Republican voters??

[gam197]

originally posted by vern humphrey
Are we talking about the Jews or the Mormons here? Both those religions used to have multiple marriages.
(But they don’t anymore.)

Yes but that was thousands of years ago for the Jewish tribes not recently.

The Mormon faith is relatively new. Also they don’t read and study the Old and New Testament. I had an 18 year older LDSer who was a friend of my son’s He showed me his “Bible”. I read it and it was very different. It has very little to do with our Bible. He explained how the Mormons believe in “eternal families”. We are talking a very different religion here.

I need to look at these forums and really understand what Mormons believe.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes but that was thousands of years ago for the Jewish tribes not recently.

In other words, while all the Jews and Mormons who practiced polygamy are dead, the Mormons haven’t been dead long enough?

The Mormon faith is relatively new. Also they don’t read and study the Old and New Testament. I had an 18 year older LDSer who was a friend of my son’s He showed me his “Bible”. I read it and it was very different. It has very little to do with our Bible. He explained how the Mormons believe in “eternal families”. We are talking a very different religion here.

How do all these things add up to a disqualification for holding office?

I know some people who have never read the Bible – and they hold office.

Mormons are not the only sect with their own “bible” – the Evangelical Lutherans and some others have texts they put on the same level as the Bible.

Heck, even we Catholics respect Tradition!

I need to look at these forums and really understand what Mormons believe.

Yeah – I wouldn’t condemn people for what they believe without knowing what they believe.

And when it comes to politics, I’d a lot rather base my decisions on the man rather than his religion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Since somehow we seem committed to discussing Mormon candidates and polygamy, I can’t go on until I quote Mark Twain on the subject:

Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter.

I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here—until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically “homely” creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, “No—the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure—and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence

 

[rlg94086]

Since somehow we seem committed to discussing Mormon candidates and polygamy, I can’t go on until I quote Mark Twain on the subject:

He’s my favorite ancestor. Unfortunately, none of his wit passed down to me.

BTW…something must have happened between his visit and today, because in my experience most of the Mormon women you see running around SLC, don’t fit his description.

 

[gam197]

My problem is that if I vote for the Man and not his religion, I then could vote for a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist. I am not ready to do this.

This nation was formed on a Judeo-Christian culture and I want to vote for man with a good understanding and believe in the Christian doctrine of faith.

I do get what you are saying that a man could be a Christian and never have even read the Bible or followed any faith.

 

[vern_humphrey]

My problem is that if I vote for the Man and not his religion, I then could vote for a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist. I am not ready to do this.

Take a look at the people we have in office now and tell me Muslims, Buddists or Hindus would be** worse**.

This nation was formed on a Judeo-Christian culture and I want to vote for man with a good understanding and believe in the Christian doctrine of faith.

And where are you going to find such a paragon?

I do get what you are saying that a man could be a Christian and never have even read the Bible or followed any faith.

And our elected leaders prove that every day.

 

[Steve40]

I am in a predicament. It may be PRIDE.

I have voted for a Mormon for Governor. I have voted many times for pro-choice candidates using the lesser of evil theory because no one running was pro-life.

Now it appears that I will be forced to do the same. I have been having a real difficult time thinking that I will have to hold my nose and vote either for a Mormon whose faith I don’t agree with or a pro-choice candidate. I thought I was passed this. I thought I’d never again have to have to vote for a pro-abortion person for the presidency.

I like a number of the second tier candidates. I keep hoping a second tier candidate will come forth but that is almost impossible. I loved to see two-second tier candidates - one for president and one for vice-president but I am not hopeful.

If I don’t vote, that will ensure that another person I don’t want gets in. This is so difficult.

I keep thinking I won’t vote.

If I were you I would go to conession for voting for stinkng baby killers. There isn’t evil much less than that. It comes straight from the heart of hell. Anyone who thinks that killing kids is a lesser evil is blind. Don’t buy that lie again.

Go to vote and if there is someone to vote for who won’t kill kids and you want to vote for them, vote. I always vote, but I often don’t vote in a race where every “choice” is to kill kids.

North East Republicans stink, don’t vote for them.

 

[Steve40]

Remember folks, the one who wins in 08 will nominate at least two Supreme Court Judges. If I were pro-life that will count as a vital point. Mormon or not, I think that a Republican will nominate better judges that Hillary. Those two votes can change the moral landscape of the USA.

If you vote or someone who once saw nothing wrong with partial birth abortion or for that matter any abortion, what difference does it make. Maybe we deserve the wicked witch of he North East (the rules say we can’t talk about candidates).

I won’t vote for a baby killer no matter what the out come may be.

 

[Contarini]

I am in a predicament. It may be PRIDE.

I have voted for a Mormon for Governor. I have voted many times for pro-choice candidates using the lesser of evil theory because no one running was pro-life.

Now it appears that I will be forced to do the same. I have been having a real difficult time thinking that I will have to hold my nose and vote either for a Mormon whose faith I don’t agree with

Why is your agreement or disagreement with his faith relevant, unless you think his faith is going to influence him to make bad or immoral decisions?

It’s this kind of talk that makes me think the secularists have a point in their paranoia about conservative Christians. Why does it have to be either “faith shouldn’t influence politics” or “I won’t vote for someone not of my religion”? Why not vote for the person who will make decisions you can support, no matter what their religious or philosophical motivation is for doing so?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

the Evangelical Lutherans and some others have texts they put on the same level as the Bible.

Lutherans do not put any texts on the level of the Bible, though from the perspective of non-creedal Protestants they seem to come pretty close. However, I agree with the point you are making

Edwin

 

[gam197]

originally posted by steve40
If I were you I would go to conession for voting for stinkng baby killers.

That has always been the position of the National Right To Life. It was difficult for me to accept.

When I lived in MA I always had to vote for a pro-choice Democrat or a pro-choice Republican for governor. There was no such thing as a pro-life candidate. I voted for Romney.

originally posted by Contarini
Why not vote for the person who will make decisions you can support, no matter what their religious or philosophical motivation is for doing so?

I want the children to look up to someone who has a Christian heritage. Voting say for a Hindu would make them look at the Hindu faith as an OK thing. I don’t want to promote that.

I can’t get straight answers. Will you increase funding to Planned Parenthood family planning programs? No one ever talks about that. What exactly will you do with illegal immigration?

In the primary, I am voting for a second-tier candidate.

I know the rules about talking about candidates but I think we can talk about the catholic faith and about voting for people outside of the Christian faith for President? I guess I should ask the forum what the church teaching is or even if there is a church teaching on this.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

That has always been the position of the National Right To Life. It was difficult for me to accept.

When I lived in MA I always had to vote for a pro-choice Democrat or a pro-choice Republican for governor. There was no such thing as a pro-life candidate. I voted for Romney.

I want the children to look up to someone who has a Christian heritage. Voting say for a Hindu would make them look at the Hindu faith as an OK thing. I don’t want to promote that.
. …

Will not voting for pro-choice make them think that is an OK thing? Did you promote that?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Will not voting for pro-choice make them think that is an OK thing? Did you promote that?

You have an excellent point.

I personally think we should not give the nomination to a pro-choice candidate. In one party’s primaries, we can do that. The other party, sadly has no viable pro-life candidate.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Joe Kelley

Will not voting for pro-choice make them think that is an OK thing? Did you promote that?

Yes for that I am culpable. I lived in a state where there were no pro-life candidates. Pro-life groups said that we needed to vote the lesser of two evils. I would have voted for a third party candidate but they said that they couldn’t win and they were rare. Also we would lose any hope for anything. An example in an election - one of our state senators was pro-choice but totally opposed to gay marriage. The other was pro-choice and in favor of gay marriage so do I not vote or do I vote for the one who was opposed to gay marriage.

These decisions were constant and very troubling to me. Even in the Presidential election, I may have voted for the Constitutional Party candidate instead of Bush because the candidate was more pro-life. I felt pressured by pro-life groups to vote for Bush. Many people I know voted for the totally pro-life third party candidates for President. And if I and others hadn’t voted for Romney because he was prochoice, he would not have become governor. He barely won.

During the 1986 election, I voted for Dole even though I’d rather of voted for Pat Buchanan. Pat Buchanan was definitely more pro-life.

 

[goofyjim]

It does seem liek we are voting for the lesser of two evils. I know who I am voting for in the primaries. I’ll have to wait to see if there is a third party prolife candidate in the general election because while I am registered Republican I am as disgusted with them as I am with the Democrats.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It does seem liek we are voting for the lesser of two evils. I know who I am voting for in the primaries. I’ll have to wait to see if there is a third party prolife candidate in the general election because while I am registered Republican I am as disgusted with them as I am with the Democrats.

I am disgusted as well – but I think we have a mission. Regardless of what happens in the general election, we must make it clear that in the Republican Party, a pro-abortion candidate is unacceptable.

Or to put it another way, if you want to a pro-life candidate you can vote for, work to make sure a pro-life candidate wins the primaries.

 

[rlg94086]

It does seem liek we are voting for the lesser of two evils. I know who I am voting for in the primaries. I’ll have to wait to see if there is a third party prolife candidate in the general election because while I am registered Republican I am as disgusted with them as I am with the Democrats.

We are voting for the lesser of two evils. Be careful with the third party route, because most of the time the third party choice puts the greater of two evils (from the perspective of the individual third party voter) in office.

 

[goofyjim]

I am disgusted as well – but I think we have a mission. Regardless of what happens in the general election, we must make it clear that in the Republican Party, a pro-abortion candidate is unacceptable.

Or to put it another way, if you want to a pro-life candidate you can vote for, work to make sure a pro-life candidate wins the primaries.

Therein lies the problem. I don’t consider the Republicans to be prolife except in word only. Not enough for me.

 

[Newzie52]

My daughter, who is a Catholic pro-life and pro-family activist told me about this man: voteforjoe.com

Joe Schriner is a fascinating, thoroughly moral man who supports Catholic social teaching - even those teachings that are difficult for many people to accept (immigration, justice issues, etc.) He is what you could call a “radical Catholic”, I guess. Many of his positions are startling, but really make you think. I think he is to be admired. I am thoroughly disgusted with the other candidates - can’t really think of a single one I actually want to see as president - sad

So, I may be “voting for Joe.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Therein lies the problem. I don’t consider the Republicans to be prolife except in word only. Not enough for me.

Then change that. If a pro-choice Republican candidate wins the primaries, that will be a disaster.

But if all the pro-choice candidates lose, and we select a pro-life candidate, that will be a step in the right direction.