...I voted for My Favorite Mormon presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, the second time I've done so. The 2008 Georgia primary was the first time.
All this folderol about voting for a member of a cult, advancing the agenda of a false gospel, and the like is just so much high-minded Baptist hot air. Very, very few Southern Baptists who have expressed such concern about a Mormon president will end up not marking or punching their ballot or touching their screen for Mitt Romney.
To tell you the truth, we look a little silly and somewhat hypocritical in the whole process.
Romney is a vastly superior presidential candidate. I am happy to vote for him.
God can take care of His Gospel and is not powerless even if the POTUS is a Mormon, or a Southern Baptist.
Obama doesn't have much of any chance here in Georgia anyway, but I feel good about having voted for Romney. I'm still trying to atone for the insanity in voting for Jimmy Carter in 1976 when I was in a state of irrational exuberance over our home state candidate.
Go thou and do likewise.
All this folderol about voting for a member of a cult, advancing the agenda of a false gospel, and the like is just so much high-minded Baptist hot air. Very, very few Southern Baptists who have expressed such concern about a Mormon president will end up not marking or punching their ballot or touching their screen for Mitt Romney.
To tell you the truth, we look a little silly and somewhat hypocritical in the whole process.
Romney is a vastly superior presidential candidate. I am happy to vote for him.
God can take care of His Gospel and is not powerless even if the POTUS is a Mormon, or a Southern Baptist.
Obama doesn't have much of any chance here in Georgia anyway, but I feel good about having voted for Romney. I'm still trying to atone for the insanity in voting for Jimmy Carter in 1976 when I was in a state of irrational exuberance over our home state candidate.
Go thou and do likewise.
60 comments:
I totally agree with you William. I was asked yesterday on another blog how I could justify voting for a Mormon. I told them that there is no substantive difference in my opinion in voting for a Mormon or a liberal christian. I absolutely agree that Romney is a superior candidate.
I too don't understand all this angst. I'm not convinced there have been any true Christian presidents in my lifetime, although they can talk a good game.
Good for you!
I will also vote for Romney.
We are voting for someone to run our country...not lead our church.
Obama has been an abject failure. Time to dump him before it is too late.
There are a few (very few) in the church I pastor who say they cannot bring themselves to vote for a Mormon. They also complain about the present President and where his administration is leading the country.
I have recommended two things:
1 - To remember, you are voting for a President, not a pastor for your church.
2 - To consider what Billy Graham has just said.
The second one gets them because here in NC, BG is near deity.
Go Romney!
Jon L. Estes
If you haven't seen 2016 it is worth checking out.
Jon L. Estes
John Wylie:
I do not understand why you want to call President Obama a liberal Christian, but that is better than someone who is not a Christian at all, IMO.
I will never understand SBC folks voting for a Mormon after all the years of making such a big deal of the cult of Mormonism. Did my pastors lie to me about Mormonism? But it appears you guys have done a great job of rationalizing-so that your consciences can rest easy.
As they say--just saying.
Tom,
Please point to the verses in the Bible that say you must only vote for a Christian. Besides, there wasn't a Christian running for office this time.
Tom, we generally didn't vote for SBCers for president and liked the declared "not born again" candidate in 2008 over the declared Christian candidate.
Religion and politics is a mess for Southern Baptists.
My conscience is quiet over this. He's a Mormon and I'm going to vote for him. If the next election produces a JW who is the best candidate, I will vote for him. Obama's religion or lack thereof has no bearing whatsoever on my vote.
I consider (my last comment notwithstanding) Jimmy Carter to be a Christian, albeit a left leaning one. But I wouldn't vote for him, because he was a terrible president. Actually, I think Bush II was a terrible president too.
Yes, you did; that is ... you voted. And if Romney is elected, hopefully he will not allow disingenuous 'true the vote' policy to proceed and curtail others of their right to vote, thus also striking a blow for truth, justice, and the American way.
Notwithstanding an apparent animus against anything Christian that is not first preceeded by ‘conservative’, thus a regrettable display of religious bigotry, conservative Christians really ought not to speak unkindly about Obama's religion if Romney's religion is no longer a concern.
"Yes, you did; that is ... you voted. And if Romney is elected, hopefully he will not allow disingenuous 'true the vote' policy to proceed and curtail others of their right to vote, thus also striking a blow for truth, justice, and the American way."
I hope you do not mean by "others" those who are not citizens of the USA or those who are guilty of voter fraud (the premise for true to vote).
As citizens of this fine country I would think that all of us would want only USA citizens to vote and only vote once each election. Maybe you see it differently and don't care who votes.
Jon L. Estes
Suspiciously familiar Anonymous said: "...conservative Christians really ought not to speak unkindly about Obama's religion if Romney's religion is no longer a concern."
Pretty good point.
Obama declares himself to be a Christian. I have accept his self-description on the issue and have blogged accordingly.
From the Breenan Center for Justice (New York University School of Law): "Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often."
When someone writes, “Maybe you see it differently and don't care who votes,” it appears they do not have a good grasp of the issue.
I voted before leaving on my current business trip...and I voted for the candidate that I think will govern in a many more closely to my values of smaller vs. bigger government, more free vs more controlled/manipulated markets, judicial appointments of individuals more attuned to originalist rather than "spirit of the age" basis...
One week from today we will know who the President is.
Maybe so, tom, maybe not...
William I do not think the vote or Electoral College vote is going to be that close to call and I do not think the weather is going to prevent people from voting.
Anon,
The key word in your given quote is epidemic and it is problematic to the discussion. Why would voter fraud need to be epidemic before it is a problem?
For every single vote which is counted but is in actually invalid due to fraud, it cancels out an honest citizens vote which is opposite. Voter fraud, even in one case is not a victimless crime.
Then I have the question, if there is no fraud, why such a fight against making sure each vote is a legal vote?
How does verifying that a voter is non-fraudulent stop the process or make our voting opportunity any less of the America Way?
If there is nothing to hide, why fight something that can help the whole process?
Jon L. Estes
"Then I have the question, if there is no fraud, why such a fight against making sure each vote is a legal vote?"
The shenanigans of the "true the vote" movement would compromise the ability of hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of voting, to ensure that 50-75 fraudulent votes would not be cast. That is not good policy unless one has a political agenda, then it makes perfect sense (at the expense of democracy, however).
1,000,000 to 50-75???? Is there any verifiable support for this claim?
What compromises 1,000,000 people of their vote? Is it that they cannot prove they are citizens (legal voters)? If so, would you support their ability to get on a plane with you if they could not provide identification? I wouldn't.
Jon L. Estes.
Jon, the total number of potentially disenfranchised voters is unknown given that not all states are involved in the "true the vote" movement nonsense, but when it takes hold in a few states, it no doubt will be sought by other states, thus the numbers will rise. In the states where it is being pursued, tens and hundreds of thousands will be at risk.
Let's be clear, voter fraud is NOT a problem in the US. There is NO evidence to suggest it is a problem. Recall that Republican appointed Attorney Generals have lost their jobs because they could not find such in their states. Educate yourself on this issue and let's not waste time on issues (e.g., true the vote) that divert us from issues that DO make a difference. True the Vote is pure politics and a politic that attenuates democracy. It's that simple.
Anon,
"the total number of potentially disenfranchised voters is unknown"
Thank you. That helps me better understand the point you were wanting to make.
Jon L. Estes
Jon, you are demonstrating stupidity. Again, studies have suggested voter fraud is between .00004% and .0009% of the vote. To ensure that 50-75 fraudulent votes are not cast, tens to hundreds of thousands in a particular state potentially will be at risk. The proposed "cure" is far worse than the disease. Tell me how that helps a democracy.
Anon,
I disagree with you and do so with knowing nothing about true the vote until these comments. I think fraud at any level needs to end. I have asked for verifiable support for the numbers of low fraud, not suggested opinions. Now you stoop to personal attacks. Is this really how you want to discuss the subject?
I am willing to learn (if stupidity can learn) but you are offering no more than conjecture and want your position to be accepted without question.
Do you really think it is unfair to democracy to ask for a voter to show identification before they vote?
Jon L. Estes
Jon:
May I ask you why you wish to sit up this hornet's nest?
We will solve nothing here.
Tom,
Voter fraud is a concern to me. No one is being forced to discuss this subject and I am not conversing with myself so there must be an interest to at least one other.
Do you think this is a subject that needs to be ignored or left alone?
And of course I don't think I am setting up a hornets nest but hopefully trying to learn something from someone who sees things differently, if possible.
Jon L. Estes
Jon, studies HAVE ALREADY been cited in this thread and are listed below along with another. Please follow the conversation. Thanks.
From News21 (a national investigative reporting project funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation ... headquartered at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University) on August 12, 2012: The nation has 2,068 cases of alleged election fraud SINCE 2000 [capital letters and/or underlining added]. By category, Unknown had the highest percentage of accused at 31 percent (645 cases), followed by Voters at 31 percent (633 cases). The most prevalent fraud was Absentee Ballot Fraud at 24 percent (491 cases). The status of most cases was Pleaded at 27 percent (558 cases).
THAT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED IN THIS THREAD, From the Breenan Center for Justice (New York University School of Law): "Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often."
Anon -
Thank you for sharing further support. The one study you gave from Breenan Center is from 2006. I do appreciate their willingness to state that they want voter integrity and to stop voter fraud but I do not find how they propose to address it. I will keep looking.
I did read a great article from Horace Cooper on why the Voting Rights Act should be used.
Jon
Tom,
Honestly does anyone not know that our President is a liberal Christian? He supports homosexuality and abortion and quite frankly I would vote for a Branch Davidian before I would vote for him.
John:
You said to me:"Tom,
Honestly does anyone not know that our President is a liberal Christian? He supports homosexuality and abortion and quite frankly I would vote for a Branch Davidian before I would vote for him."
I'm going to be nice and say good for you--I'm sure that you would.
You've convinced me of your nonsensical view of religion and politics.
Pitiful, John.
John:
One last thought about what you said above, are you saying you would vote for David Koresh over the as you say "liberal" President Obama?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfg_98wzcWs&feature=youtu.be&t=5m5s
Tom,
You and I have locked horns before I have no desire to get ugly with you. But what is nonsensical is they fact that you fail to even recognize the existence of liberal Christianity. A person who calls themselves a Christian and openly supports homosexuality and abortion is liberal. Everyone knows this Tom. Sorry Tom I can't support the president whether he claims to be a Christian or not.
John Wylie:
You have expressed your views very clearly here and I hope I have likewise.
As a courtesy to all-I've said all I'm going to say on this matter.
Good nite.
Let's be clear: I am not engaged in rhetoric questioning Romney's religion, and to think this the case is to miss my point, which William did not miss
I will draw a picture: If liberal Christianity is problematic for conservative Christians (read: not Christian), how does the conservative Christian then give a Mormon, one from a religion that conservative Christians have been calling a cult for decades, a pass? At work here is both bigotry and hypocrisy.
By all means, let the conservative Christian vote for Romney, but in doing so, he or she would sound foolish to speak of his or her concern with Obama's religious commitment.
Obama's religious commitment is precisely what makes Romney's religious commitment a non issue insofar as this election is concerned. Don't get me wrong I teach my congregation that Mormonism is a false religion, and will continue to do so. But the liberal form of Christianity is an equally false religion, so as far as I'm concerned it makes the whole thing a wash.
Anonymous wrote: "By all means, let the conservative Christian vote for Romney, but in doing so, he or she would sound foolish to speak of his or her concern with Obama's religious commitment."
I think that the reverse is what is happening regarding conservative votes: Conservative evangelicals do not identify with either candidates POV regarding a theological basis and are, then, voting based on policy.
At the very least, the silly attempts at browbeating by the religious left in 1980 and 1992 have no traction even among the leftwing this year. We can actually discuss policy and the direction of the nation...at least those of us who grasp math can. :)
Browbeating more recently was called the family values vote until a steady stream of conservatives showed themselves not very, well, at home enough, and enough so that Republicans searched for other themes in which to promote candidates.
I don't care why people vote for Romney, that he is not Obama, he is a free market person, he will make America America again, etc., but I am puzzled by the religious bigotry of the right against the liberal side of Christianity. Seems it is more intense lately than anytime in recent memory.
Anon,
You using the term bigot is extremely funny and hypocrital.
John, isolate on the way you have gone about commenting on liberal Christianity. Even on the Mormon religion. That you disagree with either is not the issue, and who would take issue with you for having a differing preference? How matters politic (e.g., Obama is not an American, Romney does not care for the poor), even religion (e.g., liberals cannot be Christian, Mormon is a false religion), are often spoken, are beyond reason. Better ways are available to register dissent.
"By all means, let the conservative Christian vote for Romney, but in doing so, he or she would sound foolish to speak of his or her concern with Obama's religious commitment"
For me the issue is more about morals and values than about religious affiliation or position.
Yet, when a person states they are a Christian and their morals and values do not balance with that, I will have no problem defining them as liberal.
I expect Christians to hold Christian values. I expect lost people to not have such convictions but when a non-Christian has values and morals which line up more with scripture I am glad to support them over anyone whose morals and values are in the gutter.
For this Christian, the choice is clear. Romney gets my vote.
Jon L. Estes
Obama: Values and morals in the gutter.
And this is your argument, Jon?
Wow.
And I think of all the Christians that, then, share Obama's problem of being in the gutter.
Yes, bigotry, front and center.
Anon,
Are there not better ways register dissent than to accuse conservatives of bigotry? You're doing the same things that you accuse others of doing. Also, you commit an intellectual bigotry, because you come on here and smugly talk down to people.
Anon,
"And I think of all the Christians that, then, share Obama's problem of being in the gutter."
And I think of:
1 - the millions of babies slaughtered at the support of Obama and those like minded.
2 - the millions who are willing to call acceptable what God calls an abomination and lead others to think the same.
3 - the evil of those who support redefining what God calls marriage.
Gutter? Yeah, I'll stay with my term unless hellish would be acceptable.
Jon L. Estes
John, the difference between our posts is quite wide, thus, no. While there is also difference between us and Romney and myself in terms of religious content, I am not prepared to speak of those differences as you have repeatedly done so. Each of us has found meaning via our religious faith and each has likely fallen short of its content, thus a measure of humility is in order. Such does not preclude, say, you, being closer to the truth, but evrn if that were the case, your behavior in this thread would still be problematic.
OK, I get it that you disagree, but Obama's morals and value system does not equate to gutter, nor is it necessary for you to suggest such to show disapproval of his policies. Actually, as you have developed your support for such, it does not come across as being very reflective, even if it does display emotion. One must accept your suppositions to even begin tracking toward your conclusion, but a good number of Christians will not accept them, and neither do they deserve to be considered to have a gutter-based moral and value system. Is this the best you are able? I prefer to think not.
Anon -
We will disagree. Any person who supports abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage and the list goes on has morals which contradict the very nature of God. Gutter is a kind word... God would probably use one a bit more judgmental.
I understand you do not like how I lump things together. There are many who won't.
I do not like how you want me to approve of your lump of things or at the least describe them in a way which would make you "feel" better.
It is because I do not accept your supposition that I reject your conclusion.
Jon L. Estes
First, Jon, I don't feel one way or another because of what you write -I have not abandoned my personal responsibility for how I think, feel, and perceive-you are free to write what you like, and such is open to critique, as are my own words.
Second, I am not asking you to approve anything you don't desire to approve. But I do find it curious that one Christian can have such a low evaluation of so many other Christians on, yes, controversial issues, in which there are reasonable differences of opinion.
Although William is of similar opinion as you on marriage and pro-life issues, I really am surprised he has not commented on your statement that those who differ have gutter morals and values. I think he aspires his blog to be a bit above such argumentation. That is, you might wish to temper your rhetoric.
"That is, you might wish to temper your rhetoric."
I think I am doing pretty good for someone who demonstrates so much stupidity.
Yes, it probably is my rhetoric which needs to be tempered.
Jon L. Estes
"controversial issues, in which there are reasonable differences of opinion. "
If someone says homosexuality is less than an abomination, the disagreement is with God's word, not me.
If someone wants to support the taking the life of the unborn,the disagreement is with God, not me.
God is not interested in our opinions if they differ from His word.
To stand against God's word on these subjects is unreasonable.
Jon L. Estes
And yet you know the mind of God because your suppositions and interpretations of scripture are beyond question. OK; now because that is settled all we need to know is what certain people think.
Jon, whether its religion or politics, differences are expected, even a certain level of tension in comments, but to resort to your level of evaluation is way over the top.
Jon, do note that you were engaged in a conversation in which you were either ignoring or ignorant of presented evidence ... as part of the conversation. Yes, that is stupid behavior. It's not like you alone have displayed such. I think we all have been guilty of that at some point!
I know the mind of God, as He shows it through His word.
Leviticus 18:22 & Romans 1:26-ff are very clear on homosexuality.
"your suppositions and interpretations of scripture are beyond question"
You can question them all you want.
I can handle differences and I can handle tension. It seems you are the one who cannot.
My level of evaluation????
What about yours?
I have no desire to see you change your mind but I have less to change mine on the subject matter at hand.
If you see yourself as a liberal, be proud of it, Obama is. Carry a disdain for conservatives, Obama does. But I do hope, that you would not reduce the word of God on subjects of homosexuality, abortion and marriage as nothing more than controversial issues where there is "reasonable" differences of opinion.
jle
When I asked if 'such' was the best you were able, Jon, I responded that I did not think so. It seems that you are proving me wrong. You might wish to walk back the gutter comment.
Anon,
The Mormon Romney has demonstrated throughout this campaign that his morals are more in line with scripture than the self professed Christian POTUS.
With this aside, the present POTUS has not demonstrated an ability to lead this country for the betterment of this country. Some of these decisions are based upon his moral positions.
A vote for Romney is a vote for a better America (from the selection we have to chose). A vote for Obama is a vote to remain on the slippery slope of socialism.
jle
I am thinking that no votes have been swayed by this extended series of comments. Perhaps we could see tbe little tete a tete end.
I respect my liberal Christian friends who plan to vote for Obama. I think they miss much' but most are honestly motivated.
Bye bye...
JLE:
You said:"A vote for Romney is a vote for a better America (from the selection we have to chose). A vote for Obama is a vote to remain on the slippery slope of socialism."
Really?--you rationalize much.
Given your readership is likely nearly totally Romney oriented, the only movement that would result in any substatitive gain would be toward Obama or some other candidate. Did anyone really think that would happen, especially given the emotion surrounding this election? But did anyone expect to read from a Christian minister that those that would support Obama, even Christian supporters of Obama, have a moral and value system that is of the gutter? I am surprised by the language and surprised that not one person reading this thread has commented. Perhaps understanding will come at a later date once emotion has subsided.
"Perhaps understanding will come at a later date once emotion has subsided."
We can only hope.
Jon
Anonymous wrote: "Browbeating more recently was called the family values vote until a steady stream of conservatives showed themselves not very, well, at home enough, and enough so that Republicans searched for other themes in which to promote candidates."
I agree. I reject the browbeating from both the Left and Right regarding values. We all vote with regard to our values...and there is no mandate that we do so with consistency, right? I have little doubt that if the Democrat nominee was a Mormon, the same SBC heavyweights who are supporting Romney would be talking about the danger of cults. Likewise, if the Republican nominee was an man who routinely trumpeted his faith but who rarely attended church while in office or who attended a church for 20 year where racist diatribes were routinely included in sermons, I have no doubt that folks on the Religious Left would attempt to make a lot political hay.
Whomever I vote for is going to bring baggage and human failings that I will not care for. So what I do is vote for the candidate who appears to be prepared to best govern from the ideals of federalism (central government having specific, limited, enumerated powers) and constitutional originalism (the law of the land being interpreted in the light of written thoughts of those who prepared the document, being open to amendment and not to re-interpretation by each generation, etc...).
Post a Comment