Bruce Wilson writes that Romney should be forthcoming about his faith; "guard against misinformation defining his faith." Wrong, wrong, and wrong. That's the CJCLDS' job. Romney is running for president of the United States. Mr. Wilson is described as a "Utah-based columnist." Could he be a misguided member of the LDS seeking legitimacy from a presidential candidate? Lowell, do you know?
Lowell: I don't think so. Here's Bruce Wilson's blog, which tells more about him. The few posts I've reviewed seem to be quite thoughtful. I think he's simply got an opinion about what Romney should do that we disagree with. The one Romney-related post I saw it not Romney-friendly.
Guiana sees it as all about identity politics. Actually, that's what America seeks to overcome.
Too funny not to link. (For the movie-impaired, Thompson delivered that line with great alacrity in The Hunt For Red October.)
Disclaimer, I am not a Mormon nor am I endorsing Mitt Romney. I am simply saying that when someone steps forward and proclaims his faith in Jesus Christ and “walks the walk” as well as “talks the talk,” he deserves our respect.
The mainstream media and the secularists are just loving it. They have us doing their job for them. They will bear any burden, pay any price, climb any mountain, etc. to prevent religious people from gaining power. Example, George Bush proclaimed his faith and they are still sulking and trying to destroy him. Why would we join in that game?
I am a Christian and a staunch conservative, a person’s faith matters greatly to me. I believe that we can’t separate our public and private life. We are what we are and character does matter. Having said that, I would prefer a conservative secularist to a liberal Christian.
Doesn't come much plainer, or much more right-on-the-nose than that!
The NYTimes with a sneak attack on Romney. The Rocky Anderson thing is news, but that "Culture of Obedience" crack in the headline, even though it is a quotation is designed to play specifically into the cult fears of many about the CJCLDS. When Anderson says it, it is in the context of the nation, but in the headline it is specifically linked to Utah, which means Mormons. This is below the belt stuff. It's not a coincidence that Anderson made this move or it made the news, right now.
Lowell linked to this whopper yesterday, but I need to comment, since it is really from my side of the street. I am sorely tempted to take this apart scripturally and doctrinally, but she is a child and such a brutal fisking would hurt more than help. This is, sadly, a common attitude amongst the immature in faith. Nothing she contends to be "doctrinally unsound" actually proclaims Mormon doctrine as correct; these are simple acts by people reaching out to Mormons in love, understanding, and grace. It is an attempt to build a bridge instead of a wall. Only the immature or small-minded can object to such an effort.
Wishful thinking? We traced this outlet to Donald Wildmon before. His organization officially denied opposition to Romney based on faith, but that's because by rule of law his organization can't deal in candidates. Wildmon, like the young lady above, would condemn without grace – that is evident in most of his activity. The "experts" quoted have a great deal of vested interest in Romney losing, and the more a story like this gets out, the more they think they can have that happen. Sadly, however, to do so using religion as the tool is to strike at both Romney and religious voices in general, but that, I think, is the ultimate aim. We cannot fall for it.
Meanwhile on the opposite end of the spectrum, voting for him because he is a Mormon is not the brightest of ideas either.