All Comments (36)

Thanks Larry. Now I understand it. The LSD church decides which person God will enlighten with revelation. God doesn't make the choice: the board of church directors does. Somehow I prefer the Christian concept that "the Spirit blows where He wills" to the Mormon concept of ecclesiastical corporation. Now I'm more afraid of an LSD president than before.

"Excuse me, but isn't the Prophet and President also a bishop?" No he is not. They are two very specific and very different things. The comparison to the Catholic church is meaningless.

Mr. Arroyo was trying to make the point that Mitt Romney could not separate himself from Mormon leaders because he is one himself:

"While JFK as a Catholic layman could separate himself from the bishops, the pope and the church magisterium, Romney comes from a church of lay bishops – including himself."

He then went on to claim that a lay bishop (like Romney) revealed something that was binding on the worldwide church and that contradicted previous presidents of the church. But this does nothing to support his argument because it is not true.

It is understandably difficult to understand all the specific practices of a religion that you are not a part of. I will try to explain some differences between the president of the church and a bishop.

There is only one president of the church. He leads the world-wide church, and can receive revelations concerning doctrine and practice for the whole church. Men like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Ezra Taft Benson, and currently Gordon Hinckley are presidents of the Church.

There are many bishops throughout the world. (This is a position Romney once held.) Bishops lead local congregations for a period of time (usually around five years) and then return to normal church membership. Bishops can, in a very limited way, receive revelation dealing with the administration of their local congregation. They cannot pronounce new doctrine, or make any changes to church policy. There are thousands of current and former bishops. They serve without pay and continue to work in their chosen profession during their time of service.

I lived in Salt Lake City for 14 years. As a (former and now de-converted) Lutheran, I can tell you that the LDS culture (and I call it a "culture" on purpose) is indeed "tolerant," but I felt many times only out of a subtle curiosity of people who weren't of the fold. Beyond that, I'm not sure. Ironically, and off the topic a bit, is that the LDS culture seems to need the most Prozac and ADD medications per capita compared with the rest of the civilized world. Go figure--some example of "religion and freedom" being tied together.

The LDS culture is deeply ingrained into all facets of public life, and there is always public debate regarding the power and influence and wealth of the "church"--just take a look at almost any random day within the Salt Lake Tribune editorial page. Particularly troublesome is the marriage of public education with the "seminary" which is, in all cases, right across the street from the public school so that there is a "separation" of church and state. I know that well enough, having to wait in traffic for the last kid to cross the street with his bible in hand.

There is also a deep "need" for the church to feel persecuted there, and to demonstrate at every opportunity just how misunderstood and persecuted they are collectively.

N Thomas might do well to remind us why the Mormons were persecuted in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois before fleeing to the Intermountain West. What did they do to their neighbors that seemed to piss them off? And incidentally, was it those damned "secularists" who persecuted the LDS church, or was it other religious folk? Would "secularists" of that time have given a s..t about how many wives they owned?

Romney's speech seemed to me to be a way to pander, but also to present that "persecuted" history that's so contingent with the LDS culture. Why on earth was he given this time on network television, standing wrapped in flags in front of the presidential seal podium. Is this guy slick?

Excuse me, but isn't the Prophet and President also a bishop? As I recall, the Catholic pope is bishop of Rome. Seems to me the Mormon proclivity for making new revelation is the point: it can happen at anytime and a Mormon would be bound to obey it. So would a President Romney choose the nation or his religion?

A Massacre is a massacre and the attacks on ex-Mormons are well documented, even today. Such don't make the Mormon worse than everybody else: just the same. All religions excuse their mistakes and some apologize for them, but they all make them. Arroyo is right to hold the Mormons to the fire: no more "holier than thou." Why did Romney use jihad for excessive religion? I know: he is appealing to the ultra right for votes.

Excuse me, but isn't the Prophet and President also a bishop? As I recall, the Catholic pope is bishop of Rome. Seems to me the Mormon proclivity for making new revelation is the point: it can happen at anytime and a Mormon would be bound to obey it. So would a President Romney choose the nation or his religion?

A Massacre is a massacre and the attacks on ex-Mormons is a documented fact. Such don't make the Mormon worse than everybody else: just the same. All religions excuse their mistakes and some apologize for them, but they all make them. Why did Romney use jihad for excessive religion? I know: he is appealing to the ultra right for votes.

I have a few questions:

1. So how likely is it that there is an angel called Moroni and that he/it actually visited Joseph Smith?

2. How likely is it that native American Indians are descendants of one of the lost tribes of Israel?

3. How likely is it that the golden plates actually existed?

Be honest with yourself before you answer and please support your answer using 200 words or less for each question.

You show your own ignorance by your incorrect statement that a lay Mormon "Bishop" pronounced a new revelation from God when it was the
president and prophet Spencer W Kimball. Your bit of inaccurate information causes your credibility to bite! :0(

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo clearly does not have a firm grasp of the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This lack of understanding is clear by some basic errors in his comments. His comments would be more credible if he demonstrated a basic grasp of the Church's beliefs.

--"As recently as June 9, 1978, a lay Mormon bishop pronounced the new revelation from God that black people could become priests"
This is not true and even the most cursory fact check would have made that clear. That revelation was pronounced by Ezra Taft Benson, the president of the church who held the same office and position as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. A correction in the main body of the article seems necessary and appropriate here.

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo writes:

"How would Romney react as president if a bill were passed to protect the privacy of non-Mormons against such temple baptisms of Jews and Muslims?"

Ah, so Stevens-Arroyo would extend the fictitious "right of privacy," which already "protects" abortion-on-demand, to the dead?

When his bill is presented to Congress, will the dead be called upon to testify? If not, just who is their authorized lobbyist?

Nobody owns the dead, nor do we even own our own ancestors. When we go back far enough in time, we all share a limited set of founding ancestors. This isn't a religious idea -- it's a scientific and statistically overwhelming certainty.

I can almost certainly guarantee that Stevens-Arroyo has distant Mormon cousins who have just as much "ownership" of his Jewish ancestors as does he -- namely none.

I would hope that any president who had sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States would veto such an intrusion into the free exercise of religion.

Nor do Mormons "baptize the dead." Rather, we perform proxy baptism "in behalf of" the dead. This is an important distinction that is lost on those who jump to such angry conclusions. It is based on our belief in the moral agency (freedom in religious choice) that God grants to all his children.

Like Jews, Mormons have 13 articles of faith. Our 11th states, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

"All men" and "where" includes the dead! We believe that the dead continue to live on in the spirit world, where they are completely free to accept or reject our temple work in their behalf. Without their free, informed, acceptance thereof, any ordinance performed in their behalf is null and void.

I would be delighted if other religions, instead of preaching that my ancestors are forever damned to hell, were to perform some kind of ritual that offered my ancestors all the benefits of their religion. Although I have really have no right to command otherwise, I hereby give my explicit permission, after I am dead, for others to do so in my behalf. If it turns out I was wrong and they were right, well, thank you for allowing me to hedge my bets!

For more on the LDS practice of proxy baptism, see
http://hthalljr.googlepages.com/choice.html

hthalljr'gmail'com

The speech was total hypocrisy. First, it was not about the general public fearing Mormons (they don't - George Romney and Mo Udall ran without the subject ever coming up). It was (as Charles Krauthamer writes today) about Huckabee in Iowa claiming to be the Christian, and polls showing evangelicals in Iowa squirming at a Mormon. Second, he invokes the "no religious test for office" clause as a convenient way of not describing his religion, then turns around and proclaims Jesus his lord and saviour (so he can fool evangelicals into not paying attention to the fact that no evangelical theologian thinks Mormons are christians), and then proclaims that you have to have some religion to be an American at all (atheists are not welcome). despicable.

Att: B G O N E, et al;

Please, "i" would appreciate it if you 'STOP' posting your Childish link ("Hoak-Buster" , or "Save Your Soul" , redundant gabage) here on "onfaith" at almost every page.

B G O N E; We (Bloggers) are not as smart as you!

So you need to go somewhere else with your 'FOR PROFIT" annoying links! If you have nothing new to say or have us link too (not to your self serving web site) then bestas not sayth anything at all! Recommendation:

On the other hand, Besides your redundant AEGYPTIAN via OSIRIS Mythologies, you can also write about ALL the "GREEK" Pre-Apocalyptic G-D's Systems & as Ancient Mythologies as Hoaks's via ZEUS! Or is that too much for you? AND

or , you can do a project on the ROME Ancient Mythologies via JUPITER, or and, do a project on the SYRIAN ancient Mythologies via BAAL Mythologies, or on the HINDU via their INDRA Mythologies, or on the CHINESE via the TIEN mythologies & so forth!

QUESTION: How many E-MAILS have you Acquired so far???? Are you making money off of US-Bloggers here on "onreligion" or "onfaith" Bloggs???

CRITIQUE: Your site is very Childish! Can't you have something NEW to sayeth there & thus Here????

So, Please, STOP your Hoaked of Hoakes here! "i" hinted to you once before (trying to be nice & waves free) but enough is enough.

PS: WE did a serch on "WHO IS" and now WE know who you are! Please see "NetWork Solutions Search" engine: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp?siteid=361&channelid=P99C361S570N0B142A1D219E0000V100

We know what you are doing, and that is sneaky, hence unethical bloggers behavor! Good bye Mr. HOAK-BUSTER! Ya Ya

At least the nations leading newspapers editorial pages get it:

From the NY Times:

Faith vs. the Faithless

By DAVID BROOKS

...“But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.

The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious.”...

And again from the NY Times:

Editorial
The Crisis of Faith

“Mitt Romney obviously felt he had no choice but to give a speech yesterday on his Mormon faith. Even by the low standards of this campaign, it was a distressing moment and just what the nation’s founders wanted to head off with the immortal words of the First Amendment: A presidential candidate cowed into defending his way of worshiping God by a powerful minority determined to impose its religious tenets as a test for holding public office...

He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination. No matter how dignified he looked, and how many times he quoted the founding fathers, he could not disguise that sad fact.

Mr. Romney tried to cloak himself in the memory of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend his Catholicism in the 1960 campaign. But Mr. Kennedy had the moral courage to do so in front of an audience of Southern Baptist leaders and to declare: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

Mr. Romney did not even come close to that in his speech, at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, before a carefully selected crowd. And in his speech, he courted the most religiously intolerant sector of American political life by buying into the myths at the heart of the “cultural war,” so eagerly embraced by the extreme right.

Mr. Romney filled his speech with the first myth — that the nation’s founders, rather than seeking to protect all faiths, sought to imbue the United States with Christian orthodoxy...

CNN, shockingly, required the candidates at the recent Republican debate to answer a videotaped question from a voter holding a Christian edition of the Bible, who said: “How you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?”

The nation’s founders knew the answer to that question says nothing about a candidate’s fitness for office. It’s tragic to see it being asked at a time when Americans need a president who will tell the truth, lead with conviction and restore the nation’s moral standing, not one who happens to attend a particular church.

From the Washington Post:

No Freedom Without Religion?

There's a gap in Mitt Romney's admirable call for tolerance.

“RELIGIOUS liberty is, as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared yesterday, "fundamental to America's greatness." With religious division inciting violence across the globe, he is right to celebrate America's tradition of religious tolerance. He's right, too, that no one should vote against him, or for him, because he is a Mormon. We only wish his empathy for religious minorities such as his own extended a bit further, to those who do not believe in God...

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government," Mr. Romney said. But not all Americans acknowledge that, and those who do not may be no less committed to the liberty that is the American ideal.

Maybe Romney will help Latinos out getting their gold looted in the name of Jesus by the Conquistadors back from the Roman Catholic Church. I understand he's in favor of ad hoc immigration or something like that. You should put a "bug" in Mitts ear that he can get the Latino vote as well as a lot of converts to Mormonism.

Diablo is behind religion anyhow - http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

Devil just loves gold, ministers and politicians. They would seem to be rather compatible. Don't you think?

Just an FYI: ALL male members of the Mormon church become members of the Melchizidek Priesthood at a very young age and remain so as long as they are in good stead with the Church, so it's really not that big a deal that Romney is involved in the Priesthood.

Meant it about those 'Foundation for a Better Life' commercials: Ever wonder what they're selling? Follow the money. It's not hard. Gets spooky real quick.

Will note, if anyone's wondering, 'How on the Lady's green mantle did PP get all so *twitchy....*'

.... Sad to say, but I had help.

I think this is why I need to believe in the promise of America.

Cause Gods know you can't trust it to guys with a member and a book.

"and even against their former believers trying to escape from Utah."

Sad to say, but, actually, this has gone on in my own lifetime, ...'escape from Utah' has too often been exactly the circumstance of a lot of abused women and gays, who still had Mormon operatives trying to chase them down and demand 'tithes' of the homeless while claiming the abuse they were fleeing never happened. ...the Mormon Church has certain PR images, but check the backing on those 'Foundation For a Better Life' commercials and track it back to affiliated private security firms and collection agencies.

This is not pretty and it's not just the fact that some Christians are in fact actually bigoted against Mormons.

They just don't care if it also suits *their* agenda, whoever it hurts.

To claim the Mormon organization don't hurt people is like saying the Catholic Church don't hurt kids or the Protestants don't ring up for outcalls.

Forget about it.

"Most tellingly, he omitted the savage reprisals taken by Mormons against other faiths and even against their former believers trying to escape from Utah."

Mr. Arroyo is mistaking propaganda for history. It is generally recognized by non-Mormon historians that the evidence for so called blood atonement murders of former believers amounts to very shaky hearsay, on par with the evidence for other boogeyman characterizations of the "Mormon other" during that period. It reminds me of modern claims of Satanic ritual abuse (for which no evidence has been found) and claims that early Christians practiced infant sacrifice.

Furthermore, the mountain meadow massacre is not best characterized as reprisal “against people of other faiths“, as it is an act of a desperate people who read calls for their extermination daily in non-Mormon papers. This was not a hypothetical. Because of their previous experience with expulsion, it would be analogous to Jews daily hearing calls for another holocaust by an enemy with the power to do it.

In the midst of this extreme anxt the federal government had sent an army to Utah, and they had reason to believe allowing the Flancher party to go to California would insight the long called for extermination. They were wrong. What those Mormons did was wicked. But calling it “reprisal” misrepresents the situation.

Utah was generally pretty tolerant of other religions, allowing them use of church buildings and providing opportunities for people from other faiths to address Mormons in the tabernacle. Any antagonism resulted from mistrust of outsiders that American society had earned from Mormons by their deplorable treatment of them in the preceding decades.

I appreciate efforts made to present opinions and fairly represent facts with regard to Romney's speech but am concerned about the accuracy and speculative nature of some statements regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the "Mormons".

The prophet and president of the church received the ". . . new revelation from God that . . . " all worthy male members (to include blacks for the first time as a general practice) could receive the priesthood, not a " . . lay Mormon bishop . . ." who is the equivalent of a local pastor or rabbi in other faiths.

I have read a fair amount of early historical accounts of the settlement of Utah, from both friendly and unfriendly sources and have not encountered the account of ". . . savage reprisals taken by Mormons against other faiths and even against their former believers trying to escape from Utah." which is presented as if it is a credible well known and documented series of events. I would be interested in your sources for such events. I am quite familiar with the aroused feelings and some of the inflamed rhetoric inspired by the circumstances surrounding the early settlement period. I can assure you that no special effort was required for a believer or former believer to "escape" to California or any other place they chose to go and a number of believers (and former believers) chose to leave for various reasons and I have read of no reprisals levied or attempted against them. The great tragedy and those involved in the "Mountain Meadows Massacre" is well documented and I believe familiar to most students of the early settlement period. It certainly was an exception to the general behavior of the Mormons though not particularly unique from the general behavior of other settlers in the early western frontier settlement period.

Thank you for your comments and the opportunity for readers to contribute and respond as well.

Grant Duffin

And maybe I should state openly at this point, my political 'dream ticket' all public sentiment and media monopolies aside, would be an Obama/Biden ticket winning. So that's in the open.

Hitting 'post' once generally works, Californiamarty.

Hitting it *four* times never helps.

"Only Mitt Romney gets the heat for his Chrisianity. Not Barak Obama, and not even Huckabee who is "an ordained Minister" Can Sen.Lieberman run and not be questioned about why he is not a Christian"

Nonsense.

Barack Obama's heartfelt Christianity expresses in a way that doesn't preclude my full support, despite a general cynicism about the profession of such in politics.

Huckabee's not yet to draw *my* criticism, despite standing for everything I *do* criticize here, cause until this week he has not been a serious candidate. The fact that all other GOP candidates but Guiliani and Romney pretty much gave up on Iowa may have to do with this, too.

Romney's Christianity or Mormonism therein have to get in line behind a lot of other things one notices when living in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts before it even enters into it.

It doesn't give him 'diversity' credentials in my book, cause he already played that card and betrayed it.

Romney's biggest anti-American statements go to those suggesting or explicitly stating that "faith" is necessary to holding public office. No, it isn't, and that is exactly why the Founding Fathers put in the provision that there is no religious test for office--not of a specific religion, or of religion at all.

On the contrary, Romney ~did~ address the issue of "divine revelation(s)" from his Church, and indicated that they would not dictate his responsibilities as president. As to his own personal "divine revelation(s)"/inspiration/etc., such an influence is a theoretical possibility for any presidential candidate who adheres to the judeo-christian tradition (i.e., all of the current candidates). I know of no such claims by Romney during his term as governor of Massachusettes, and am at a loss as to why this possibility would trouble Mr. Stevens-Arroyo.

Turning to Romney's speech, I thought that it was a masterpiece. Such eloquence would be a welcome change from the current administration.

The writer reveals his utter ignorance of Mormon history and practice by noting that a "Mormon lay bishop" received revelation for the Church in 1978. Uh, no. This was change "revealed" by Spencer W. Kimball, President of the LDS Church at the time. Mormon bishops preside over individual congregations. This is very basic.

Also, what is the world is the author talking about when he mentions "the savage reprisals taken by Mormons against other faiths and even against their former believers trying to escape from Utah." Excuse me but the Mormons were savagely persecuted themselves in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois before fleeing to the Intermountain West. This is basic American history, well-documented, but too often overlooked by outsiders.
Mormons in Utah were quite tolerant of other religions from the very beginning. Has the author even been to Utah? All of this is very basic.

"Presidential candidate Barack Obama's home church in Chicago pushes a black separatist agenda, says columnist, author and speaker Erik Rush. According to the conservative Christian writer, Senator Obama's congregation -- Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago -- "is not simply Afrocentric, it's African-centric."
Rush says when visiting Trinity's website, he was disturbed to learn that Trinity United Church of Christ professes a commitment to the "Black Family," the "Black Community," and the "Black Work Ethic," and "pledge[s] allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Values System."

"The first thing that I did was that I went through the list and I substituted the words white for black in it," the columnist notes. " And I, in addition to being disturbed, wondered just how far a white candidate with beliefs like that would get. It looked like it was either being overlooked or excused, and I thought that it needed to be brought to light."

One could argue that Obama's church "worships things African to a far greater degree than they do Christ," Rush contends. Meanwhile, he says the writings and speech of Trinity United's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, appear to be more Marxist than Christian.

Rush formed this opinion of Wright "after doing some digging and then seeing him appear on Fox News the night after I did," the columnist points out. He says he became convinced that the pastor's views are "nothing short of militant; and he complains about living in the United States of white America and ... talks about giving back to the black community, et cetera."

Rush says "like the Nation of Islam, a white separatist church, or the Branch Davidians, Trinity United Church of Christ more resembles a cult than a church." Senator Obama's office did not return calls seeking comment."

Should Barak Hussein Obama be now called upon by the Media to do what they forced Mitt Romney to do...explain his church and beliefs to the American people? Should he be called upon to explain why he is not a Muslim as he says his father was before he left the family? His step-father was also a Muslim he says. Why isn't he a Muslim?

Only Mitt Romney gets the heat for his Chrisianity. Not Barak Obama, and not even Huckabee who is "an ordained Minister" Can Sen.Lieberman run and not be questioned about why he is not a Christian.

Something really stinks about the bigotry applied to Mitt Romney alone.

There is no religious test for the office of President of the United States and ones faith is a private matter unless there is probable cause to believe that it will interfer with the canidates ability to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

"Presidential candidate Barack Obama's home church in Chicago pushes a black separatist agenda, says columnist, author and speaker Erik Rush. According to the conservative Christian writer, Senator Obama's congregation -- Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago -- "is not simply Afrocentric, it's African-centric."
Rush says when visiting Trinity's website, he was disturbed to learn that Trinity United Church of Christ professes a commitment to the "Black Family," the "Black Community," and the "Black Work Ethic," and "pledge[s] allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Values System."

"The first thing that I did was that I went through the list and I substituted the words white for black in it," the columnist notes. " And I, in addition to being disturbed, wondered just how far a white candidate with beliefs like that would get. It looked like it was either being overlooked or excused, and I thought that it needed to be brought to light."

One could argue that Obama's church "worships things African to a far greater degree than they do Christ," Rush contends. Meanwhile, he says the writings and speech of Trinity United's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, appear to be more Marxist than Christian.

Rush formed this opinion of Wright "after doing some digging and then seeing him appear on Fox News the night after I did," the columnist points out. He says he became convinced that the pastor's views are "nothing short of militant; and he complains about living in the United States of white America and ... talks about giving back to the black community, et cetera."

Rush says "like the Nation of Islam, a white separatist church, or the Branch Davidians, Trinity United Church of Christ more resembles a cult than a church." Senator Obama's office did not return calls seeking comment."

Should Barak Hussein Obama be now called upon by the Media to do what they forced Mitt Romney to do...explain his church and beliefs to the American people? Should he be called upon to explain why he is not a Muslim as he says his father was before he left the family? His step-father was also a Muslim he says. Why isn't he a Muslim?

Only Mitt Romney gets the heat for his Chrisianity. Not Barak Obama, and not even Huckabee who is "an ordained Minister" Can Sen.Lieberman run and not be questioned about why he is not a Christian.

Something really stinks about the bigotry applied to Mitt Romney alone.

There is no religious test for the office of President of the United States and ones faith is a private matter unless there is probable cause to believe that it will interfer with the canidates ability to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

"Presidential candidate Barack Obama's home church in Chicago pushes a black separatist agenda, says columnist, author and speaker Erik Rush. According to the conservative Christian writer, Senator Obama's congregation -- Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago -- "is not simply Afrocentric, it's African-centric."
Rush says when visiting Trinity's website, he was disturbed to learn that Trinity United Church of Christ professes a commitment to the "Black Family," the "Black Community," and the "Black Work Ethic," and "pledge[s] allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Values System."

"The first thing that I did was that I went through the list and I substituted the words white for black in it," the columnist notes. " And I, in addition to being disturbed, wondered just how far a white candidate with beliefs like that would get. It looked like it was either being overlooked or excused, and I thought that it needed to be brought to light."

One could argue that Obama's church "worships things African to a far greater degree than they do Christ," Rush contends. Meanwhile, he says the writings and speech of Trinity United's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, appear to be more Marxist than Christian.

Rush formed this opinion of Wright "after doing some digging and then seeing him appear on Fox News the night after I did," the columnist points out. He says he became convinced that the pastor's views are "nothing short of militant; and he complains about living in the United States of white America and ... talks about giving back to the black community, et cetera."

Rush says "like the Nation of Islam, a white separatist church, or the Branch Davidians, Trinity United Church of Christ more resembles a cult than a church." Senator Obama's office did not return calls seeking comment."

Should Barak Hussein Obama be now called upon by the Media to do what they forced Mitt Romney to do...explain his church and beliefs to the American people? Should he be called upon to explain why he is not a Muslim as he says his father was before he left the family? His step-father was also a Muslim he says. Why isn't he a Muslim?

Only Mitt Romney gets the heat for his Chrisianity. Not Barak Obama, and not even Huckabee who is "an ordained Minister" Can Sen.Lieberman run and not be questioned about why he is not a Christian.

Something really stinks about the bigotry applied to Mitt Romney alone.

There is no religious test for the office of President of the United States and ones faith is a private matter unless there is probable cause to believe that it will interfer with the canidates ability to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Romney left out the reprisals by Mormons and you left out the savage acts perpetrated against them. You can't even follow your own preaching.
Also, the whole tone of your paper sounds like you have a bone to pick with religion in general. Any person who stands for anything will tend to adhere to that belief system whether or not it is "religious" in nature.

Romney left out the reprisals by Mormons and you left out the savage acts perpetrated against them. You can't even follow your own preaching.
Also, the whole tone of your paper sounds like you have a bone to pick with religion in general. Any person who stands for anything will tend to adhere to that belief system whether or not it is "religious" in nature.

JFK himself said:
"Let us remember that the Mormons of a century ago were a persecuted and prosecuted minority, harried from place to place, the victims of violence and occasionally murder, while today, in the short space of 100 years, their faith and works are known and respected the world around, and their voices heard in the highest councils of this country.
As the Mormons succeeded, so America can succeed, if we will not give up or turn back."
- September 26, 1963

I think Romney did a good job of representing that today.

Romney left out the reprisals by Mormons and you left out the savage acts perperated against them. You can't even follow your own preaching.

He's still an MBA moneyman who did a number on the State of Massachusetts, claiming to be all about 'tolerance' (for himself, not for the others he's promised to) till he started angling for a GOP nomination.

He was a carpetbagger brought in by corporate interests who wanted state money to cut puclic services, with only Olympic Committee experience to get called on while his Democratic opponent was being subject to character assassination.

He said he'd honor Massachusetts' social liberalism, and turned on it when offered more power.

*That's* a fact check. :)

The only reason Willard Romney decided to address whomever it was he addressed, was to recover the momentum he lost to the recent Huckabee surge in Iowa. The latter's gain is the result of a rallying of Christian conservatives to his camp. Where, except from these recent converts to Huckabeeism, did Romney expect to expand his support? He avoided the theological issues that distance him from that group of voters thus ensuring a status quo among them, at best. Today's speech was a waste of time for everyone except the independents who might have found reason to dislike Willard's generic, faith based thinking.

Fact Check - a lay Mormon bishop did not pronounce the 1978 revelation you are referring to. Rather, that revelation came through the Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Mitt Romney is your typical M.B.A. moneyman who is adept at squeezing the last penny out of any project, to the exclusion of all other interests and values.

When such a one attempts to speak on larger and more important issues, such as religion and government, he discovers that his mind is insufficiently imaginative, generous and expansive to talk sensibly about the topic.

He's therefore reduced to mouthing thoughtless cliches which pander to the ignorant religious.

Paraphrasing Dr. Johnson:

"Sir, Mitt Romney's attempting to speak on religion and government is like a dog walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."