E
eightandsand
Guest
I don’t wear a tin-foil cap.
Let’s keep the personal attacks to to a minimum.
Focus on the facts, please.
- Status
Let’s keep the personal attacks to to a minimum.
Focus on the facts, please.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Former planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson, former abortionist Bernard Nathanson, Ronald Reagan were pro abortion, they changed their position. Converts are welcomed in the pro life movement. Romney did not sign any pro abortion bills that came to him as governor, he has a pro life record
R
rlg94086
Guest
You are more than “a bit” confused, but I will be happy to educate you. Romney held to his promise to “not change the laws,” which is why he vetoed pro-death legislation that came to his desk. In a majority pro-death state, “not changing the laws” is pro-life. Romney was not a legislator, so he didn’t make laws.
E
eightandsand
Guest
Yeah, right.He has a pro-life record as Governor, which is why Massachusetts pro-life groups have backed him and had very complimentary things to say about his governorship.
Romneycare funded abortions with no restrictions. Romneycare was enacted in 2006, which is after Romney’s suppossed “conversion.” Gov. Romney, after initially vetoing a law requiring all hospitals to administer emergency contraception for rape victims, flip-flopped on the issue and forced Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts to dispense the “morning after” pill. (ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/problem-romneycare)
Again, all of this occured AFTER Romney’s alleged “conversion.”
R
rlg94086
Guest
You need to do further research. Since this has been covered a number of times, I’m not interested in going through it all again. Boring. :yawn:
L
LisaA
Guest
I am sorry you are weary of trying to defend your hateful remarks. I know a lot about Mormonism, Mormons and the original tenants of their church. Joseph Smith had a lot of very bad qualities. I agree with that. Was he a “lunatic”? Hard for you to make such a diagnosis but your words regarding Mormonism are very uncharitable to say the least.
Regardless that the founders of the LDS faith (Can’t believe you haven’t brought Brigham Young into the discussion since it’s about as relevant), Mormons today can be judged by their exemplary lives. What one believes is between him and God. No one can know a person’s heart and mind. Given that, we can see the fruits of the life of Mitt Romney and other Mormans and I really cannot find fault with their external practices of solid families, faith, giving and service in their communities.
Your comments about Mitt Romney’s faith were unnecessary, irrelevant and quite perjorative. If you are exhausted by your efforts to defend your statements, it is a self inflicted wound.
Lisa
E
eightandsand
Guest
Facts can be boring. But the facts I have stated are nothing to “yawn” about:
In 2004, Romney has a prolife “conversion.”
In 2005, he gives an interview in which he states that he is “personally opposed to abortion” and that, “…as governor I would not change the laws of the commonwealth relating to abortion.”
Also, in 2005, he flip-flopped on his veto. It is true that the Massachusetts Legislature overruled Romney’s veto. But in the days that followed, he was caught in a back-and-forth over whether all hospitals, including those with religious affiliations, should be required to offer the morning-after pill to rape victims. At first, Mr. Romney supported a religious exemption. But on the advice of his legal counsel, he later reversed himself:
“My personal view, in my heart of hearts,” he said then, “is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information (nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/politics/romneys-path-to-pro-life-position-on-abortion.html?pagewanted=all)
In 2006, Romneycare is enacted. You will find Romney’s signature on the law (so you were right in a certain sense when you said earlier that Romney doesn’t pass laws; but he does sign them and enforce them). Wasn’t it none other than Rick Santorum who brought to our attention during the debates that Romneycare, in fact, went beyond the Medicaid mandate and funded ALL state abortions, regardless of whether they were medically-necessary. Politifact has verified this as a FACT. I guess Rick Santorum and Politifact also wear “tin-foil hats.”
In 2007, *The National Journal *(February 10, 2007) asked Romney what he would do if a State wanted unlimited abortion?
Romney answered, “The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn’t be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation - a one-size-fits-all approach - but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.”
And this short video documents Romney’s “evolving” position on abortion over the years:
youtube.com/watch?v=baalfvLh4r4&feature=player_embedded
E
eightandsand
Guest
Not one of my remarks was hateful, and you know it.
Joseph Smith was not only a lunatic and heretic (for claiming to recieve golden plates from an angel called Moroni) he was also a violent sexual predator (he seduced 16 year old Lucy Walker) who ended up dying in a hail of bulltes during a gun battle with rival Mormons at a jail in Carthage, Illinois, where he had been imprisoned for destroying a rival Mormon’s printing press.
Yet, Lisa, somehow I am being “hateful” for bringing these facts to your attention? Wow.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Is Joseph Smith running for President of the U.S.?
Just checking. Maybe I missed the News this morning…
E
eightandsand
Guest
No he is not. A follower of his invented religion is. And I have been accused of being “hateful” for bringing this fact to light.Is Joseph Smith running for President of the U.S.?
Just checking. Maybe I missed the News this morning…
M
Mickey
Guest
You are saying that the life of the child in the womb is worth less than the mother’s life?
L
LisaA
Guest
If you had simply reported facts about Joseph Smith, it would still be irrelevant. However it would not have been hateful. To call him a lunatic is hateful and uncalled for. No one on this forum is debating the merits of the foundation of Mormonism. You claim Romney is “following a lunatic” which is also unnecessary and perjorative. The name calling is hateful, not factual and says more about you than about Mormonism.
There is a forum on other religions where you might find a more receptive audience to the issues you are trying to raise, none of which have any merit when considering the 2012 election.
Lisa
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Whether or not you are “hateful,” your “bringing this fact to light” is not relevant to the candidate’s run for President, unless there is hard & credible evidence that the candidate intends to force-feed Mormon theology to the public (in some form) if elected.
Lots of people have animosity to various religions and religious beliefs followed by a number of political candidates for various offices. In general, though, such dislikes do not and should not affect a voting decision unless it is apparent that a candidate’s religion will be used inappropriately in political office.
Plenty of non-Catholic voters (and I’m sure many Catholic voters) do not like, even “hate,” or at least are suspicious of Catholic candidates, merely for the association. It is no more admirable in those voters than berating other candidates for different religions.
Further, many candidates and current politicians appear to have no problem imposing the “religious” doctrines of secularism and atheism into their platforms and voting decisions. Many voters would find that at least as “despicable” as a dead religious figure.
When you first started posting on this thread, I accepted your statements openly as being sincere. I think that we should always do that until proven otherwise. However, as your postings have followed, your tone and your focus on Mormonism, as well as the level of contempt you seem to have for the man, Mitt Romney, combined with the unfortunate link you provided to possibly the most anti-traditional-Catholicism rag on the planet (NCReporter), makes me wonder if your real agenda is to discredit Mitt Romney singularly.
(Your tone is very much what people read when they view NCReporter, and especially the posted comments following the articles there.)
E
eightandsand
Guest
“anti-traditional-Catholicism rag on the planet.”
And my comments get called hateful? LOL! Very interesting the double standard that emerges on this forum when you are in the minority opinion, especially as it relates to Mitt Romney. Strange, sad, and yet very interesting.
Just for the record, the term “lunatic” is not a hateful term. It accurately describes the actions and words of Joseph Smith just as much as the term “evil” describes the actions and words of Adolf Hitler. The term “fantasy cult” is not a hateful term; it accurately describes the original, core tenets of Mormonism/LDS.
Mitt Romney is running for the highest office in this country. His religion and voting record are absolutely relevant to a thread entitled “Election 2012 - Who to vote for.” I am not going to sugar-coat Mitt Romney or his record, and I will certainly not be called “hateful” for telling the truth.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
The publication is widely regarded as anti-Vatican, anti-religious-establishment, anti-clergy. That’s not a personal opinion of mine, it’s a collective observation from many sides of Catholicism, both traditional and non-traditional. Nor is calling a publication “anti-traditional-Catholicism” a term of “hatred.”
You, OTOH, direct your criticisms to persons, delivering them with contempt. I didn’t make contemptuous remarks about NCR, merely an observation: They are indeed considered highly anti-traditional-Catholicism. They would be the first to admit that. They have little use for the clergy, for official Catholic moral doctrine, and for much of liturgical practice, systematic theology, sacramental theology. Many of their articles, and at least 90% of the comments following those articles, are dripping with disdain, mockery, and yes, terms of hatred for persons and movements. One of the recent demonstrations of published hatred concerned no less than the dignified Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, for his concerns about a highly controversial “gay ministry” group (not Courage), which is ambivalent about Catholic teaching on sexuality. The Bishop was criticized and dismissed in the most disrespectful way possible, and the entire tone of the remarks was typical of what appears weekly from that source.
Focusing exclusively on the personal aspects of a candidate, including destroying a person’s character by mere association with a religion you detest, is personalizing inappropriately the direction of the thread. I repeat, you sound as if you support the editorial content and policies of the National Catholic Reporterj, including the mockery and disdain you are using on this thread and have done so with increasing momentum here.
C
Corki
Guest
As a Catholic, you should understand that “religion” is composed of two sides - Faith and Moral teaching. When it comes to politics, a person’s faith should be irrelevant. However, their beliefs in terms of morals are core to their suitability as leaders.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I’ve studied the facts, rather than going on the regurgitated propaganda you just posted. I realize it may be too difficult to do real research, but I guarantee you it will be fruitful. Certainly, more fruitful than your juvenile recommendation of everyone writing in their own name.
E
eightandsand
Guest
You keep telling me that you have “the facts” and “real research.” But I have yet to see any of it.I’ve studied the facts, rather than going on the regurgitated propaganda you just posted. I realize it may be too difficult to do real research, but I guarantee you it will be fruitful. Certainly, more fruitful than your juvenile recommendation of everyone writing in their own name.
Everytime you post, you keep telling me of these “facts” and “research” that I lack and yet you have not disputed one of the points that I raised, and have not taken the time to show me where I am wrong.
If the stories and facts that I have reported are nothing more than “propaganda” then please, kind sir, do tell me where I am wrong. I am a big boy. I can take a correction. I would like to be informed. Please don’t keep telling me that I am wrong and expect me to take your word for it when all the information I have referenced undermines your narrative.
E
eightandsand
Guest
Our founding fathers believed that one’s personal religion had an absolutely essential bearing on one’s public service.
What if a candidate was a member of the Church of Satan? I know that is an extreme scenario that is highly unlikely, but are you telling me that, as a Catholic, I am to simply ignore the core beliefs of a candidate for the highest office in the country? According to a 2001 decision by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not even Christian (ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm).
I’m sorry, but the religious beliefs of a candidate for the Presidency are one of the first things that I look at, as a Catholic. Then I look at their record WHILE THEY WERE IN OFFICE and had power - in other words, how well they put their principles into practice. The last thing I consider is their campaign rhetoric and promises, especially when they fly in the face of their record. That’s puts up a red flag.
E
estesbob
Guest
If you go back and read from the start of this thread you will see your “facts” have been pasted here ere many times and refuted even more times than they have been posted.
- Status