A Republican who cannot vote Mormon

[Rion]

The irony of the situation is that yes there are some of us who as Christians cannot vote for Romney with a clear conscience. For that, we are called bigots. Yet, they turn around and tell us what we should believe and what we should do. In other words, if we don't believe as they do, we are in the wrong. And yet we are the bigots.

Well, truth be told, his faith doesn't bug me, and even if it did, Obama's is no better. Of the two, Romney's at least doesn't call for deicide.

 

[AtheistVet]

Up until the 1960s, we have been a White Christian country. Now it is changing. The mass media is pushing cultural Marxism on our people and mass immigration is greatly influencing our traditional American society. Excuse me if I would like to live in the same America my father grew up, and his father, and his father, and so on.

I'm sure there's an American version of the BNP out there you can find. I heard even some organizations like them are said to be patrolling Sanford at the moment.

 

[MachZer0]

I didn't tell you how to think, I merely pointed out the truth.

You pointed out YOUR understanding of truth

From your comments here, you fit the definition of a bigot -- that is a simple factual statement. I don't believe I ever definitively said you are a bigot, I've tried to be careful to qualify it based on the comments you have made and the questions you have not responded to -- as I'm trying not to make assumptions about what you actually believe. Not being able to vote for a person simply because they are Mormon (as the OP states), or Christian, or Muslim, or Black, makes that person a bigot -- that is the definition.

Again, it's ironic that someone would say I fit the definition of a bigot while simultaneously telling me how I SHOULD think

I think that you find my comments to be "telling me how I should think" says more about you then anything I could say.

Or maybe not

 

[MachZer0]

Well, truth be told, his faith doesn't bug me, and even if it did, Obama's is no better. Of the two, Romney's at least doesn't call for deicide.

That's one way to think about it. I personally can't vote for a person who I believe serves a false god

 

[Creech]

Which I guess would be nice for you. Unless your father was a minority. Or you were born a woman. Because then it would sort of stink to be you.
tulc(would like to point out: this has NEVER been a Christian country no matter how people wish/claim it was )

Minorities have had FAR FAR better lives then their counterparts in their ancestral countries. What's highlighted by the media is the segregation in SOME parts of the South. Sure they had it bad in SOME SMALL PARTS of the South, but I'm sure every group had it bad somewhere. Though it was bad whenever it happened, it was no common thing.

Also, I have no idea why you mentioned women having it bad. But America, since it's founding, have had a Christian core with a Christian people and Christian morals and values.

 

[Creech]

I'm sure there's an American version of the BNP out there you can find. I heard even some organizations like them are said to be patrolling Sanford at the moment.

If you believe I want to turn America into a bunch of Neo-Nazi thugs like the ones patrolling Sanford, then you are seriously mistaken. And the BNP are not in any way Neo-Nazis either.

 

[tulc]

Minorities have had FAR FAR better lives then their counterparts in their ancestral countries. What's highlighted by the media is the segregation in SOME parts of the South. Sure they had it bad in SOME SMALL PARTS of the South, but I'm sure every group had it bad somewhere. Though it was bad whenever it happened, it was no common thing.

...seriously?

Also, I have no idea why you mentioned women having it bad.

...seriously? (part deux)

But America, since it's founding, have had a Christian core with a Christian people and Christian morals and values.

Alright, I'm calling a Poe on this one!
tulc(loss of a down, resume play!)

 

[Chris81]

Well, truth be told, his faith doesn't bug me, and even if it did, Obama's is no better. Of the two, Romney's at least doesn't call for deicide.

Obama's faith, all I ever see him do on Sundays is golf!

Yeah, I can look past Romney's Mormonism; there isn't supposed to be a religious test for office many here seem to have forgotten that.

I didn't like the Romney back in 2008 but he's got my vote this time around.

 

[MachZer0]

Obama's faith, all I ever see him do on Sundays is golf!

Yeah, I can look past Romney's Mormonism; there isn't supposed to be a religious test for office many here seem to have forgotten that.

I didn't like the Romney back in 2008 but he's got my vote this time around.

Just for the record, the idea of no religious test does not apply to individuals.

 

[Chris81]

Just for the record, the idea of no religious test does not apply to individuals.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Ah...I am not see the distinction between qualification to public office that would not apply to the individual. Please explain.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Ah...I am not see the distinction between qualification to public office that would not apply to the individual. Please explain.

I think he means it doesn't apply to individual citizens and how they vote.

I think. With Mach, it's hard to tell

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Well, as Obama is not a dictator (NO, conspiracy theorists - he ISN'T!) that is true. However, the POTUS is the most powerful person in the government, and has final say in many matters (can veto Congress, for instance) is that not so?

No, it isn't...or at least, it's not supposed to be that way. But since about 1900-on it's been messed up. But Constitutionally speaking, the three branches are equal. The President can veto Congress and appoint Supreme Court Justices. Congress can override a Presidential veto and impeach the President/Supreme Court Justices. Supreme Court Justices can strike down laws from the President/Congress as un-Constitutional.

That's where we get our system of checks and balances. The whole point of the Constitutional Republic the Framers set up is that no one person is more powerful than any other one person in this country (ironically, somewhat communist). All three branches of our government are equally powerful. All the states are equally powerful and second only to the federal government. All the people are equally powerful and second only to the states and the federal government, UNLESS they decide (collectively) that the states/federal government are descending into tyranny, in which case the people can override the government

 

[MachZer0]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Ah...I am not see the distinction between qualification to public office that would not apply to the individual. Please explain.

It doesn't apply to individual VOTERS

 

[acropolis]

Up until the 1960s, we have been a White Christian country. Now it is changing. The mass media is pushing cultural Marxism on our people and mass immigration is greatly influencing our traditional American society. Excuse me if I would like to live in the same America my father grew up, and his father, and his father, and so on.

It probably shouldn't, but reading overt racism is still shocking to me.

 

[Eternally Optimistic]

Romney 2012!!!

 

[Creech]

It probably shouldn't, but reading overt racism is still shocking to me.

Really? No debate, no constructive discussion, just accusations of racism. Nice job.

 

[acropolis]

Really? No debate, no constructive discussion, just accusations of racism. Nice job.

Oh yes please explain why any decent human being should prefer the US before 1960. Please keep telling us how segregation wasn't that bad and why we should all mourn for the loss of "White" America. Let us all cry tears for the loss of the systematic racism that defined the US before the sixties. It's hard to believe real, live people actually believe the things you do but here you are! Amazing.

 

[USincognito]

Sorry folks, but trying to play deliberately obtuse isn't going to work here.

Democrats who are socially liberal and anti-racist (many of whom may be black themselves) have a valid reason not to vote for a faithful adherent of a socially conservative religion with a history of racism. Evangelicals have no valid policy-related reason. Evangelicals and Mormons were comrades-in-arms in the battle against gay marriage, but when it comes time for an Evangelical to vote for a Mormon, the personal religious bigotry shows itself.

What history of racism would that be? Slavery? Nope, that was the Democrats. KKK voter intimidating and lynching? Nope, that was also the Democrats. Denial of civil rights? Nope, that was the Democrats too.

If you knew anything about American political history you'd know that the Republican party was founded for the two explicit purposes of ending slavery and defending marriage, which at the time was under via attempts to legitimize polygamy. The Democrats, on the other hand, were dedicated to resisting all attempts from the federal government from outlawing slavery in the states. They even seceded from the nation in an attempt to preserve slavery.

The History and Political Science major in me would like to ask people to stop conflating the words Conservative, Democrat, Liberal and Republican across the broad span of American history. Democrats, expecially Dixiecrats tended to the conservative side when it came to slavery, Jim Crow, etc. Republicans tended to the liberal side for about a century, then center left on social issues. The Southern strategy changed all that, but one could hardly claim that slavery or Jim Crow is a vested interest for anyone in the government today or for most of the past 50 years. Can we stop with the conflation of the historical and the current?

- eta If you want an example of how complex this issue really is, check out the desegregation order in conservative, Democratic Dallas during the 1960s and forced bussing in liberal, Democratic Boston during the 1970s.

Well today's democrats don't have much to do with democrats back then. The South used to be a heavily democratic part of the country while the North Republican. Look at maps today. The Republicans are now down South and Democrats up North. Today, the Republicans LEAN towards states rights while the Democrats want to increase the power of the Federal government, which is a complete reversal from the 1860s. Lincoln was actually a TYRANT and the South had the moral high ground in secession.

Dude. Stormfront is that a way. -------------->

 

[USincognito]

I won't vote for Romney because he holds the exact same neoconservative Republican values that the Evangelical counterparts in his party do.

You're using neoconservative incorrectly.

 

[USincognito]

Well, as Obama is not a dictator (NO, conspiracy theorists - he ISN'T!) that is true. However, the POTUS is the most powerful person in the government, and has final say in many matters (can veto Congress, for instance) is that not so?

No, it isn't...or at least, it's not supposed to be that way. But since about 1900-on it's been messed up. But Constitutionally speaking, the three branches are equal. The President can veto Congress and appoint Supreme Court Justices. Congress can override a Presidential veto and impeach the President/Supreme Court Justices. Supreme Court Justices can strike down laws from the President/Congress as un-Constitutional.

In addition to what SLCF noted, the President lacks a line-item veto and has to veto or sign legislation in toto. That means Congress can stick things the President might otherwise disagree with into popular bills (like a jobs plan or funding for defense) and the President has to sign the whole thing. The current lawsuit by states against the Health Care bill is an example of Federalism at work. The President can't legally declare war without the accent of and a vote by Congress.