americans can do or say that will make the rest of the world love or even respect us. International diplomacy is all about the cold, rational, and often ruthless pursuit of national interests, nothing more.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
I’m going to repost, since everyone is in here, not looking at the prior post by Kristofer Lorelli.
“What I take from this post is that
1) Kristofer Lorelli remains a non-fan of Romney.
2) Steve Deace is an idiot who likes to define Christianity in his own “special” way.
3) Some Mormons are a little thin-skinned. Have you all stopped watching NBC, ABC, and CBS because they’re biased towards Democrats and Obama? I doubt it.”
March 29th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
#57,
I have waited 2 days for someone to make that case. Kinda the point of my interview…oh well….
#59 said: <blockquote?And how would Kris feel about a monotone anti-Palin poster with a singular front-page ax to grind?
Fine, that role was played by Mr. Alex Knepper in 2008. And proof is the fact that I was against his banning last year, even though he was ripping the guts out of my candidate.
Now, Alex is taking a second look, but certainly not supporting Palin.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
#57,
I have waited 2 days for someone to make that case. Kinda the point of my interview…oh well….
#59 said:
Fine, that role was played by Mr. Alex Knepper in 2008. And proof is the fact that I was against his banning last year, even though he was ripping the guts out of my candidate.
Now, Alex is taking a second look, but certainly not supporting Palin.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
For the current topic, Secretary of State Clinton is showing her “hasn’t run a corner store” experience right in front of our eyes… and getting a free pass on it from the media.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Ok, so I am a protestant christian and know some about Mormonism from my Aunt and her family who are Mormon. I researched the Mormon website and found that they believe that Jesus is savior just like all other Christians. So from the perspecive that I believe that anyone who accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior are Christian than Mormons are true Christians. However, I do think that their is major differences in Mormonism than main-line Christianity. For instance, Mormons think that Jesus came to South America (correct me if I am wrong, I hate to get facts wrong and do not intend to) after he rose again from the grave in Israel. That differs from Christianity. They also have a second book that is used in conjunction with the Bible of others. So thier are obviously differences in theology or doctrine or how stuff happened but does it matter? If you profess with your heart the Jesus is Lord that is all that matters. The only thing that I want to know more about Mormonism is that I went to the square and Temple when I was young with my Aunt and they would not let me in the Temple because I was not Mormon, but I was Christian they said so what was the dif?
March 29th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
You do in the same sense evangelicals do, you’re worldview determines how you relate to others privately and through government. Neither you, nor evangelicals try to force their belief through the government, but you both try to interact with people according to your beliefs.
Evangelicals don’t try to force their beliefs through the government? Are you on crack?
Seems to me its more about the freedom of the strongest.
Um, how?
March 29th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Fine, that role was played by Mr. Alex Knepper in 2008. And proof is the fact that I was against his banning last year, even though he was ripping the guts out of my candidate.
Now, Alex is taking a second look, but certainly not supporting Palin.
Uhhhh…ex-cuh-yooz me, but I made a total of two anti-Palin posts and then I was banned for the rest of the election season. Monotone anti-Palin, my ass.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Reply to Conservativestudent Says: First, not even all Mormon’s are allowed in the Temple. To get in the Temple you need a temple recommend. To get a Temple Recommend you need to be interviewed and found worthy. There are many requirements. But to be short, the Temple is a sacred place where only worthy members can go. I could go further, but in short, you would have to follow all of the Requirements same as any Mormon would.
As for the rest, you are for the most part correct. LDS do not pretend to be the same as other Church’s , in fact we admit such. Nor do we wish to be as other Christian religions.
So, in short, I agree with all that you have said.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
And I “support” Palin over Romney and Huckabee, only because there’s no way I could support the latter two.
I’m the Jew of Race 4 2012 in the meantime, waiting for my Messiah.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Alex Knepper Says: And I “support” Palin over Romney and Huckabee, only because there’s no way I could support the latter two
Even in the General? Thats okay, I couldn’t support Palin. Maybe in the General
March 29th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
It is telling that no one on Hillary’s staff could brief her on the religious nature of the location she was using as a photo opportunity.
I’d hope if Obama sends envoys to meddle in the Middle East that they aren’t as ignorant of foreign culture as our Secretary of State.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
#66:
Summary: The more dedicated the fan, the thinner the fan’s skin in response to criticism of the object of the fan’s devotion.
#63:
And contrast that with MSM portrayals of Republican diplomats. It ranges from the doltish (Duby, Reagan, and George HW) to the sinister (Kissinger, John Bolton) — there are no shades of gray.
But Clinton’s goof here displays two things that the reliably leftist press (yes, almost all of the press) share as a truth beyond questioning:
- A Democrat like Clinton is well loved in foreign affairs, in particular toward our southern neighbors. They draw no enmity, but only new friendships by their mere presence and a friendly, smiling wave or handshake.
- The Foggy Bottom bureaucracy is indicative of the omniscience and efficiency of federal bureaucrats.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
“Evangelicals don’t try to force their beliefs through the government? Are you on crack?”
Give an example a recent example of evangelicals supporting a law forcing others to believe as they do. Abortion and homosexuality are examples of their religion informing them how to relate to society, but its not forcing others to have their viewpoint.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
#66, who cares, that is not the point…your timing was bad.
#68, you wish you were a Jew! Duh, we have two Jewish-Americans posting on this site.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Why do I get the feeling Kavon hasn’t even read the offending threads? Sure family takes priority but if you want to be the leader of a “respected” web site you need to show leadership. Saying these people are adults and should work it out is not showing leadership. We expect Obama to be able to handle more than one thing at a time.
Does he even care that good people like Illinois Guy seems to have resigned after about 24 months of posting? I predict this site will be dead and buried by 1/1/10 if the likes of Kristofer and “Gamecock” remain in vogue.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Kavon:
While I do not agree with everything that Kristopher says, I ask that you not ban him. This being your site, you certainly have the right to ban him, me or anybody else. All I am going to say in that I am glad that in The United States and on your site, we generally are allowed to say most things that are on our minds and this is good for the democratic process. I do not know why he said what he said, but I take him at his word. Without getting into a contest of naming names, there are plenty of people who have said a lot more offensive things than Kristofer and I for one am not asking for them to be banned. It is interesting that some of the same people who accuse Kristofer of trying to start a fight are themselves trying to start a fight between Mr. Lorelli and Mr. Goldman. I feel bad and sad that some people have been offended by Kristopher, but banning him is not the answer, especially when he has offered to discuss things off-line with people. May GOD Bless you for keeping this good site and thank you very much for letting me and other comment on your site.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:43 am
OHIO JOE, I love ya buddy. You have a genuine heart and you provide such great insight.
No worries, I am not going anywhere.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Thanks Kristofer, that is very kind of you. I wish you well as you continue the political campaign.