Rev. Jeffress Is On The Case: Romney'S A Cultist

[Ares]

Romneys candidacy and its impact on how Mormonism is seen in the world is fair game.

Political threads for politics sake will be closed.

[Zakuska]

I think this post should be removed. I dont care for a forum that disobeys its own rules - this is strickly politics and everyone knows it.

That is why the mods created the "in the News" section so any Political discussions that where cropping up because 2 Mormons where ruinning for president in the debate section could be put here and keep it segregated.

I think you're just mad that Jeffress is getting so much negative press for his ideas that constitutional rights do not apply to non-Evangelical Christians of the SBC persuasion.

[Zakuska]

Hi ERay,

I agree, it was most likely a calculated tactic, but emphasis mine, I don't see that this tactic actually worked on the last go round. The candidate that promoted such ideas back then, didn't even get a VP shot. I am at a bit of a loss as to why the Perry camp, would actually think this was a good strategy.

CQ,

Emphasis mine, it's a bit subjective on my part, but given the statement from the Perry camp that he believes Romney is a Christian, I wouldn't think he actually has the heartfelt anti-Mormon sentiment that the Huckster did. It was a poorly planned and poorly thought out political tactic.

Regardless of his statements, I don't find such a suggested investigation comforting. The last thing anyone needs is the "thought police" using this as some vehicle to further shackle our First Amendment rights.

I get aggravated when I see groups do this sort thing. The First Amendment was put in place to protect religion from the government, not the other way round.

I have a feeling this issue will loose steam shortly. But if not, I hope Romney doesn't try to support this sort of thing. It would put him on the wrong side of a First Amendment issue and would polarize a number of voters.

Regards,

Mudcat

So Mudcat,

With all your talking of protecting 1st Amendment rights, what do you think of Jeffress idea that the 1st amemndment was put in place to protect Christians and Christians only? Therefore it is not applicable to cultists like Buddhist, Hindus, Mormons, JWs, and Catholics?

[Mudcat]

So Mudcat,

With all your talking of protecting 1st Amendment rights, what do you think of Jeffress idea that the 1st amemndment was put in place to protect Christians and Christians only? Therefore it is not applicable to cultists like Buddhist, Hindus, Mormons, JWs, and Catholics?

I watched the video link you are referring to. I think that is an overstatement on your part. The general picture I got from his sermon on the subject was that he thought the 1st amendment was set up to protect the differing religious views of variant Protestant factions. I think in a general sense he was correct for the most part in that, though I would toss Catholics in the pile to... JW's and LDS weren't existing religions at that point, so it wouldn't make sense that such views were a direct consideration.

But I don't think he was saying that the First amendment was not applicable to other religious beliefs. The design and language of the 1st A. was applicable to all. I think his main push was that these other world religions weren't a factor to those that signed off on the 1st Amendment.

[Zakuska]

I watched the video link you are referring to. I think that is an overstatement on your part. The general picture I got from his sermon on the subject was that he thought the 1st amendment was set up to protect the differing religious views of variant Protestant factions. I think in a general sense he was correct for the most part in that, though I would toss Catholics in the pile to... JW's and LDS weren't existing religions at that point, so it wouldn't make sense that such views were a direct consideration.

But I don't think he was saying that the First amendment was not applicable to other religious beliefs. The design and language of the 1st A. was applicable to all. I think his main push was that these other world religions weren't a factor to those that signed off on the 1st Amendment.

Not applicable? He was specificaly saying that the 1st Amamendment was setup to "prefer" or "favor" Christianity over the other religions, and that the Government should "prefer" them and not be "nuetral".

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

Actually the First Amendment is designed to protect both.

[Zakuska]

:good:

Jeffress throws Jesus under the bus

<snip>

One wonders whether Jeffress would be in a better place today had he been convicted by his conscience before condemning another man for his deeply held faith.

And I wonder how much longer candidates like Perry will allow modern-day Pharisees like Jeffress to do harm to the Republican Party. As George W. Bush policy adviser Peter Wehner wrote this weekend, Jeffress is “embarrassingly unequipped for American politics.”

“As a minister, Jeffress is certainly free to express his views of Mormonism to his congregation and in a Sunday school class,” Wehner wrote. “But it’s the clumsy and destructive manner in which Jeffress has injected religion into politics which has caused the stir.”

Wehner reminded readers that Jeffress’s own standard is at odds with the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, who famously said he would rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.

While declaring he could never support Romney for not being a Christian, he then admits that he would support the man he considers a member of a cult over a president whom he concedes is a Christian.

Wehner then rightly concludes, “The Reverend Jeffress is making this up as he goes along.”

And so he is. But the same can be said of a Republican presidential field that refuses to stand up to such hypocrisy. Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Perry all exercised their right to remain silent in the face of Jeffress’s outrageous statement.

What courage. But what’s new?

For years now, GOP leaders have sat silent as extremists called political rivals everything from “Nazi” to “Racist” to “Marxist.”

Now we can add “Cultist” to the GOP lexicon.

Show some courage, Gov. Perry. Stand up to a powerful supporter, because sometimes being tough requires more of a man than shooting a coyote in the face.

http://www.politico....5562_Page2.html

Whener source:

http://www.commentar...ress-mormonism/

What Robert Jeffress has done — quite unwillingly, I’m sure — is to damage his own Christian witness by weighing in on politics with simplistic and unreflective comments. That is something that has happened time and time again when it comes to politics and prominent Christian ministers and activists, both liberal (like Jesse Jackson and Jim Wallis​) and conservative (like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell). Often these individuals will take criticism of their views as a badge of honor and as a sign of their Biblical faithfulness rather than what it is: a sign of their shallowness and even, at times, ungraciousness of spirit.

Let me add a final word: One of the many wonders of America is that she has avoided, almost as if by an act of providence, divisions over matters of religious faith. Comity, tolerance, and respect for people who hold views different from your own is a sign of civility, not weakness.

In his letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, President Washington wrote these beautiful words: “May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

George Washington was a better general and a better president than Robert Jeffress. He was also, it turns out, a better theologian.

[Zakuska]

All the Cain supports might want to read this one...

Cain assailed as 'bigoted' over Muslim remarks

Washington (CNN) - A leading Muslim advocacy group accused potential presidential candidate Herman Cain of spewing "bigoted speech" Monday following remarks he made at a conservative conference last weekend.

While attending the Conservative Principles Conference last weekend in Iowa, Cain told a reporter- if he became president – he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet or as a federal judge.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) expressed outrage on Monday, saying Cain's words show how "right wing" conservatives are currently engaging in Muslim bashing.

"Even post 9/11 you didn't have this level of mainstreaming of anti-Muslim hate as you have now," said Ibrahim Hooper, National Communications Director for CAIR.

Cain's comments came in response to a question from a reporter for liberal-leaning Think Progress about potentially appointing a Muslim in a Cain administration.

"No, I will not," Cain responded. "And here's why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they've got a social problem that they don't know what to do with hardly."

Sharia law is derived from the Quran, the holy book of Islam. It informs Muslims with rules on how to live their everyday lives – including how to fast and how to pray. Some Muslim countries use Sharia law as a basis for their laws, particularly concerning crimes against Allah, against society and crimes of revenge.

Cain continued by recounting a question he'd recently received.

"I was asked, 'What is the role of Islam in America?' I thought it was an odd question. I said, 'The role of Islam in America is for those that believe in Islam to practice it and leave us alone. Just like Christianity. We have a First Amendment. And I get upset when the Muslims in this country - some of them – try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.'"

http://politicaltick...slim-remarks-2/

[Calm]

I think you're just mad that Jeffress is getting so much negative press for his ideas that constitutional rights do not apply to non-Evangelical Christians of the SBC persuasion.

why would messenger get mad about this?

[Hughes]

All the Cain supports might want to read this one...

http://politicaltick...slim-remarks-2/

He said it right.

[Calm]

Being a victim of racism unfortunately does not inoculate one against bigotry. Just as a victim of abuse may become an abuser in time because of behaviors learned from his abuser, so may the victim of racism become a racist. I find defenses like these naive.

I find the claims that there is a problem with Muslims trying to infuse sharia law into US laws somewhat problematic. At this point I see only evidence of antisharia laws. Anyone have examples of any attempts by Muslims to make some forms of sharia law everyone's law here in the States?

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Cain or Think Peogress?

[CQUIRK]

CQ,

Emphasis mine, it's a bit subjective on my part, but given the statement from the Perry camp that he believes Romney is a Christian, I wouldn't think he actually has the heartfelt anti-Mormon sentiment that the Huckster did. It was a poorly planned and poorly thought out political tactic.

CFR where his campaign says that Romney is a Christian. And I'm talking about a CFR where he literally says it.

Regardless of his statements, I don't find such a suggested investigation comforting. The last thing anyone needs is the "thought police" using this as some vehicle to further shackle our First Amendment rights.

I do agree with you there, I'm just pointing out how he's actually getting more flank for the things that he has said when compared to Romney or our Church.

[Mudcat]

CFR where his campaign says that Romney is a Christian. And I'm talking about a CFR where he literally says it.

Hi CQ,

As to the CFR, as you likely know, I can't provide one a direct quotation. From my understanding it was one of his press guys that made the statement on his behalf.

However, I think the fact Perry hasn't retracted his peoples comment about Romney is a much stronger "silent" argument that this is what he wants to convey to the public, than anything else.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Calm]

Perry's son has stated Romney is a Christian, one of hisPR guys just said Romney says he believes in Christ and Perry refuses to disavow his preacher, stating he doesn't agree with everything the guy says. Perry himself just said no cult....kind of a mixed bag though I would be shocked to find that his son did not have his dad's approval first. They have to be considering the effect of alienating those who feel strongly on the issue.

I do think it's a bit of a problem when the pastor is making a Sunday sermon on the subject as opposed to just stating his opinion.

[Hughes]

Being a victim of racism unfortunately does not inoculate one against bigotry. Just as a victim of abuse may become an abuser in time because of behaviors learned from his abuser, so may the victim of racism become a racist. I find defenses like these naive.

I find the claims that there is a problem with Muslims trying to infuse sharia law into US laws somewhat problematic. At this point I see only evidence of antisharia laws. Anyone have examples of any attempts by Muslims to make some forms of sharia law everyone's law here in the States?

It has begun in Michigan:

London is a prime example of the intent of Islam, to set up and replace all existing governments with Sharia Law, because that's what God has told the Muslims to do.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3718799/London-suburb-put-under-Sharia-law.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8686504/Sharia-a-law-unto-itself.html

"It is estmated that there are as many as 85 Sharia courts in Britain. One of the judges who sits on the Leyton council, Dr Suhaib Hasan, wants Britain to introduce the penal law where women are stoned for committing adultery, and robbers have their hands amputated."

[Hughes]

Hughes:

Cain or Think Peogress?

Cain said it right.

[Calm]

I am talking about the US, not elsewhere. Are there any attempts to get stoning or removal of hands written into US law?

How is disorderly conduct sharia law?

It might have been false arrest or prejudice but I don't see how it can be claimed to be sharia law unless the reason for the arrest is sharia law. Sharia law would have been something like having the convert arrested for being an apostate.

Even the case in NJ where the man claimed he was not guilty of rape because sharia law instructs a wife to comply to her husband's desires and was found not guilty was not a case decided on the basis of Shari law, but rather intent....the man did not intend to rape his wife because he had been taught his actions were not rape...... first judge's finding of not guilty of rape was ridiculous...I like to read the finding to see if it was reported correctly..... and rightly overturned. Coercion is coercion whether the individual sees it that way or not and forced sex is rape.

[Calm]

If one disqualifies a community's compliance to sharia law based solely on the fact that it is sharia law and not because it breaks US law, then it would seem to draw into question similar religious communities' behavioral standards such as kosher foods, Catholics not recognizing civil divorce, LDS not recognizing common law marriages, any community requiring Sunday closure of stores or alcohol outlets, etc.

[frankenstein]

What is the difference between Muslims wanting shiria law and lds leaders not reporting child abuse?

Is it within the tenants of the lds faith that child abuse should be permitted or that a child should continue to be abused?

Or a religious organizaTion punishing members who seek redress at law rather than seeking redress only within the confines of the organization

[Hughes]

When one understands "honor killing" and the connection of sharia law to Islam. It is the goal of the islamic community to bring it here. There were two cases in just the last couple years. One where the husband decapitated his wife for wanting a divorce. The other ran over his daughter and killed her for leaving their religion. Both felt they were "justified" by their beliefs in Islam or sharia law to kill (One even claimed religious persecution for being jailed).

[Calm]

When one understands "honor killing" and the connection of sharia law to Islam. It is the goal of the islamic community to bring it here. There were two cases in just the last couple years. One where the husband decapitated his wife for wanting a divorce. The other ran over his daughter and killed her. Both felt they were "justified" by their beliefs in Islam or sharia law to kill.

And both were treated according to US law, not sharia.

There are plenty of aspects of sharia law that are legal according to US law. Do you want to make those illegal?

Your links demonstrated that a fringe group in England wanted to impose sharia law on the greater community, not only did they fail, but plenty of Muslims publicly rejected the attempt so even there you did not establish that this is the goal of the Islamic community.

[Minos]

Get back on topic or the thread will be closed.

[KevinG]

What is the difference between Muslims wanting shiria law and lds leaders not reporting child abuse?

Muslims wanting Sharia law are wanting to make a religion the law of the land.

LDS leaders who don't report child abuse are breaking the law of the land, violating their covenants and breaking the policies of the LDS Church.

Is it within the tenants of the lds faith that child abuse should be permitted or that a child should continue to be abused?

No. In fact it is within the tenants of the LDS faith that one who offends one of God's little ones would be better having a millstone hung about his neck and thrown into the sea. It is also within the tennants of the LDS faith that hiding ones sins or the sins of another is a grave violation of God's law.

Or a religious organizaTion punishing members who seek redress at law rather than seeking redress only within the confines of the organization

This is against LDS practice and doctrine. We are subject to the laws of the land. We are also required to report abuse according to those laws.

The incidents where children are victims and authority have failed to protect them from repeat offenders are incidents where LDS doctrine and policy have been violated.

Editd to add: sorry if this is off topic Minos - I just didn't want misinformation about LDS policy to stand.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What is the difference between Muslims wanting shiria law and lds leaders not reporting child abuse?

Several. Do I really need to spell it out?

Is it within the tenants of the lds faith that child abuse should be permitted or that a child should continue to be abused?

No it is not.

Or a religious organizaTion punishing members who seek redress at law rather than seeking redress only within the confines of the organization

I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you should leave wall street and stop trying to occupy it.