« Bonfire Of The Vanities #138 - Reminder | Main | Prediction: Cheney to Get 9 Point Bump in Polls »

Fanning the flames of religious intolerance

The Boston Globe, as I mentioned earlier, has refused to run the Mohammed cartoons that have triggered the riots sweeping the globe, claiming numerous lives so far. Their argument is that they don't want to insult the faith of Muslims.

But that reasoning seems to fall apart when it comes to taking a shot at that racist, polygamous, Mormon cultist, Massachusetts governor (and likely 2008 presidential candidate) Mitt Romney...

Comments (25)

Pussies. they know who will... (Below threshold)

Pussies. they know who will make threats and who won't. Typical leftist, all bullshit and self-righteous bravado.

Does open a door for the Re... (Below threshold)

Does open a door for the Republicans to devise a new campaign strategy. Apparently, all they need to do to garner support of the MSM and the left is threaten them with violence.

"Vote Republican or we'll kick your ass." will, by all appearances, be highly successful.

It's funny Jay, I lived in ... (Below threshold)

It's funny Jay, I lived in Utah for almost a year, and loved it there. Found the people to be some of the warmest, most loving people I have ever met. I know the history of their church, and have no doubt that there are still issues with race. I went to church with some Mormon friends a couple of times, and found it an interesting experience, but not for me.
I don't really know where I am going with this, other than to say I could care less about the candidates religious beliefs.

Well, Golly! Another prime... (Below threshold)
Bat One:

Well, Golly! Another prime example of liberal MSM hypocrisy. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

New York Globe... (Below threshold)

New York Globe

Why not just reinstate the ... (Below threshold)

Why not just reinstate the Illinois Extermination Order nationwide and be done with it. /sarcasm off

Like CNN and the NY Times, ... (Below threshold)

Like CNN and the NY Times, the Boston Globe knows the limits of free speech. It stops where people might object to what you say with more than angry e-mails or letters to the editor.

Certainly none of these institutions have had any problem satirizing Christians or Jews but Christians and Jews in America are either passive or a bunch of 700 Club buffoons.

It's easy to be a First Amendment absolutist when there are no consequences to what you print or televise. The real test of free speech comes when the words or pictures cause real rage, real demonstrations and, perhaps, real violence.

Self censorship is the most dangerous form of censorship because it becomes a habit.

I don't believe the article... (Below threshold)
D. Doré:

I don't believe the article as submitted by the Boston Globe is faulty. Only that they won't cover the same issues with Muslims in a similar vein.

What they reported about Evangelicals not supporting Romney is accurate. A real Evangelical believes their Christianity is THE definining point of their lives. They are a follower of Christ before they are male or female; black or white; or even American. Their highest level of loyalty is to Jesus above all.

Therefore, they cannot (as a whole) support someone's candidacy for president whose own faith denies Christ's absolute deity (not just God of this planet, but God of all creation).

I'm not saying a latter day saint couldn't win the presidency. I'm also not saying a mormon couldn't get some Evangelical's votes. Afterall, if it was a race between a mormon and someone we consider to be anti-christian (I didn't say the "anti-christ") and the love child of the ACLU like oh.... I don't know... Hillary Clinton? Well, then it's quite possible you'd get some Evangelicals trying to choose the lesser of 2 evils.

Evangelicals will also not ... (Below threshold)
D. Doré:

Evangelicals will also not support the candidacy of "smitty" either.

" "Evangelicals" will also ... (Below threshold)

" "Evangelicals" will also not support the candidacy of "smitty" either."

Hey, no problem. I have no plans to run for any political office.

Therefore, they ca... (Below threshold)
Therefore, they cannot (as a whole) support someone's candidacy for president whose own faith denies Christ's absolute deity (not just God of this planet, but God of all creation).

Wow, just wow. And how do you presume to speak for evangelical Christians? It is true that Christians are not likely to support someone they know to be immoral, but there is no imperative to elect only Christians. In fact, there is much written in the New Testament about living by the rulers placed above you and being good citizens regardless of the governments religious affiliation. Between the death of Christ and the conversion of Emperor Constantine, there are no known Christian revolts. Yet, Christians were persecuted for their beliefs by a pagan government.

Here's a hint, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson do not speak for all Christians any more than Madalyn Murray O'Hair spoke for all atheists.

Wow, just wow. And how d... (Below threshold)

Wow, just wow. And how do you presume to speak for evangelical Christians?

You can't be so stupid as to think evangelicals would vote for an avowed atheist. I mean, you just can't be that stupid.

Um, jpe, are you saying tha... (Below threshold)

Um, jpe, are you saying that Mormons are avowed atheists? Because we're (yes, I'm Mormon) not...

Allow me to speak for Evang... (Below threshold)

Allow me to speak for Evangelicals, as I consider myself one. As a matter of fact, my order of life priorities goes something likes this.


Which means i'm much more faithful to my Christian values and my Conservative values than I am to being a Republican.

With that being said, i'm not looking to have a President that is in line with my religious beliefs. The President is not going to be the leader of my Church, he is going to be the leader of my country. Christ is the head of my Church and no election is going to change that.

So what am I looking for in a President?

Christian, Conservative values. Is he pro-life? Is he pro-marriage? Is he pro-death penalty? Lower taxes? Conservatives on the Supreme Court? Strong on the GWOT? Strong on Immigration?

The list goes on and on. Mitt Romney fits like a glove when it comes to these values.

So I tell you what i'd do as an evangelical. I'd elect him as my President and pray for his soul.

Well, I think there will be... (Below threshold)

Well, I think there will be some evangelicals that would not vote for a Mormon, just as they would not vote for a Catholic, Anglican or Eastern Orthodox Christians. I've met some of these folks, that have told me that none of the above are truely Christian, and will burn in hell for not following the path. But these people are a minority. This does not stop folks in the media from painting all evangelicals with the same colors, however.
The 'one-true-path-to-savaltion' fringe likely wouldn't have voted for Reagan or either Bush. BUt don't let that get in the way of a good meme.

I think the discourse follo... (Below threshold)
D. Doré:

I think the discourse following my previous comments proves my point. If Mitt Romney were to be the GOP Candidate for presidency, unless the DNC ran a complete left wing or ACLU dream candidate, the republicans will lose the White House.

On the whole, Romney would not carry the Evangelical vote. He would get a fractured percentage of them voting for what they considered the "lesser of two evils"

Another percentage would not turn out to vote at all.

In a related story, the Constitution Party will have the highest turnout in their history as some God Fearing Evangelicals voice their opinion by still voting, but not for a Mormon candidate.

Someone who believes that t... (Below threshold)
D. Doré:

Someone who believes that there is a path to Heaven outside of the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus the Messiah is not an Evangelical. It's Jesus own words in John 14:6 that creates this 'one-true-path-to-salvation'.

Historically, you can see that those who hold that stance did vote for Reagan, and for W.

Hmmm.Is there anyt... (Below threshold)


Is there anything more absurd than watching avowed secularists and atheists spout Scripture?

Well yes.

Watching them trying to argue Christianity with Christians.

As an avowed Animist all I can bring to this argument is a bag of pork rinds. As my friends in the SCA, most of whom are heavy rattan combat enthusiasts, would say:

Lay on!

If Romney runs - or even lo... (Below threshold)

If Romney runs - or even looks like he's thinking about running - look to learn more about the Mormon religion than you ever wanted to know!

But, seriously, the whole thrust of the article is rather silly. Yeah, there are Americans whose voting patterns are based strongly on their religion. But I think that most Americans vote according to their political ideology. For example, I could almost find myself supporting Joe Lieberman for the Oval Office. My hesitation is NOT because he's a Jew and I'm an evangelical Christian, but rather because I'm a Republican and he's a democrat (and prima faciae untrustworthy).

One other personal note: one of the drill sergeants in my battery during basic training was a Mormom. He didn't smoke, drink, or curse (!), was admired by the soldiers in his platoon, and was given an award for outstanding performance of his duty. If that's what we can expect from a Mormon president, then I'd say that we could sure use one!

"I've met some of these fol... (Below threshold)

"I've met some of these folks, that have told me that none of the above are truely Christian, and will burn in hell for not following the path. But these people are a minority. "

Yeah, i'm one of those folks.

And I voted for George W. Bush and will vote for Mitt Romney.

To the several who have nam... (Below threshold)
D. Doré:

To the several who have named themselves to be "Evangelicals" and have also said they would vote for Mitt Romney as President, I ask this simply to gain more understanding, and not to add challenge to your decision:

How can you separate your faith from your political decisions so easily?


Would you please tell me what kind of church (especially if there is a denominational affiliation) do you attend regulary?


D. Dore:In regards... (Below threshold)

D. Dore:

In regards to your questions, I regularly attend services in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. In fact, I was confirmed in the faith just a few months ago.

Regarding seperation of my religious and political beliefs, it's a bit complicated. It is grounded in Christ's statement, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matthew 22:21), as well as St. Paul's admonition to render obedience to the government (Romans 13:4) so long as obedience to civil law does not require violating one's higher duty to God (cf. Acts 5:29). My church also teaches the following:

It is taught among us that all government in the world and all established rule and laws were instituted and ordained by God for the sake of
good order, and that Christians may without sin occupy civil offices or serve as princes and judges, render decisions and pass sentence according to imperial and other existing laws, punish evildoers with the sword, engage in just wars, serve as soldiers, buy and sell, take required oaths, possess property, be married, etc... true perfection consists alone of proper fear of God and real faith in God, for the Gospel does not teach an outward and temporal but an inward and eternal mode of existence and righteousness of the heart. The Gospel does not overthrow civil authority, the state, and marriage but requires that all these be kept as true orders of God and that everyone, each according to his own calling, manifest Christian love and genuine good works in his station of life. Accordingly Christians are obliged to be subject to civil authority and obey its
commands and laws in all that can be done without sin. But when commands of the civil authority cannot be obeyed without sin, we must obey
God rather than men (Acts 5:29).

The Augsburg Confessions, XVI, 1 - 7.

I think that the Bible also makes clear that those in authority do not need to be Christian in order to be blessed by God. For example, in the case of the centurion (Luke 7:4 - 5), the Jews plead with Christ to heal the man's servant, saying, "This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue."(*)

All this does not mean that I disregard the Bible when I go into the voting booth, because it's important to me that a politician's beliefs are similar to mine. However, the basis of his beliefs is of small importance to me; I simply need to know that he is firm and sincere in them. Further, his beliefs alone do not qualify him to get my vote. I believe that Jimmy Carter is a good Christian man with a deep and real faith in God and that he has accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior. However, I wouldn't vote for Jimmy Carter to be the public dogcatcher!

Hope this helps.

(*)It's important to note that Jesus healed the servant because of the centurion's faith, NOT because of his works. In recent elections, much has been made of James 2:17:

"... faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

Some interpret this passage to mean that politicians must use the government to do good works "if they are Christian". I reject this one two counts:

1. The Bible teaches that good works without faith are pointless; God does not "reward" good behavior. Salvation comes from faith in Jesus Christ alone.

2. It seems to me that using civil power to compel others to do "good" works (as distiguished from prohibiting / punishing crime) is not good in itself.

Thanks for the reply Doc! ... (Below threshold)
D. Doré:

Thanks for the reply Doc! I know it took a long time to respond with all those details and I appreciate it.

I do appreciate your use of Scripture, and I'm fine with the use of the Augsburg Confession.

I don't presume to know the status of the relationship that Jimmy Carter has with Jesus. Though I must admit that his actions and casual support of terrorists bent on genocide seems incongruous. However, I am not without sin either. In fact I'm much too good at it.

For a local election in which the person being selected has such a small amount of authority, I can use the standards you've set forth. But when it comes to the election of someone with much greater responsibility in such a wide sweeping area, I must hold even higher standards.

Eventhough I recognize that all power and authority only come from God as allowed, I find my voting for someone isn't just saying "I think they can do the job" or "I think they'll represent my political values". I believe that it's more of an aligning of allegiance much like what we see in the Old Testament in the books of Kings and Chronicles. There are both good kings and bad kings. Eventhough their authority comes from God, that doesn't mean they are approved by Him. Just because God allows something, doesn't mean He desires it to be that way or condones it. So we can't sit back and say: "Bill Clinton won the election, so obviously that's the way God wanted it". Our heavenly Father is not a puppet master bending everyone to His will. He allows us to make mistakes. He grants us free will.

Therefore, I believe that what Paul writes in 2 Cor. 6:14 is fitting in this situation. I will not align myself with someone who is not my brother in such a way. I'm not choosing who'll make decisions about garbage pick-up days. I'm choosing who I want to be not only the nation's leader for the next 4 years, but my leader in that aspect of my life.

I believe that giving a vote for presidency to someone is equivalent to giving a stamp of approval (and not just based on how they've run their political campaign).

For my entire life as an active voter I don't believe that I've ever voted for someone running for president who I didn't believe was my brother in Christ. For the rest of my life, I shall do the same. I can do no other. So help me God.

D. Dore;I was not ... (Below threshold)

D. Dore;

I was not aware of 2 Cor 6:14 (my knowledge of the Bible, while improving, is still woefully lacking). Thanks for sending it along; there is much food for thought there.

Doc, I'm glad to have met y... (Below threshold)
D. Doré:

Doc, I'm glad to have met you here and I look forward to working together with you to teach others here about the real Jesus, and not people's preconceived notions.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy