I know what it consists of - I am merely making the point that they are very very big on prostheletization, not that they are doing any dragging, kicking or screaming. The point is that the “knocking on the door” goes on even after you are dead.
In Judaism at least, prostheltization is considered impolite; the vast majority of Jews don’t do it themselves to others (there are a few wierd culty types, widely disliked by other Jews, who do it) and dislike being the recipients of it. I realize (some) Christians take a different view. To Jews, it is more like being pestered to buy Florida time-shares while sitting down to dinner - the difference is these clowns keep at it even beyond the grave. Just imagine how annoying it would be, to have your afterlife come with commercials!
Which might have been the basis for some fantasy conspiracy theory, except that the MSM speculation only began after various Evangelical and Fundamentalist individuals made it a point very early in the process to promote different Republican candidates expressly because they were “Christian.” There is a (one would hope small) movement by various people to derail Romney’s run based on his religion, but it did not originate in the MSM, but in the Republican party. And just like the “feminist” vs “black” feud that the MSM played up when Obama and Clinton were battling for the nomination, it started in their repsective camps and the MSM only picked it up after it became an actual issue.
Sorry, I didn’t really make my point very clear. I agree that Romney isn’t seen as the big evangelical hope, either by Republicans at large, evangelicals, or the MSM. But that’s the point of my objection - if the MSM is attempting to convince evangelicals not to vote, why would Romney be the target? He’s already seen as a poor choice for them. Admittedly, I wouldn’t bet on my ability to divine who the evangelicals over there are mostly behind, but i’d guess it’s Santorum - or, at the least, some person or persons other than Romney. If the MSM was attempting to cut down on the evangelical vote by painting someone as not Christian, wouldn’t they try it on the actual big evangelical hope?
But surely he already has lost those votes - or, at least, there are other targets for whom more votes could be lost, and more effective ways of losing Romney votes given that it’s not the evangelical base that he’s mostly catering to?
I do recognize the disparity of comparison, but was having trouble coming up with a better one. I have heard evangelicals say that Catholics were “Not Christian” and I have heard New England Catholics refer to all Southern Protestants as “Snake-handlers.”
The point I was trying to make though, is that it’s unfair to judge someone by a belief which you may have heard coupled with the name of their faith, but which they have never personally believed.
We are now, what, three (?) generations removed from the time when mainstream Mormons practised polygamy? Let it go, it’s not a valid argument.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
And just like the “feminist” vs “black” feud that the MSM played up when Obama and Clinton were battling for the nomination, it started in their repsective camps and the MSM only picked it up after it became an actual issue.
[/QUOTE]
You aren’t making a lot of sense - it isn’t an “actual issue” - you said yourself it is a small movement. But it is something that Romney’s enemies are trying to foist.
Nobody claimed that this originated in the MSM. It is something the MSM wants to use to damage Romney.
It’s a Presidential race, and the MSM favors the Democrat. This is not newto anyonepaying attention.
He’s the front-runner, and has been for some time.
Sure, and they’ll try those too. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
The only REAL problem with Mormonism, is the same problem as any other faith that thinks life on Earth is merely a “test” or a “stepping stone” to a “better place”. That problem is that when these believers impose their beliefs on others through laws, violence or just plain annoyance, it threatens our basic freedoms. In other words, Mormons are usually quite nice, but it makes them no less dangerous than any other person who makes real life decisions based on “beliefs”. PS I am not an athiest, I’m agnostic, I’m comfortable knowing that I don’t actually know or pretend to know life’s origins, meanings etc.
Snake handling is so very obscure it might as well be non-existant. The polygamist cults are a hell of a lot bigger. (No, they’re not part of main stream Mormonism.)
TruCelt, to be fair, at one time Mormons did indeed believe in polygamy – when the religion was first founded. Not like snake handling. Just sayin’. Very bad example.
I assumed he was talking about this passage from Mark:
“16:15 And [Jesus] said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”
So I guess the question is, why don’t Catholics and Protestants handle snakes today?
Which, if there’s targeting going on, is a good reason. But not for that particular gambit.
But there’s only a certain amount of pages, airtime, and perhaps more importantly space for narratives. When you want to tar a candidate with a particular brush, you have to be careful you don’t spread your muck too thinly, otherwise it doesn’t show up, if that particular mixed metaphor still makes sense. The strongest message is the solidest one. Not to mention that using it on Romney dilutes it for use on others; it’s the crying wolf problem.
Piffle. It is no more the intention of the MSM to “damage” Romney than it was the intention of the MSM to “damage” Clinton or Obama in the nonsense over who better supported civil rights for women and blacks. It is simply the standard “What outrageous quote will sell the most headlines?” tripe that the MSM uses to determine all their stories. I note, for example, that Fox News runs stories quoting people, (all Republicans), questioning Romney’s Christianity. (Last summer, it was the Fox and Friends show where the hosts declared that Romney was “obviously not a Christian.”) If you are going to claim that Fox News favors the Democrats, we will simply have to dismiss everything you say on the topic as unconnected with reality.
As to it being a real issue, I note that Romney should have had the nomination sewn up months ago, but the Republicans keep finding odd, unelectable creatures, (Cain, Perry, (Gingrich?), Santorum), to run strongly against him, often opening with their “Christian” bonafides, until they start walking on their own tongues. And I never said that it was a small group, only that I hoped it was a small group. I have no idea how strong the Religious Right actually is within the Republican Party, but they, (not the MSM that simply quotes them), are the ones who continuously bring up the issue.
I expect Romney to get the nomination and I expect the Republicans to close ranks and support him. I expect him to give Obama a serious run for the presidency, perhaps beating Obama. We have already seen that a lot of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals have gone ahead and supported Romney, whatever their religious beliefs, so the idea that anyone is going to sit home and refuse to vote for him is silly. That the MSM (including Fox) is using the story as a plot to undercut his support is simply choosing to engage in ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Snake-handling only started in the early 20th century, in a remote part of the Appalachians. It’s an extremely small sect. Nowadays, in fact, I believe it’s illegal.
As to why Catholics never did it, Catholicism has never taught Biblical literalism.
I think it’s rather nice of them. In my (heretical view which I hope never makes its way back to the RCC, lest I be consigned to the pit of Call to Action members), there’s nothing more abhorrent than wishing eternal torture on anyone. Absolute certainty of eternal bliss or eternal punishment can justify any temporal action. Honestly, what wouldn’t you do to secure the eternal bliss for someone you had an even passing affection for? Would you risk being called a fool even if there were even a very small, but assignable chance (say, 1%) given all the data?
I don’t think Kennedy had much to do with it. I think the issue with Roman Catholics is that if they’re “doing it right” they owe their fealty to the Pope rather than their constituents. However, they’re the largest sect of Christianity in the US and the world at the moment.
If a Mormon described his beliefs to you, you’d probably say the same thing about Catholics, until you realise the specifics. Sura 65 seems to contradict Matthew 19, Sura 2:191 - Matthew 5:39. I’m not trained in ecumenicism, perhaps those have been reconciled.
Well, considering someone said Mormonism isn’t Pauline, that seems awfully similar to 1 Tim 2.
While I really despise the patriarchal practice of polygamy, shouldn’t the research be viewed with the same suspicion that early research on homosexuality had?
