UPDATE: Video here.
Ana Marie Cox: not just a snarky ex-blogger turned Time editor anymore -- now a theologian who has pronounced Mitt Romney not a Christian.
The former Wonkette is all over MSNBC today. Early today on "Morning Joe," Cox cattily swiped at Katie Couric, surmising that the CBS Evening News anchor was traveling to the Middle East because she needed rugs. She has since claimed to have intended no slight to Katie or Middle Easterners. Right. Screencap from MJ after the break.
This evening, Cox appeared on "Countdown" to discuss the Larry Craig matter with Olbermann. Talk turned to the way Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) has dealt with the situation. The Idaho senator had served as Romney's co-chairman in the Senate. Romney was quick to disassociate Craig from his campaign, and Tuesday referred to Craig's behavior as "disgusting
."
ANA MARIE COX: [Romney] has inserted himself into this story several times. I think the smart political thing to do would have been to get rid of the guy from your campaign staff, maybe take the [Craig endorsement] video down, but why would you perpetuate the story, why would you involve yourself in this? It really just seems politically inept in my opinion.
KEITH OLBERMANN: Are we again missing something here? Is there some base that he's appealing to by being cruel to somebody's who's in trouble? I'm quite serious about this.
Olbermann lamenting cruelty toward Craig? That's really just too rich. Olbermann is of course reveling in Craig's disgrace, going so far as to have produced and played on this evening's show a mocking "Dragnet" re-enactment of the restroom scene.
COX: I think that his understanding of even the conservative base is rather incomplete. I think that someone like Sam Brownback, you may disagree with him, but you really cannot doubt his social conservative credentials, at least has the strength of character to extend Christian mercy.
That's when Cox ruled Romney off the Christian reservation.
COX: I know Mitt Romney is not himself Christian, or [trying to retrieve herself] that's a point of debate, but to show some kind of compassion for somebody who at least there family is going through something really terrible, I think it smacks of opportunism for him to, you know, throw the guy aside.
I wonder if "Time" endorses the view of its Washington editor of Time.com questioning Romney's Christianity?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
I have got to ask. Who
August 29, 2007 - 21:46 ET by jdhawkI have got to ask. Who dresses these reporterettes? Talk about a homely waif . . . It is just that it is hard to take anyone serious that has issues dressing themselves.
I guess she is better than that ugly one with the bad teeth that you have been showing pictures of lately. Althouth she is even less bright than this one.
Also, please stop showing pictures of that one (now identified in a tell all as a sl*t) that always looks like a deer in head lights . . . Katie something or other.
Thank you.
jd, I love a man with a
August 29, 2007 - 21:49 ET by Blondejd,
I love a man with a sense of style!
Nicely done.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I agree; in the other
August 30, 2007 - 07:16 ET by motherbeltI agree; in the other "Wonkette" thread I posted this:
As an aside: is that a photo of Cox? I thought she was supposed to be
the "hot babe" of the bloggers. She looks downright dowdy in that
photo...ruffled shirt and cardigan sweater (Robin Givhan, call your
office!). Maybe working for Time has toned down more than her
attitude??
Is my memory correct? Didn't she used to be touted as a "hot chick"?
Also, what's with this:
I think it smacks of opportunism for him to, you know, throw the guy aside.
Is she seriously saying Romney should not have gotten rid of him? Oh, right, he should keep him on, so she and his other critics could have a field day with it.
I am constantly amused by
August 29, 2007 - 21:58 ET by Trix RabbitI am constantly amused by the double-think of microcephalic bigots like Uberdork and Cox.
"I think it smacks of opportunism for him to, you know, throw the guy aside."
Translation: Romney, no matter what he says or does will never be a "Christian" (which Cox knows that he isn't) because he is Mormon.
If Romney disassociates himself from Craig, it is opportunism. If he allies himself with Craig, he will considered a confederate of deviancy.
The political and religious insight of Uberdork and Cox is a credit to all of us U.S. Americans. Sarcasm off.
Liberal: a power worshipper without power. George Orwell
Typical lib think
August 29, 2007 - 22:02 ET by Matthew SheffieldAnd of course, Cox is never identified as a liberal nor is she interested in being fair in the general sense.
Take Time Seriously?
August 29, 2007 - 22:01 ET by Intellectual HonestyIt is no secret that so many of the mainstream pro-democrat media come from bonafide liberal backgrounds. Bill Moyers, George Stephanopoulis, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and now...Ann Marie Cox, formerly known as the Wonkette. From liberal blogger to editor at Time confirms (as if any more evidence is needed) that Time has shifted far away from it's original stature of reasonable journalism to a complete and utter journalistic joke.
From liberal blogger to
August 29, 2007 - 22:14 ET by SMGalbraithFrom liberal blogger to editor at Time
She was also at one time an editor for a radical left/socialist online magazine that originated out of Berkeley.
Although I guess by the standards of Berkeley, it was considered hard right.
SMG
Catty Cox in glass green frilly blouses shant toss stones
August 29, 2007 - 22:14 ET by Lame CherryI always find it bizarre in the bazarre of liberal rug sellers how a rather ugly high lit blonde with a uggo too small brown sweater poured over her neon frilly green blouse that looks like it came off of a 70's version of Soul Train can always find an Olberman to find her an expert on anything, but how to make men wince "at what is that".
Catty chics like this need a brain for one thing and for 2 thing a fashion miser and for 3 thing she needs make up or a skin cutter to fix her aging neck.
Nope not a Katie Couric fan, nor a Romney nor a Craig fan any more...........but am wondering why is it that Craig if he is homosexual is all of a sudden a pariah to Liberals?
If Larry Craig is judged by his wanderings, than the interesting stories on Janet Reno liking leather and little girls to Hillary swinging both sides of the gender are fair game now too.
Was it not Democrats parading gayly in debate before the same gay groupings who everyone knows who lives in a big city can find screaming into the night in public parks having battery sex on each other in sodom revelation, to the recruitment brigades which fan out to clubs introducing young kids to the ecstasy of ecstasy and booze as they pass out raping them into their first "experience" to the wonderful growing lawyer money pit of "divorced gays in mass who were married in massachoosettes"........were not Obama, Edwards, Clinton and company all telling us what goes on behind closed doors is nobody's business?
I do believe Larry had the potty door closed, so according to Phil Donahue all his wankerings are Clinton amnesiac "I did not have sex with that woman Monica Lewinski".
It would be wonderful if Newsbusters just kept a running tally of Letterman, Cox, Oblerman, Matthews and friends to prove exactly what I exposed long ago.........the biggest homophobes in the world are liberals. If you go on Huffington you soon see the biggest sin and insult they will level at Bush is his being homosexual. The featured blogger Robert Shearer did unfunny satire on it concerning Bush and Rove.
So how is what Craig did a bad thing when Democrats court and promote this activity all the time? One would think Cox would be applauding the RNC for expanding it's gay horizons..........
Unless Cox is exposing she hates gays like all Democrats hate gays just like they talk about in their private parties.
Where is Hollywood coming to the aid of a gay male under attack by the liberal press? It sure isn't right bashing gays in this one.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Yeah she should probably
August 29, 2007 - 22:17 ET by balboaYeah she should probably just wear black cocktail dresses, 24-7. :-D
Careful, Bal
August 29, 2007 - 22:21 ET by BlondeWe all know you've dissed Anne for doing the same.
You must admit....Anne looks much better on TV than this lime green & brown, um, person.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
On cocktail dresses
August 29, 2007 - 22:24 ET by UnsaneAnd what can possibly be wrong with a black cocktail dress?
(unless it's long, in which case there is much wrong with it)
:-)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Nuttin' wrong with that.
August 29, 2007 - 22:26 ET by balboaNuttin' wrong with that. Cox looks like she's buying from the Ashley and Mary Kate Bag Lady Collection. Not a fan.
Geesh
August 29, 2007 - 22:26 ET by Felicity RandMaybe because the ratings are so low, and thus there's not much of a budget, the wardrobe lady has to steal from "The Golden Girls" archives.
Don't think so, Felicity.
August 30, 2007 - 11:20 ET by motherbeltDon't think so, Felicity. ALL of the Golden Girls dressed better than that!
Also, what you guys up above are calling Ann's cocktail dress, isn't. It's a plain black sheath. No glitz, no glamour. What used to be called the "little black dress" that no woman could do without, because it could be worn anywhere, dressed down, or up.
The fact that it shows Ann has legs "up to here" is what has everyone in a dither. Only Katie Couric is allowed to show off her gams.
In MSM, it's always OK to question a conservative's faith
August 29, 2007 - 22:48 ET by nkviking75"I wonder if 'Time' endorses the view of its Washington editor of Time.com questioning Romney's Christianity?"
Mark, with all due respect, that's a silly question. If someone casts himself/herself as a sincere Christian with conservative political views, the MSM will always question their faith. Cox is being unusually charitable letting Sam Brownback off the hook. To the MSM, the only legitimate Christians are those who are liberal politically and theologically. In other words, not a threat.
If someone challenged Cox about her faith, whatever it may be, she'd probably squeal like a stuck pig.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Christian?
August 29, 2007 - 23:53 ET by CosmoAs for Cox, those of us who really are Christians will take care of her, so no need to worry.
/spoken through a megaphone
Really are Christians?
August 30, 2007 - 01:16 ET by Daniel BakerA debate on the subject with a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and a paid minister is found at the link below.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2007/06/who-gets-to-define-christian.html
LOL! Another hit and run
August 30, 2007 - 02:19 ET by tracheostomyLOL! Another hit and run pasting. I also love the passive-aggressive use of "paid minister" there.
Does this link of yours include the comments pasted below it? Namely, the D&C citation where Jesus Christ allegedly told Joseph Smith that "Every other religion is an abomination in the sight of God."
Is that true Daniel? If it is, then it actually does separate the LDS from all other Christian denominations. This leads one to ask, "Who was making the divisive comments to begin with, Cox or the D&C?"
And since were throwing "ahem" debate links*, this debate on YouTube just happens to be a favorite of mine. It doesn't talk over anyone's head and deals with specifics, like the stark difference between the God of the Bible and the God or Mormonism. I don't expect you to actually watch it though. It would just cause you too much discomfort.
Further, I have had previous debates with LDS members both here and on other boards that would admit (when pressed) that the LDS are not followers of traditional Christian orthodoxy. I can deliver the complete quotes with member name, date, and post anytime.
Those encounters were not the norm, sice Mormons are actually taught to be evasive and/or deceptive about their faith as a rule,
So let's quit with the distortions. Please.
-PJ
*To be fair, you'd have to read the previous editorial that led to Daniel's link to get a fair account, correct?
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Here's a quote that lives
August 30, 2007 - 02:31 ET by tracheostomyHere's a quote that lives next door to the link that Daniel Baker just cited. I think it's very relevant to this discussion.
If Mark Finkelstein wants to use the broader definition of Christianity, then so be it. It will only serve to confuse the issue.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
pj, you are definately
August 30, 2007 - 06:14 ET by Conservative Voicepj, you are definately smarter than Debra Smith, and not as much as a wack job, but your obsession over my religion and somehow proving it to be wrong ( as if that made yours right ) is right up there with her obsession, and it is getting annoying.
pj, you are definately
August 30, 2007 - 06:52 ET by tracheostomypj, you are definately smarter than Debra Smith, and not as much as a wack job, but your obsession over my religion and somehow proving it to be wrong ( as if that made yours right ) is right up there with her obsession, and it is getting annoying.
How self-centered of a comment is that? Surprise CV, I'm an equal opportunity nitpicker here, with a track record that I can point to. If you recall, I even debated you on right alongside an Evangelical, remember?
I think this all should have been totally obvious to you a long time ago. Heck, I've even gone after the denomination I currently attend! Remember the position I took when Falwell died? I just got done going after a Roman Catholic who posted a 21 point diatribe denying sola scriptura!
So it's crystal clear that I have only one agenda here, and it's pretty much wrapped up in that Mohler quote above. IMO, America is made up of a large majority of ChrINOs.
But I think CV just wants to hang an "anti" label on me. All I gotta say to this is, if you want to garner some sympathy--you'll have to get in line with all the other "victims."
Unbelievable!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach: You wrote "I have
August 30, 2007 - 07:01 ET by Mark FinkelsteinTrach:
You wrote "I have only one agenda here, and it's pretty much wrapped up in that Mohler quote above. IMO, America is made up of a large majority of ChrINOs."
I understand and respect people's fervent religious beliefs. However, the "agenda" of NewsBusters has to do with combatting liberal media bias, not serving as a forum for heated religious debates. I would respectfully ask you and others to conduct such debates via private emails or in other forums rather than on these threads.
Sincerely,
Mark
No problem. As a matter
August 30, 2007 - 07:06 ET by tracheostomyNo problem. As a matter of fact, I make the majority of my religious posts in the OT board.
Could you do me the fair favor of telling the others as well? Many others here don't seem to get it.
And lastly, you'll have to admit that you opened this can up yourself. Since Cox put the theologian hat on and you took her to task for it. Why am I not allowed to defend her from a conservative POV as a religious conservative myself?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Thanks, Trach. You wrote:
August 30, 2007 - 07:11 ET by Mark FinkelsteinThanks, Trach.
You wrote: "Could you do me the fair favor of telling the others as well? "
I did state "I would respectfully ask you and others to conduct such debates via private emails or in other forums rather than on these threads."
By singling out the always
August 30, 2007 - 07:19 ET by tracheostomyBy singling out the always fashionably late reactionary.
:bows:
That spotlight's kinda warm y'know. >;)
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
There is no question, Mark
August 30, 2007 - 00:13 ET by Mike BrattonMark, it's actually a simple matter--honestly, I don't understand why people get so up in arms about a factual statement.
There are a lot of denominations, sects, and groups that legitimately can be said to be Christian, but the Mormon religion is not one of them.
An example, if I may: Christianity, by definition, is Trinitarian, affirming the Biblical revelation of one God in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Mormonism does not affirm this Biblical truth, and considers the triune God to be, instead, three separate individuals. That simple difference is enough to put Mormonism outside the big tent of Christianity, but they didn't stop there.
Mormonism teaches that the present-day god of Earth was, in the distant past on some faraway planet, a man who achieved godhood by listening to his deity. Fortunately, this newly-minted god was able to bring his wife along for the ride, and all past, present, and future inhabitants of our planet are a result of this god and goddess' rabbit-like reproduction. If we listen to Earth's god, according to Mormonism, we can also have the opportunity to become gods of our own respective planets!
And that's just a sliver of their belief system, one that is far closer to Scientology than to Christianity. However, if the Washington editor of Time.com questioned Tom Cruise's insistence that Scientology was really a Christian denomination, I doubt anyone would do a double-take, much less express outrage.
Mr. Romney self-identifies as a Mormon, so by his own admission, he is not a Christian. If you'd like to discuss this in more detail, Mark, just follow the link below.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
I was holding my breath
August 30, 2007 - 00:56 ET by Conservative VoiceI was holding my breath with each posting, hoping I wouldn't see any more Mormon bashing...and then you went there.
I am a Mormon, and you sir are not in a position to claim that I don't believe in Christ, or don't believe in the Bible, and hence not a Christian...now can we not turn this into another anti-Mormon thread?
Thankfully, one can't hold one's breath long enough to do damage
August 30, 2007 - 01:22 ET by Mike BrattonI "went there"? Where's "there," exactly?
How is it "bashing" to make true statements about the Mormon religion? If anything I said was incorrect, please make the appropriate corrections.
Is Mormonism Trinitarian? What does Mormonism say about Jesus' identity and origin? What does Mormonism say about the afterlife? Aside from certain terminology, Mormonism has virtually nothing in common with Christianity.
I'm not claiming you're not a Christian--by identifying yourself as a Mormon, you do that yourself. Now, I would much rather you be a Christian than be a Mormon, but the choice is ultimately yours.
Again, if I've published anything that isn't factual, please let me know.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
You claimed I am not a
August 30, 2007 - 06:18 ET by Conservative VoiceYou claimed I am not a Christian, that is where you went. Again you aren't the authority on who is Christian and who isn't. If you want to continue being a jerk about it, that choice is ultimately yours.
Take unsane's advice and worry about your own religion, because being a so called expert on mine doesn't by default make yours more "Christian".
On Romney
August 30, 2007 - 01:20 ET by UnsaneMaybe you are better off worrying about your own faith rather than telling others what they do and do not believe. But that's just me.
Romney's religion is as immaterial as Kennedy's was. (Remember how many people were trembling over his Catholicism?)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Regarding Mr. Romney and Mr. Kennedy
August 30, 2007 - 01:28 ET by Mike BrattonIf an individual's belief system is immaterial, what does that say about the individual?
And I'll ask you the same question I've already posed: What did I post about Mormonism that was inaccurate? I'm not "telling others what they do and do not believe," I'm listing what the Mormon religion says about itself from its own literature and its own teachings.
I don't think we want to get started about JFK, since his private life showed that his being a member of the Catholic denomination didn't translate as well as it should have.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Clarification
August 31, 2007 - 06:27 ET by UnsaneWhat a person does/does not believe, so long as no harm is done to me, is 100% immaterial.
For the record, I am an atheist. Does that somehow degrade my posts here on NB?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Romney is a Christian
August 30, 2007 - 01:06 ET by Daniel BakerRomney recognizes Jesus as his Savior, and has lived a life in service to others. He headed congregations of Christians and has gone door to door teaching that only through Christ could man be saved.
The liberal media wants to start a fight about Romney's beliefs among the right. They want to make us look hypocritical in our religous bigotry.
Which Jesus?
August 30, 2007 - 01:35 ET by Mike Bratton"Romney recognizes Jesus as his Savior".
The individual called "Jesus" in Mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity. (If you'd like, we can examine the differences--and there are more than a few.) So, if Mr. Romney says he is a Mormon and says he recognizes Jesus as his Savior, he's either referring to the "Jesus" of Mormonism or he's a very confused individual.
And, please, explain to me what I've said that's bigoted.
Regarding Ms. Cox's statement, the only bigotry that might be in danger of surfacing is the bigotry which insists that even when a liberal says something that's true, the liberal can't be listened to.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
and let the religious war
August 30, 2007 - 06:25 ET by Conservative Voiceand let the religious war begin. First off, he didn't call you a bigot. Second off, you are not the authority of who is Christian and who isn't. It is your opinion. Mormons believe in Jesus Christ to be their Savior, their God, and believe in Heaven and Hell and the whole nine yards. Just because we don't believe exactly as you do doesn't mean we aren't Christian. I don't care if there are vast differences in our religions, for there are vast differences in all the various sects of Christianity and Religion. I don't pray to Zeus, to Allah, to any of the hindu Gods, to Al Gore...the God of Global Warming, to Baal, etc. I pray to my Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ, and that makes me a Christian.
I am so sick of this argument. And for the last time, Romney is running as President, not Sunday School President, but President of the United States of America.
Who's mongering any war around here?
August 30, 2007 - 13:19 ET by Mike BrattonA few points:
1) I didn't say "he called me a bigot." I asked him to identify what statement I made that was bigoted. There's a difference.
2) I haven't, for a picosecond, presumed to be a personal authority on who is, and who isn't, a Christian. God has already made the parameters more than clear, so the argument is with Him, not me. Please don't use that "who made you an authority" dodge again, all right?
3) Let me say this again, for clarity's sake: The individual called "Jesus" in Mormonism bears only a passing resemblence to the Jesus of the Bible. Key differences include Jesus' position in the Godhead, the events surrounding both His spiritual origin and His physical conception, His relationship to Satan, and the efficacy of the cross. I've asked for people to provide information that would illustrate that the "Jesus" of Mormonism is the same Jesus of Christianity, but no one has yet to give any specifics.
4) It's a red herring to pretend I'm saying you have to believe exactly as I do, so please don't use it again. There is an objective set of standards as to what does and does not make a sect, denomination, or group Christian. I've illustrated several ways in which Mormonism does not meet the objective standard with regard to the fundamentals of the Christian faith.
5) Folks, when a liberal says something that's accurate, the conservative response cannot be anything other than a fact-based response. Sometimes, it means admitting that, in this instance, the liberal got her facts right.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Mormons Rock in my American fundie book
August 30, 2007 - 13:31 ET by TruthMongerRespectful exchange of faith differences is a must for fundies like me...
Mormons are a valued cultural ally of mine and outstanding champions of good and decency in our country. Is my claim on Christianity any better than theirs in the eyes of God?
Only God can answer that. So why should we beat each other up on this?
If you must disagree then it works much better done with a glad heart...
thank you tm, and likewise.
August 30, 2007 - 13:43 ET by Conservative Voicethank you tm, and likewise.
See me smiling?
August 30, 2007 - 13:48 ET by Mike BrattonAll I'm doing is asking questions and stating facts. For that, I'm a "jerk."
Which is a fine response, except that it doesn't answer any of the questions I've asked or address any of the facts on the table. Other than that, it's great.
"Is my claim on Christianity any better than theirs in the eyes of God?"
Depends upon the basis for your claim. If your claim is a personal, saving relationship with the Jesus of Christianity--the second Person of the Trinity, Son of God and God the Son, the Word made flesh--then yes, indeed, since that's the only "claim" that's valid. If your claim is grounded in someone named "Jesus" mentioned in Mormonism--someone who's Satan's spirit-brother, who came into physical being when the god of Earth had sex with Mary, whose death was insufficient to save you from your sins, who represents a religion that promises you, too, can be the god of your own planet when you die--then your claim has no merit in the eyes of God.
And I'm still amazed that precious few around here can string together the words "This time, for whatever reason, the liberal got it right."
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
...look man I've gone your
August 30, 2007 - 14:08 ET by TruthMonger...look man I've gone your route before...
And technically I believe the exact same things...
I just don't express it this way at all - just check out my surrounding posts for my approach to the exact same message you have...
Just some free advice for ya...
a few points
August 30, 2007 - 13:40 ET by Conservative Voice1. ok, but he wasn't talking to you so why ask the question in the first place?
2. According to you and how you interpret the scriptures...get over yourself.
3. Yep there are differences...doesn't mean we aren't Christian. We claim to be Christians, we preach of Christ, we worship Christ, and everything in our church is done in the name of Christ. You on the other hand assert that I am wrong, I am not a Christian because I interpret the Bible differently. If you are God himself, I am all ears, otherwise its your opinion and belief that we aren't Christian, and mine that we are. I think it is funny and annoying that you and others feel such a need to judge my religion.
4. Don't care if we are 99.9% different, I know that I am Christian, and you keep trying to assert that because I am 99% different must mean I am not...how silly...let me flip it...you aren't a Christian...I know your priest and parents and all those who go to your church say you are, but I say you aren't...end of argument.
5. Accurate to whom? To you the almighty Mike, the final judge on who is a Christian and who isn't? It is inaccurate to claim a religious belief as fact, which is why she was quick to back peddle.
I call ya a Christian,
August 30, 2007 - 13:45 ET by TruthMongerI call ya a Christian, CV:)
I'm Lutheran. Please call me one too
absolutely :)
August 30, 2007 - 13:53 ET by Conservative Voiceabsolutely :)
A few more points
August 30, 2007 - 13:59 ET by Mike Bratton1) So you are suggesting that I'm not a bigot? That's very kind.
2) Again, you're avoiding the obvious by insisting I'm engaging in subjective assertion rather than an appeal to an objective standard. You couldn't be more wrong.
3) Claims don't equal facts, do they? And I see that you've yet to answer any of the comparisons regarding the differences between the "Jesus" of Mormonism and the Jesus of Christianity.
4) I'm just going by what you say, so there's no need to be hostile. You assert that you are a Mormon; since Mormonism and Christianity are 100% mutually exclusive, it is impossible for you to currently be a Christian--and I'd really like for you to be a Christian. And since you gave no objective proof to support your "flip," it was an ineffective rhetorical device.
5) Accurate to the objective standard. Again, you're engaging in personal disparagement instead of addressing the issue at hand. Hardly a conservative response, is it?
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
1. Can 2. You 3. Maybe
August 30, 2007 - 14:06 ET by TruthMonger1. Can
2. You
3. Maybe just
4. Lighten up
5. The tone
...a bit? then people will be more inclined to see your invaluable insights much more often:)...
Ah, it's so light and breezy in here!
August 30, 2007 - 14:11 ET by Mike BrattonYes, when some people are tossing around pejoratives like "jerk" and "bigot" the way other people toss Frisbees, I really should relax.
No, seriously. I really should! Thanks for the reminder.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
turn the other cheek - it's
August 30, 2007 - 14:37 ET by TruthMongerturn the other cheek - it's all good
pick up a cross and carry it
try the crown of thorns - it's so you
count the cost, it takes a while
I was thinking along these lines...
August 30, 2007 - 14:52 ET by Mike Bratton...though the remarks tossed my way hardly qualify as persecution:
Matthew 5
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
So, yes, I should be glad.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
yes and he also cautioned
August 30, 2007 - 15:02 ET by Conservative Voiceyes and he also cautioned using his name in vain. I think it is funny when people like you act all high and mighty get called on being a jerk claim victimhood and use this scripture to justify their actions.
Victim?
August 30, 2007 - 15:45 ET by Mike BrattonYou must be confusing me with someone who gets his feelings hurt at the drop of a hat.
And if you'll notice, I observed that the liberal tactic of attacking the person rather than debating the issue hardly qualifies as persecution. Now, would it be possible for you to rein in your misguided enthusiasm?
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
you are confusing me with
August 30, 2007 - 15:53 ET by Conservative Voiceyou are confusing me with someone who has misguided enthusiasm. I will observe it is a liberal tactic to claim victimhood to avoid accountability.
-
August 30, 2007 - 07:00 ET by dahliatraversYawn.
The Constitution makes it impossible for the President to impose his religion, whatever it is. End of story.
This is a media and political blog. Please stay on topic - in this case, the biased, nasty comment of a poorly dressed non-expert "editor". Thank you.
On topic
August 30, 2007 - 13:25 ET by Mike BrattonWhen the comment is accurate, labeling it as "biased" and "nasty" is not a legitimate response--and certainly isn't indicative of an interest in measured debate.
This is a media and political blog. The day faith can't be openly discussed on a conservative-leaning blog is the day conservatism itself is in trouble.
And since this is a media and political blog, the various insubstantial comments about the clothing choice of the quoted editor don't really give the discussion any more in the way of gravitas, do they?
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
-
August 30, 2007 - 07:05 ET by dahliatraversAnd let us not forget her self-immolation during the Imus incident.
I'm embarrassed to admit that it took Imus' saying something so devastatingly crass to make me realize that there just was no reason beyond ego to play along. I did the show almost solely to earn my media-elite merit badge.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1609447,00.html
Mormons are not Christians
August 30, 2007 - 07:28 ET by slpMormons are not Christians.
Mormons believe what is written in the Book of Mormon.
Christians don't.
Okay, is this an example of
August 30, 2007 - 07:35 ET by tracheostomyOkay, is this an example of religious debate or not?
He could very likely be agreeing with Cox, only from a non-liberal POV. After all, look at the topic tags below the blog.
See, I agree that bringing up religion on an off-topic thread is hijacking; in some cases it can even be seen as trolling.
But this is on-topic. I don't see how it possibly couldn't be. It's not an actual report per se. It's more like a two-person Sunday opinion panel. I can see the case for why the line between commentary and reporting is being blurred on the MSM, but this doesn't look like news at all. It looks like commentary.
Someone help me out. I'll give a cookie to the first one that helps me untangle this mess.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
It's on topic, but these people are disgusting
August 30, 2007 - 09:02 ET by RJ...the smug, self-satisfied bigotry these people display is disgusting.
If they're not liberals (a suspicion I harbor), they might as well be. There's no difference in their self appointed God-like powers of determining what or who is or is not a Christian than there is in Cox...or Bill Moyers.
Are you sure? Do you
August 30, 2007 - 09:05 ET by tracheostomyAre you sure? Do you realize how close that statement is to an absolute assertion?
We can't all be right, but we can't all be wrong either.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
If you mean
August 30, 2007 - 09:09 ET by RJIf you mean is this on topic, absolutely. ;^>
don't like Ana Marie Cox
August 30, 2007 - 10:49 ET by johnnobtsdon't like Ana Marie Cox but technically Mormonism is not Christianity. While most Mormons like to be branded as a denomination (the only true one), in reality their theological positions on the most critical aspects of who God, Jesus, and man is (and how the Bible alone is insufficient) push Mormonism outside orthodox Christianity and into cult status.
Still, I like Mitt Romney and have no problems voting for the man who has shared family values. Ironically I'd rather have a Mormon in office than a person claiming to be a Southern Baptist (Hillary).
Actually Hillary is
August 30, 2007 - 11:57 ET by Ken ShepherdActually Hillary is Methodist. Bill Clinton is Southern Baptist.
Maybe we we Christians
August 30, 2007 - 14:43 ET by TruthMongerMaybe we we Christians should be called "Biblians" instead?
Christ called himself "a Jew"
}}---> Gesundheidt
August 30, 2007 - 14:45 ET by Cool Arrow~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
"Speaking for God"
August 30, 2007 - 13:37 ET by RJOn this board, I've seen posters from all variety of Christiandom go against each other, each swearing that they were the only "true" church of Christianity, and that all others were fakes.
Those who think they speak for God and claim to "know" that Mormons are not Christians are bigots...period.
Those who think they speak for God...are bigots...period.
August 30, 2007 - 14:00 ET by vrwc13RJ, the facts...
According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. is 78% Christian and 10% no religion, while other religions comprise 12% of the U.S. population. In descending order, the largest identified religious groups are Protestant (52%); Roman Catholic (24%); Mormon (2%); Buddhist (2%); Jewish (1%); and Muslim (1%).
So non-Mormon Christians out number Mormons about 40 to 1. And most non-Mormon Christians would not agree with you as their stated doctrine would preclude any Mormons from their faith.
"…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
didn't realize religion
August 30, 2007 - 14:15 ET by Conservative Voicedidn't realize religion doctorine could be decided democratically...so if the majority of Christians believe and thereby claim I am not a Christian it must be so.
except our founders just
August 30, 2007 - 14:20 ET by TruthMongerexcept our founders just loved to frustrate the majority:)
Christianity by most defintions
August 30, 2007 - 14:22 ET by vrwc13Christianity by most defintions are faiths that believe that Jesus is the Christ, Lord and Savior. Since we do not believe in the same Jesus, we should not be calling ourselves the same thing....so if you want exclusive rights to "Christian", fine, just call me "Believer". Works for me.
"…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Is that really the best response you have?
August 30, 2007 - 14:06 ET by Mike BrattonI've listed critical differences between Mormonism and Christianity. They're not up for debate. They exclude Mormonism from the big tent of Christianity.
Now, did you want to continue to misrepresent people like me and call me schoolyard names, or were you interested in a discussion?
This time, the liberal got it right. It makes you no less a conservative to admit when a liberal is telling the truth, just as appealing to facts doesn't make someone a bigot.
Ellipse... Period.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
I don't really care what your OPINION is Mr Bratton,
August 30, 2007 - 14:12 ET by RJ...or how carefully you justify your claims about who is or is not a Christian. Bigotry is bigotry.
oy vay:(
August 30, 2007 - 14:13 ET by TruthMongeroy vay:(
LK - we've been down this road before...
August 30, 2007 - 14:18 ET by vrwc13Not sure Mike knows what he is up against...I think I will just watch for awhile.
v