Bill Keller: ‘Vote for Romney is vote for Satan’
Nice, religious bigotry in action:
While some evangelical Christians are defending the presidential candidacy of Mormon Mitt Romney from an attack by Al Sharpton, another prominent pastor is going further in his condemnation – saying a vote for the former Massachusetts governor is a vote for Satan.
That’s the word from Bill Keller, host of the Florida-based Live Prayer TV program as well as LivePrayer.com.
“If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!” he writes in his daily devotional to be sent out to 2.4 million e-mail subscribers tomorrow.
O great, the idiots speak out.
Religious fundamentalists unite! A Mormon running for the White House, o no! Send e-mails, write letters, the Mormon must be stopped! Lord knows that only good, fundamentalist, born again Christians can be good presidents!
Those Christians who worry about Romney’s Mormon faith should, in my opinion, just take a closer look at how Romney behaves: how he lives. What moral values he adheres to, the relationship between him and his wife, the way they brought up their sons, etc. etc.
More importantly, though, they should take a look at what policies he favors: pro-life, anti-stem cell research, fiscally conservative, aggressive stance in the war on terrorism but not overly aggressive, etc.
They should take a closer look at his resumé, they should look at his political credentials; how he saved the Olympic Games of Salt Lake City, how he became Governor of Massachusetts as a Republican and the type of Governor he was. They should look at the so-called Bain-way: no positive affirmation with Romney.
The election is not about who is the best Christian, but about who will make the best president.
This would almost make me endorse Romney.
If I were American that is.
More at The Nation, Preemptive Karma and NewDonkey.com.
Cross posted at my own blog.
15 Responses to “Bill Keller: ‘Vote for Romney is vote for Satan’”
“Those Christians who worry about Romney’s Mormon faith should, in my opinion, just take a closer look at how Romney behaves: how he lives.”
Really? The same people who have given Bush a complete pass on his behavior and actions just because of his “man of faith” imagery and speaking points? These same people are going to suddenly hold that standard up to evaluate Romney?
It appears a great many “Christians” in this country have a hard time actually reading the Bible much less applying its message.
Unfortunately for Romney the Republicans will need every vote they can get in what could be a very tight election. Any Republican candidate would have to deliver the Evangelical vote, both in the primaries and the general election. For a good number of Republicans this is not an issue, but the coalition of social conservatives and libertarians is the party and both sides need to see their issues addressed. For Evangelicals that includes abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage as well as religious affiliation. . Mormonism is a rapidly growing religion with a very active missionary program that some Evangelicals might look at as a threat. When McCain made his peace with the Evangelicals it was seen as pandering, but it is also facing the reality that , like it or not, they are a significant part of the coalition on the right. This does raise the over all question, will the coalition survive? I know the libertarian wing of the party is viewing the social conservatives with suspicion, there is always the possibility of a fracture.
I am not a Romney supporter, but I admit this is very unfair. But, its exactly what the pundits were predicting: that some religious fundamentalists believe that Mormonism is a cult-not a true branch of Christianity.
But then again- I am also appalled at the slate of Republican candidates who like robots must take the stances that the fundies prefer: Anti-stem cell research, pro-life, pro-war, anti-gay marriage , etc etc. How does that offer any choice to the American voter? There’s not a moderate or a centrist among them- unless you count poor Ron Paul, who despite winning the MSNBC poll after the debate and defeating the widely congratulated Romney still gets no press. And then there’s Giuli, who does have the guts to profess to longheld socially moderate views-his candidacy is probably doomed.
Can social conservatives vote for a Mormon?
Revelations
by Michelle Cottle
Only at TNR Online | Post date 05.11.07
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070507&s=cottle051107
On the bright side for Romney, at least he’s not a “Universalist”.
Then he’d really be up s***creek.
Anyone who thought Ron Paul actually won that first debate – didn’t watch it. I think he must have won the MSNBC poll because he has such liberal views, and the station and website’s viewers and readers are predominantly liberal. The way he answered the question about whether he’d ever made any important decisions that had affected a lot of people was just comical. “Uh, well… I can’t think of anything..errr, uhhhh…” I’m sure he’s a nice guy, but to run the Country?? Pure comedy.
Getting Mitt Romney in the Oval Office is like the local little league team signing Alex Rodriguez. He’ll clean up, set all kinds of records, and leave America in the best place it’s ever been. Wait – he’s Mormon? That means he believes in God and Jesus, and to love one another, and the ten commandments, and the Bible, and strong families, and all that other stuff that Mormons believe. Nevermind – I’m voting for Bhillary!!
Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a liberal with a fiscally conservative background. He proposes to eliminate the IRS in favor of a flat consumption tax. The last I heard, that is not the liberal’s position. It is possible that he won because of his anti-war stance. He believes that Iraq has been a disaster-but that is the mainstream position.
Anyone who thought Ron Paul actually won that first debate – didn’t watch it. I think he must have won the MSNBC poll because he has such liberal views, and the station and website’s viewers and readers are predominantly liberal. The way he answered the question about whether he’d ever made any important decisions that had affected a lot of people was just comical. “Uh, well… I can’t think of anything..errr, uhhhh…†I’m sure he’s a nice guy, but to run the Country?? Pure comedy.
BBoy,
First off, I concur with kritter than Ron Paul is not a liberal but a libertarian. In fact, if you truly want to be accurate, Ron Paul is a paleolibertarian–that is, a libertarian with conservative leanings. Like many paleolibertarians, Ron Paul is strongly pro-life and anti-illegal immigration.
Secondly, I don’t think he “won” the debate, despite the online MSNBC post-debate polls showing him to be the overwhelming winner. The way I look at it is this:
Ron Paul has libertarian views that set him apart from the rest of the Republican field. Many of Ron Paul’s supporters would never vote for Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or any of the other GOP candidates. Conversely, many who support the top-tier candidates would end up supporting another candidate in the primary, even if that candidate wasn’t their first choice. What this means in that in the online MSNBC poll, the mainstream Republican vote was divided nine different ways (between the nine other Republican candidates) while the libertarian and liberal vote mostly went to Ron Paul.
Since libertarians and liberals make up an extremely small proportion of the Republican Party, his MSNBC poll success is not likely to translate into GOP support. In fact, their are a number of pro-Republican blogs (i.e. Free Republic, Pajamas Media) who based Ron Paul following the debate. Apparently a Republican who says that he is for “smaller government” and actually means it is no longer welcome in the Republican Party.
In addition to not having the lucrative campaign contributors and widespread name recognition that Giuliani, Romney, and McCain have, Ron Paul doesn’t have the best speaking skills (he’s extremely soft-spoken, and his voice wavered during some of the exchanges with Chris Matt). His views, on the other hand, do not waver, and his tendency to stand for the same principles now that he did when he first took office is what sets him apart from Giuliani, Romney, and McCain–all of whom are in danger of out Kerrying Kerry in terms of flip-flopping on social issues.
I didn’t see anything comical about his reply to the “What important decision…” question. He didn’t have a good answer prepared for this question because, as a libertarian, he believes in a minimalist role for government. He can’t brag about pieces of legislation that he has endorsed or sponsored because he has opposed virtually every piece of legislation that has come before him (they don’t call him Dr. No for nothing). In the end, he did give an answer to the question. He pointed out that when it came time to vote for the resolution to go to war in Iraq (which was perhaps the single most important issue to come before congress during the last six years), he broke ranks with his party and voted against it.
To me, that makes him more credible than Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd–all of whom voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution. That’s to say nothing of Giuliani, Romney, and McCain–all of whom used the GOP debate to express their unapologetic support for the ill-conceived war in Iraq.
Funny, I dont find it liberal to not want the US military used as a single country US force as it is currently being used in Iraq (nation building).
UN force rather….
Or anotehr way of seeing it is our “single country UN force” is doing a reverse version of what the USSR did for decades. The only difference is we aren’t going to last as long as they did working with the current model of stupidity, democratic nation building as opposed to communist nation building.
Getting back to attacks by some religious people on other religious people –
why aren’t mainstream churches active in combatting this kind of hate messaging?
There have been a number of blog posts lately pinning blame on feminists for not combatting honor killings more forcefully, the point being that this should be a feminist issue.
When religious leaders or groups step out of line, that should be an issue for churches and churchgoers. Why are there so few voices and no organized movements to combat religious extremism of the ‘you’ll go to hell for this’ kind? I mean, this is definitely a religion issue.
It won’t be a vote for Satan, instead it’d be more likely a vote for really odd undergarments LOL.
[...] the religion? Other than denigrating Mormons – which is actually a radical right evangelical position – there’s no mention of faith or God or Jesus or anything remotely connecting Sharpton to [...]
[...] Michael van der Galien [...]