Redstate

or as Romney put it to a heckler (paraphrased): it doesn't so much matter what faith he comes from, so long as he is a person of faith.

I likewise have no context for the Dobson quote, but I do think it is something that warrants attention. So far I think we've been buying a pig in a poke with respect to the cartoon-character version of Thompson a diarist wrote about recently. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be supported in the final analysis, but it does mean we should have an analysis.

again, I want to know exactly what Dobson is saying here. if he means Thompson is an atheist, that would be extremely disturbing and a non-starter for me, because I do think faith is important as stated above. but if he professes our values, but is perhaps more like a Deist like some of the founders, that would probably be acceptable enough.

I too am a very conservative Christain however voting values alone hasn't made any changes in the laws and we have had 6 years of Republican control in the Senate ,House of Representatives, and also in the White House. I sadly now beleive that social conservatism rhetoric is just that all talk and no action.

Values voters have little to show for years of Republican rule

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_5370379

I now concentrate more at the fiscal conservative and leadership qualities of a candidate so I will support Guiliani unless Fred Thompson gets in the race.

...but the author downplays the role of the Courts in the Left's Culture War successes.

Yes, overturning Roe would not guarantee pro-life policy across the nation. But overall, policy would be a lot more pro-life than it is now.

Yes, younger people support gay marriage in much greater numbers, but the idea that gay marriage will become the law of the land (in every state) anytime soon by 'popular mandate' is absurd.

Conservatives have many disadvantages in the Culture War, and I'm not trying to downplay the obstacles and challenges. But the number one goal should be reigning in the Courts, because otherwise all of the other factors (like pop culture) are meaningless.

It should come as no surprise that I think Dobson raises a legitimate question.

Yes, there just isn't any reason to be either surprised or reactionary towards persons whose voting direction will be swayed by whatever criteria are important to them. Such people, as well as others who would argue against putting any (or much) emphasis on the characteristics in question seem to be part of an overall healthy and public discussion.

That said, I have to admit that I can understand the latter group's frustration (among whom I guess we'd count Hewitt) after reading from your cited article:

Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.
<...>
In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson's claim. He said that, while Dobson didn't believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian—someone who talks openly about his faith."

Ok - so Thompson is clearly conservative and clearly stands for those same things that Dobson's organization stands for. But he's not a "committed Christian" - "someone who talks openly about his faith". And for that reason alone an otherwise (as described by Dobson) stellar Republican candidate could be rejected?

While Newt Gingrich, admitted adulterer, is described by Dobson as the "brightest guy out there" and "the most articulate politician on the scene today.". I have to assume that the differentiating factor for Dobson was that Gingrich talked "openly" about his faith.

Still, I would concur... Dobson should feel free to chose his own criteria the same as everyone else. That he puts his criteria out there to the public, whether you agree with said criteria or not, at least adds to the overall discussion in a way that would be missing is he didn't.

You continue to miss the point of Hugh's remarks in response to your column. I agree the "bigot" term was unnecessary. But Hugh's point about your piece on Romney was that you either deliberately or ignorantly misrepresented what the expected grassroots efforts of mormons by implying that official church missionaries will be out in force knocking doors for Mitt.

Not only was the implication wrong, it was offensive to Mormons who treat their missionary work as sacred and wouldn't dare imagine using it as a political tool. It was destructive in that it gave a false representation about the LDS church and the support of its members for Romney. It implied that any such support was "unique" and a first in American politics, which is patently false.

That you think a discussion of Romney's religion is fair game is one thing. That you decided to recklessly mischaracterize aspects of the church and use your mischaracterization to paint Romney in a negative light puts you on the same level as the angry left MSM.

Your point about understanding those who might object to Romney because of his religion is mild and within the realm of reasonableness. And besides coming off as Daily-Kosish, your continued ranting about Hewitt is not too inflammatory. Hugh has a bigger sandbox and more sand, so you throw your sand higher in the air to attract attention. At least that's how it appears.

But your deliberate, or at least careless, representation of mormon missionaries in connection with the Romney campaign was misguided and is deserving of a retraction.

From Hugh's description:

Romney volunteers [who] will be from the neighborhoods in which the caucuses will be held, will learn the sites where the caucuses will be held and will deliver not just themselves but their non-Mormon friends and neighbors to the caucuses en masse and do so with the full grasp of the rules and a deep experience in patience that comes from knocking on thousands and thousands of doors during their time as missionaries.

The "Romney volunteers" were clearly describing Mormons. Hugh's previous statement was

And in those 85 wards will be an incredible not-so-secret weapon--a core of young people . . . not to mention experienced missionaries.

I not *once* suggested that any effort would be coordinated by the LDS Church. Not once.

Hugh, on the other hand, said "young people", who he clearly meant were Mormons, and "experienced missionaries" would

deliver not just themselves but their non-Mormon friends and neighbors to the caucuses en masse and do so with the full grasp of the rules and a deep experience in patience that comes from knocking on thousands and thousands of doors during their time as missionaries.

Please now explain how I

either deliberately or ignorantly misrepresented what the expected grassroots efforts of mormons by implying that official church missionaries will be out in force knocking doors for Mitt.

It seems that if I did misrepresent them, it was because of Hugh's own writing. Again, I never said "official church missionaries," I just parroted Hugh's own words.

Learn to read.

While doing a fine job of rehashing Hewitt's response, you seem to have left out what prompted his response:

"If we can expect heavy participation by Mormon missionaries as grassroots activists for an American presidential campaign, why can we not ask questions about Romney’s Mormon beliefs and why can Americans not be concerned? After all, contrary to the popular perception of the left and media, there were no organized platoons of Presbyterian missionaries knocking on doors for Reagan, brigades of Baptists for Bill Clinton, nor marauding packs of Methodists for George W. Bush. This is something relatively unseen and new to most Americans --including many deeply evangelical Americans who believe Mormonism to be a cult, or at best a religion that has some shared roots, but is fundamentally grounded in heresies."

Since you have pointed out that I am literacy challenged, please correct me if I am wrong in identifying you as the author of the above passage.

I agree that Hugh stumbled by using "experienced missionaries" rather than "returned missionaries" or "former missionaries." How does that excuse your extrapolative parroting of the term, dropping the modifier whatsoever and implying that marauding packs of missionaries are going to be working the political tracts?

The common understanding of the term "missionary" is one that distinguishes a church-appointed missionary or minister from a rank and file member. You know that. You are an attorney for Pete's sake, and therefore know that words carry meanings and implications. Meanings matter.

You didn't explicitly state that official church missionaries would be stumping for Romney. You didn't have to. You implied it by your use of the term and then by analogizing to fantastic imagery of other religious missionaries doing the same.

I notice that you have managed to employ the term "returned missionaries" in posts elsewhere on this site. I can only surmise that despite your unwillingness to admit it publicly, you realize your gaffe and have resolved to be more careful in the future. Apparently, however, I am just full of stupid, utter, crap.

Hugh used the term "missionaries" and I used the term "Mormon missionaries." Hugh referred to their skill sets as being valuable -- just like a Presbyterian Missionary's skill set would be valuable.

You implied because you want to buy into this whole persecution theory of the campaign that I meant a church organized group of missionaries. I never said that.

As to using the term "returned missionaries," I have because people like you seem to think that if us non-Mormons dare to use anything other than the specific term, we are somehow implying that active Church missionaries will be used -- which I don't think any serious person is saying or has said.

So yes, you are still just full of stupid, utter, crap.

It is not persecution. It is misrepresentation. If it wasn't intentional, it was careless.

Hugh used the phrase "experienced missionaries." You then compared "Mormon missionaries" to "organized platoons of Presbyterian missionaries". Doesn't require a persecution complex to infer that you meant a church organized group of missionaries.

That may have not been your intent, but I think you hold casual readers to an unreasonably high standard if you expect them to correctly divine the subjective intent behind your text.

Regards,

Brick

You are a complete idiot. Complete. Top to bottom.

Honestly, the level of victimization that is evidenced here on virtually every blog about Romney by his supporters is way beyond irritating. If you have nothing better to do than to parse for stuff that's obviously not there, go parse Kos posts for cogent content.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Amen! It strikes me as a bit questionable to start questioning the faith of others, and claiming those who don't talk about their faith are by definition unChristian.

"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."

It's a pretty judgemental statement for us, but par for the course for Dobson. Maybe Fred just needs to go on his show and repent?

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com

to vote because a man or woman is a "Christian". Or even an "evangelical Christian". Most of us are more concerned about a candidate's actual stance on a variety of issues and how we perceive their ability to get the job done with reference to those issues (competence). I also think you will not find "values" issues dominating the issues list.

Every time I hear someone longing for a "Christian [officeholder]" I remind them of Jimmy Carter. I do not question Mr. Carter's Christianity or the depth of his faith. I also think the pusillanimous, posturing, incompetent fool should be arrested for sedition and spend the rest of his miserable life here in a cage at Gitmo.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

I just like the sound my "voice"... :>)

But heck, you've been here long enough to have figured that one out...
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I also think the pusillanimous, posturing, incompetent fool should be arrested for sedition and spend the rest of his miserable life here in a cage at Gitmo.

Jesus H. Mohammed Christ. Are you for real?

How about poseur President instead?
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

A conservative with a badge.

a very, very sharp knife.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I liked Carter much better when he stuck to Habitat for Humanity.

Sigh... At least his recent anti-Israel scandal seems to have deligitimized him (in the eyes of the MSM- I don't think he's really ever been legitimate in the public's eyes- except during Clinton, but that was Clinton's fault).

His positions and his actions are well thought out and the product of a deceitful mind.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

nt.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

but building houses that Carter's done since. If possible, his post-poseur-Presidency is worse than his poseur-Presidency.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Of all this beating around the bush. Must we always parse and read between the lines? Or will you please just tell us how you feel?

comprehension. Your local community college will have a class.

I was beating around carter not bush.

:>)
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

...not beating around bush. Or was it THE bush? Dang, now I'm more confused...

As someone who used to work for Focus on the Family, I seem to recall a minor argument in the early 90's when Focus put out an article on cults and Mormonism was not on the list.

Cynic that I am, I figured it was because of the synergy between Focus on the Family and Mormonism. (When discussing the difference between JWs and Mormons among my evangelical friends, we used to make jokes about how to tell in less than 10 seconds. One way was "Do they have magazines?" another was if they opened with a question about the coming Armageddon, they were JWs if they opened with a question about the disintigration of the American Family, they were Mormons.)

As Mormons have the strength of the family as one of their key issues, and Focus on the Family does as well, a cynic might say that the Mormons started donating and Dobson wanted to keep that money rolling in.

A less cynical person might say that the Mormons asked Dobson to take a second look at their faith and Dobson, being a good Nazarene, thought "Maybe I was wrong about them before" and took a second look and realized that, hey, apart from a handful of doctrinal differences, everybody is still worshipping Jesus Christ and, at the end of the day, isn't that what it's all about?

Of course, maybe he's using the definition of "cult" that says "a cult is a fringe religion (and a fringe religion is defined as a religion without any political power)". Given Mormonism's political power, it's no longer fringe and, therefore, no longer a cult.

In any case, I am 99.99% certain that Dobson (and, by extension, his organization) does not consider Mormonism a cult.

At least, not enough to put it back on the list after it was removed.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Dobson's comments were probably directed solely at his audience - sort of like the lady I knew in South Florida that would direct me to a doctor or pharmacist and whisper "You'll like him - he's a good Jewish boy". I knew what that meant, and appreciated her telling me.

I believe Dobson's purpose was to let his listeners know he wasn't sure whether or not Thompson was a "good Christian boy". I think it has more to do with Dobson not being that familiar with Thompson as opposed to Thompson's voting record.

If Thompson declares, I think Dobson will feel it his duty to inform his listeners of his perception of the level of Thompson's Christian commitment. Right now, I just think Dobson's comments indicate he simply does not know.

Dobson is an EVANGELICAL Christian. That means he is looking for someone who openly professes his faith, and that is what Dobson said: that he hasn't heard him talk about his faith, which is something an EVANGELICAL Christian must do. Mitt does. Bush does. Therefore they at least get the evangelical part. After that it is a question of whether or not they are Christian. That gets into questions of heresey's and cults, and depends on definitions, not votes.

The easy way to change Dobson's mind on this is point him to the places where Thompson has made such public statements, or have Thompson talk to him directly. If Thompson is really thinking about entering the race, stopping by the program and talking to him is a good play because Dobson has a large audience and there are many possible points of intersections that could be used as topics for a show.

I think the focus on Hewitt (whom I never hear about outside Red State) might be overblown, but to compare it with the hate and filth of Daily Kos is ridiculous.

Run like Reagan!

Its not despicable like KOS is, but its extremely self-centered like KOS is. Erickson may have got in a spat with Hewitt, but that doesn't mean that Dobson talking about Thompson is really about Hewitt and Romney.

________________________________________
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

you've never listened to his show or you would not say such things. If you can remove the MSM poisons from your mind, you should try it sometime.

Dobson is a very compassionate person. And that compassion compels him to condemn any and all actions which will damage a person, no matter what the intentions are. On the basis of "spare the rod, spoil the child" Dobson will apply the rod in all those situations where he believes God's children need it. But don't confuse it with child abuse.

For the record, I have listened to Dobson a number of times. I'm far from opposed to Corpral Punishment (though that's a whole seperate issue and this isn't the place to spark a debate about that) and on many other issues Dobson and I are on the same page.
But I find he suffers from the sin of Pride and find he lacks compasion. Our Lord Jesus took a very different tack to those who disagreed with him than Dobson does. Dobson is driven, no doubt, and I'm sure he thinks he is doing good works, but he needs to step back and look at what he says and how he says it. I would say that someone needs to 'apply the rod' to Dobson himself.