Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Religious Bigots and Hypocrites

PRINCETON, NJ -- Though the vast majority of Americans say they would vote for their party's nominee for president in 2012 if that person happens to be a Mormon, 22% say they would not, a figure largely unchanged since 1967.

The question is mainly relevant to the Republican and independent vote in 2012, given that the current Republican front-runner, Mitt Romney, is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon church, and that another Mormon, former Utah Gov. and former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, may enter the race for the GOP nomination as early as next week.

I remember the 2008 Republican nomination process when the former Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee attacked Romney and had nothing but praise for RINO John McCain... I wondered then if Huckabee's attacks were based upon the belief that the Mormon religion was a cult.

Well now let's be honest.  The Catholic Church is a cult that glorifies Mary as divine... Protestant churches, including my own Church of Christ is a cult of rich, lukewarm believers that date Jesus on Sundays and sleep in the world's bed the rest of the week... So picking on another cult seems a little hypocritical.

Orrin Hatch, Mormon Senator from Utah has been a friend of Republican conservatives for many years and doesn't seem to scare the faithful.  I guess I just don't understand the reason for the data... unless it's just a kind of religious bigotry.

But if a Mormon can't win... Fine.  Nominate someone else.  But I have to say that the rich, lukewarm believers of the Catholic and Protestant Churches, and their rich, lukewarm believers with a Bible college degree... Their hypocrisy makes me want to spit-up on my shoes.



Delta said...


My problems with Romney is not with his religious beliefs. It's with what I've seen happen in Massachusettes when and since he was governor. Gay marriage, Romneycare, etc. etc.

Then again, I have some delusion that Jindal may decide to someday run for president....

SkyePuppy said...


I found this post on the natural-born citizen requirement, and if this guy is right (provided the Supreme Court doesn't redefine the term), then not only is Obama ineligible but Jindal would be too. His parents weren't US citizens yet when he was born here.

SkyePuppy said...


I have friends who refuse to vote for Romney because of the Mormon thing. Yet they voted for Mr. No-Evidence-of-Christianity McCain (shakes head).

Besides, there's that pesky thing called the US Constitution, and it has Article VI: "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

I'm with Delta on Romney. Vote for him (or not) on the merits (or lack thereof) of his record and political policies.

Malott said...

I agree about Romney... You wouldn't expect him to run or govern as a conservative in Mass... But it's just hard to know about him.

But I still don't understand rejecting a candidate because his parents raised him to be Mormon.

Malott said...


There are people in my church who raise their kids to be lukewarm... their kids would probably have a brighter eternity if they were flaming Mormons.

Grammy said...

To my thinking, spiritual is spiritual and secular is secular. The business of soul salvation is spiritual and is going on completely apart from and regardless of political climate. Nothing spiritual would change if we were to instantly become a brutal dictatorship. Individual people are called to spread, hear and receive the Gospel at all times in all political climates.

Honestly, when I vote, it's a purely secular thing. I vote for whoever I think will best promote freedom and prosperity for the general good. I believe that liberal morality and entitlement mentality are bad for the freedom and prosperity of any society and that Judeo-Christian morality and work ethics are good. On a personal and spritual level I think it's our job to infuse our society with them, so I'll vote for anyone of any religious or irreligious ilk who I think will foster a climate in which that can be done. All I ask for is a true conservative who is not politically agendized on moral issues, not even abortion.

Malott said...


I believe only a president who is politically agendized on moral issues will adequately make the effort to nominate Supreme Court and federal judges who will allow the people to govern themselves and allow the states to make laws that reflect the moral beliefs of their citizens.

Today, the courts subjectively challenge our freedom to determine for ourselves the very culture in which we will live... which is tyranny, and an attack on our freedom.

Promoting freedom involves many fronts, but limiting the power of the judiciary is as significant as any... And except for those who are "politically agendized on moral issues," I can't think of any politicians that "get it."

Grammy said...

You may be right about judicial appointments, but the only reason is that we need to offset the opposing agendas. I suppose human beings by nature are agendized, so I'm probably be dreaming, but if no judges were agendized, we'd hum along with a judiciary that actually defended the constitution, state's rights and the right of the people to govern themselves. In the end, they would "do" very little. Actually, I would think a morally unagendized president would be most motivated to appoint judges who won't legislate from the bench. I'll give you an example of someone I think would create a good climate for conservative growth and a flourishing of judeo-christian moral values even though he does not share them. He's not a politician, but he has the ear of many in political office. Neil Bortz. I can barely stand the man, but I think he has excellent ideas for the growth of freedom and prosperity. And there's no way he'd appoint a legislate-from-the-bench judge. I could see myself voting for someone like him.

All this is not to say that I wouldn't vote for a Mormon. I'm just saying that it doesn't matter to me.

Malott said...


Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice, but said he would appoint strict constructionist judges who would not legislate from the bench... I think he might be an example of the type of politician you were talking about...

But I still believe a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage president would be more reliable... more motivated... more particular in his judiciary appointments...

Only liberal judges have an agenda. Only conservative judges are bound or restricted by the Constitution. If every federal judge in America was a conservative Christian, there would still be abortion in California... But gay marriage in California would not take place because the people voted it down. It took just one liberal judge, with an agenda, to overturn that vote.

I don't see "competing agendas" on the Supreme court. I see liberals with an agenda, and conservatives bound by the Constitution.

I used to enjoy being able to talk these things through with a very smart, insightful, terrific conservative friend of mine... But she moved away.

Malott said...

As far as Romney is concerned, I don't think conservatives should be troubled by his religion.

But... When a politician like Romney rises in politics in a liberal state like Massachusetts, he must become adept at giving lip-service to liberal causes... And it makes it impossible to really know his heart. I don't know if this guy is really a conservative or not.

Grammy said...

Oh, I'd be happy to vote for a politically, theologically and morally conservative Christian any day. I think you're right about their general reliability regarding the appointment judges.

She misses those days too.


Delta said...


No way! Jindal HAS to be eligible for presidency! I'm...sigh...crushed.

Ok, what about "Stormin' Norman"? Ya think he might run? Someday?

Seriously, though, I am not too enthused about anyone who is in the running so far. Praying hard.