Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
You pointed out YOUR understanding of truthI didn't tell you how to think, I merely pointed out the truth.
Again, it's ironic that someone would say I fit the definition of a bigot while simultaneously telling me how I SHOULD thinkFrom 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.
Or maybe notI think that you find my comments to be "telling me how I should think" says more about you then anything I could say.
That's one way to think about it. I personally can't vote for a person who I believe serves a false godWell, 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.
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 )
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.
...seriously?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? (part deux)Also, I have no idea why you mentioned women having it bad.
Alright, I'm calling a Poe on this one!But America, since it's founding, have had a Christian core with a Christian people and Christian morals and values.
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.
Just for the record, the idea of no religious test does not apply to individuals.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.
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.
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?
It doesn't apply to individual VOTERSThe 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.
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.
Really? No debate, no constructive discussion, just accusations of racism. Nice job.
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.
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.
I won't vote for Romney because he holds the exact same neoconservative Republican values that the Evangelical counterparts in his party do.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?