Well its Started, The C word has entered the Presidential

[_DrW]

Potential Race Between Black Guy and Mormon Poses Dilemma for Bigots
Doomsday Scenario, Haters Say

MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report) – A looming presidential race between a black guy and a Mormon is creating a major quandary for America’s bigots, a new poll reveals.

According to the poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, a broad majority of likely bigot voters “strongly agreed” with the statement, “If it winds up being between a black guy and a Mormon I don’t know what I’ll do because I don’t know which I hate more.”

Tea Party activist Eldin Brazelton of Oak Park, Illinois, expressed a frustration typical of the bigots surveyed: “We’ve spent the last three years stirring up anger towards a black guy, and that’s all going to go to waste if we just up and nominate a Mormon.”

According to Mr. Brazleton, a presidential choice between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney would be no choice at all: “For the life of me I don’t know why we can’t just have a regular President.”

Mr. Brazleton, who considers himself a sexist as well as a bigot, said that the doomsday scenario unfolding for 2012 offered one small silver lining: “At least we know it’s not going to be a woman this time.”

Elsewhere, in response to the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests in lower Manhattan, banking giant Goldman Sachs announced today that it was investing in pepper-spray futures.


http://www.borowitzreport.com/

[_Hoops]

Is there a good example from the current race where a particular Christian candidate demonstrated how their worldview translated into a better position

Better position than whom? Or what? Better than if he/she were not Christian? Or better than one's potential opponent (Obama, I would assume).

or decision-making process than the other non-Christian candidates by whatever definition you wish to use?

My atheist friends here can certainly attest to this: the fact that Romney remains LDS tells me something. I'm not really sure what, but he has chosen to remain a member of group that has certain ideals and representations. It's reasonable to make calculations about him for that. Just as our atheist friends here had decided that one who professes Christianity is some how mentally .... um.... sub par. That's fine with me.

It's bothering to me that the pastor described Romney as a moral good man, but that somehow his lack of a Christian base makes him less-preferable to a truly Christian candidate.

See above. Romney certainly can rid himself of Mormonism and embrace Christianity, agnosticism, or atheism. He has chosen not to. That has meaning, one way or the other.

However, in terms of policy positions, I don't know how I could know that. I'm fairly sure that each candidate has come to his/her policy positions based on scripture (or lack thereof), personal experiences, education, and world view informed by her/his parents, friends, mentors, and experience.

But being a professing Christian tells our atheist friends one thing and it tells me another. That is: I can reasonably expect (until proven wrong) that the candidate will be reasonably honest, will answer to the constitution and our laws, and will generally do the right thing as he/she understands it from what I've described above. That's a positive thing, in my view.
And one I think an atheist would find worthy as well, though I'm obviously wrong about that.

[_moksha]

I was very interested in Infymus post on hard times in employment. In many ways I would like to tell him that the Republicans do hold the ultimate answer for making ends meet, and that is Serfdom. In Serfdom everybody is fully employed unless you choose to use your free agency and go live in the forest being a bandit or something. However, you won't receive bread allotments from your Lord or salvation from the Sheriff if you proceed in not doing your Lord's bidding.

The above plan was narrowly passed over other Republican plans submitted by Senator J. Swift (R) Iowa and Senator T. Malthus (R) Florida.

[_moksha]

But being a professing Christian ... That is: I can reasonably expect (until proven wrong) that the candidate will be reasonably honest, will answer to the constitution and our laws, and will generally do the right thing as he/she understands it from what I've described above.

Today's Agenda

8 AM - Congressional Prayer Breakfast

9 AM - Briefings

10 AM - Weekly payoff from lobbyists

11 AM - Wrap self in flag, Constitution and Bible

.

[_Hoops]

Today's Agenda

8 AM - Congressional Prayer Breakfast

9 AM - Briefings

10 AM - Weekly payoff from lobbyists

11 AM - Wrap self in flag, Constitution and Bible

.

Is there a point somewhere in this lame post? Or is it just more soysage for your liberal buddies here?

[_The Mighty Builder]

And it continues

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... s-religion

[_honorentheos]

Better position than whom? Or what? Better than if he/she were not Christian? Or better than one's potential opponent (Obama, I would assume).

...the fact that Romney remains LDS tells me something. I'm not really sure what, but he has chosen to remain a member of group that has certain ideals and representations. It's reasonable to make calculations about him for that.

I wonder if you missed the examples regarding Rick Santorum's statement on Don't Ask/Don't Tell as well as Ron Paul's statement about Health Care access?

Kind of like in high school math class, it's certainly reasonable to make calculations about Romney but you need to show your work.

But I'm really more interested in a positive example from a candidate you recognize as a true Christian. I'd like to see just how their Christianity translates into better decision and policy making compared to someone who isn't a true Christian by your own accepted definition. I'm not going to argue what that definition is, I just want to see the proof that it's a good measure of a Candidates fitness for office. I'd like to see why the Pastor in question is right when he said (paraphrased) being a moral, good man isn't enough when running against a Christian.

If it's true, you should be able to find at least one good example you could point to given all the self-declared true Christians in the race.

[_Some Schmo]

If it's true, you should be able to find at least one good example you could point to given all the self-declared true Christians in the race.

Isn't Bush a christian? Clearly, being a christian means nothing.

I live in a part of the country where businesses often advertise being christian owned. I avoid those businesses on principle, not because they're christian per se, but because the only reason I can think of that they would advertise it is to try to add unearned credibility and trust to their business. If you feel the need to tell me you're honest rather than just let your business practices demonstrate it, I have a hard time trusting you. Show, don't tell. It's like the used car salesman calling himself "Honest Joe." Yeah... right.

[_Hoops]

I wonder if you missed the examples regarding Rick Santorum's statement on Don't Ask/Don't Tell as well as Ron Paul's statement about Health Care access?

I saw it. So what? What am I supposed to comment upon?

But I'm really more interested in a positive example from a candidate you recognize as a true Christian. I'd like to see just how their Christianity translates into better decision and policy making compared to someone who isn't a true Christian by your own accepted definition.

Well, that would be why I asked the question.
I specifically stated that being a Christian would not translate into an entirely different set of policy ideals. Why would it? Given our political system. And, with that, I know lots of Christian folks who have a different political agendas than I do. But I am reasonably sure, without subjecting them to an intense psychological evaluation, that they've come to their agendas after reflection from a Christian world view.

I'm not going to argue what that definition is, I just want to see the proof that it's a good measure of a Candidates fitness for office.

How do you define one's fitness for office? That means lots of different things to lots of people. For me, fitness for office simply means I can reasonably trust that the candidate believes what she says she believes. That she will vigorously pursue her agenda.

I'd like to see why the Pastor in question is right when he said (paraphrased) being a moral, good man isn't enough when running against a Christian.

Am I forced to agree with him just because you see me as of like mind? Particularly when I've stated no such thing>

If it's true, you should be able to find at least one good example you could point to given all the self-declared true Christians in the race.

Except for I have no idea who is a true Christian and who isn't. Do you?

[_Buffalo]

This whole evangelicals bagging on Romney thing has reminded me how annoying and self-righteous evangelicals are. Sure, Mormonism has a lot of baggage. But so do these wackos on the religious right.