Religious Tests

Pages: 1 2

Presidential candidate Herman Cain has publicly declared that Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith will prevent him from winning the nomination. “I know the South,” Cain recently observed. “The reason he will have a difficult time winning the South this time is because when he ran the first time, he did not do a good job of communicating his religion. It doesn’t bother me, but I know it is an issue with a lot of Southerners.” Cain repeated this not-so-delicate line of attack during last Thursday’s debate, reporting that people in his hometown “are not clear on how” the Mormon religion relates “to the majority of people’s Protestant, Christian religion in the South.”

Regrettably, we’ve been here before.

In the 2008 election cycle, after similar “it doesn’t bother me but” questions about his Mormon faith, Romney was sadly forced to defend his faith and make the case that a Mormon was no more or less qualified to be president than a Desist or Baptist, Methodist or Catholic, Evangelical or Jew.

Back then, it was the not-so-delicate of rumblings of Mike Huckabee—grasping, like Cain today, for some sort of attention—that put Romney’s faith on the ballot. “I really don’t know much about it,” Huckabee said of Romney’s religion, before cynically asking, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”

The reason it was cynical for Huckabee to ask his rhetorical question—and for Cain to say Southerners won’t vote for a Mormon—is that both men were playing innocent but were clearly sending a message.

“I think attacking someone’s religion is really going too far,” Romney said in response to Huckabee’s attack. “It’s just not the American way.”

Of course, this sad case of déjà vu stretches back far further than the 2008 election cycle.

In 1960, responding to similar whispers and signals from his opponents, then-Senator John F. Kennedy delivered a speech and held a Q&A with Southern Baptist leaders. It’s amazing that more than 50 years later, Kennedy’s defense of his right to run and capacity to govern could be quoted virtually verbatim by Romney.

“I want to emphasize from the outset that I believe that we have far more critical issues in the 1960 election,” Kennedy began, citing the spread of communism, childhood hunger and the forgotten poor. He reminded his hosts that he fought—and his brother died—for an America without religious tests of any kind. “No one suggested then that we might have a ‘divided loyalty,’” he intoned, no doubt shaming some of his hosts.

Then, intentionally and wryly imitating the pattern of a creed, he delivered his confession of non-faith: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute…I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish…I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end…where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind.”

Kennedy won over enough voters to settle the sad controversy triggered by his Catholicism. Yet today, according to polling conducted by Pew, a sizeable swath of this great, multi-religious republic has qualms about Romney’s religion. According to the Pew survey, 25 percent of Americans say “they would be less likely to support a Mormon.”

In addition, “About a third of white evangelical Protestants (34 percent) say they would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate.”

That underscores Cain’s point. But that doesn’t let him off the hook. Just because something may be accurate, doesn’t mean it needs to be said (repeatedly). In fact, there are many things that are true that we should seek to change. Disqualifying someone because of his or her faith—or sending signals that it’s OK to do so—is probably one of those things.

Interestingly, the Pew poll indicates that “more Democrats than Republicans say they would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate. Liberal Democrats stand out, with 41 percent saying they would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate.” So much for the enlightened open-mindedness the Left claims it has a corner on.

Pages: 1 2

  • Reason_For_Life

    Does anyone here seriously believe that the only reason to oppose Romney is his religion?

    The issue isn't does Romney believe in "magic underwear"? The issue is does Romney support the expansion of state power, higher taxes and less individual freedom? Or does he truly want to re-establish a government confined in its power by the Constitution?

    Unless someone can establish that the LDS church has beliefs incompatible with individual liberty then I don't care what Romney's religious beliefs are.

    • Mark G

      Mormons don't have "magic underwear" anymore than Jews have "magic beanies"…knock off the redneck bigotry and grow up.

      • Reason_For_Life

        You missed my point. I chose the "magic underwear" nonsense BECAUSE it was most absurdly bigoted statement about Mormons that I have ever heard.

        I have no problem with anyone's religion so long as they don't want to base the American government on it.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      The issue is does Romney support the expansion of state power, higher taxes and less individual freedom?

      You have repeatedly made this asinine charge and yet you have repeatedly and miserably failed to demonstrate it.

      • Reason_For_Life

        Learn to read. That was the first part of the issue. The second part is in the next statement: "Or does he truly want to re-establish a government confined in its power by the Constitution?"

    • Ex-Mormon

      I myself was a mormon for 37 years and I would say that this IS an important consideration in choosing your president. The mormon church is a corporate masonic cult not that the members would admit because they are so brainwashed, they don't even see it…INCLUDING Romney. Most of them are wonderful people, but they're messed up from their weird belief system.

      AND they really do wear special underwear…I did. It has masonic markings on it. Youtube it.

      Your president would ALWAYS be subject to a greater power…and I don't mean God, I mean his church leaders and to his weird belief system. He made blood oaths in the mormon temple (not to be confused with a mormon church, they're different) to put all his efforts towards the "building up of the kingdom of Zion on this earth". He promised he would give all he had to do this. Mormons take these oaths very seriously…they are oaths to God. Don't believe me? It's all there, go look it up on Youtube. Just type in "Mormon Temple Ceremony". Just because you put lipstick on a pig, doesn't mean you wanna kiss it.

      • Reason_For_Life

        So long as he isn't delusional and believes that God has placed him in the presidency to establish His kingdom on earth I won't worry too much. It's characters like Bachmann who want to change the constitution to give their religious views the authority of law that bother me.

  • MHunt

    Thank you for this insightful and well-written article. It is sad to me that the media do not call out the anti-Mormon perspective of some Evangelicals, other Far Right Republicans, or some Democrats for what it is: religious bigotry.

  • Chino_Blanco

    Democrats are less likely to vote for Mormons because the assumption is that Mormons are nearly uniformly conservative Republicans. It's b/c of the assumed politics associated with the word "Mormon" … not b/c of religious bigotry.

    • R in Illinois

      Yeah, well Harry Reid is a Mormon too, a fact that often goes unnoticed. Mormons are not as politically monolithic as the standard stereotype would have people believe.

    • intrcptr2

      If the politics of Mormons are "assumed", then it is, by definition, bigotry.

  • tarleton

    This is another fantasy …a mormon will never be President …the liberals will NEVER tolerate it and many commited christians will never tolerate his ''manmade '' religion

    Don't assume that all religious intolerance comes from the Left ….commited xians will tolerate mormons and even ally themselves with them , but voting for one to be President is completely different ….. IT'S A FANTASY

  • John of Indonesia

    I am a Protestant myself, but I don't see why you Americans can't have a Mormon as president, after all you already put a Muslim there…

    • aamador1776

      Sorry John but Obama is piece of crap! He is neither Christian nor Muslim. He is a far Left ideologue , hypocritical, evil dude. People don't see it for some reason, but to me it was plain as day.

      • intrcptr2

        Might I caution you that a Christian from Indonesia could know a thing or two about Obama's Islamic upbringing?

        I will agree about his mendacious hypocrisy, though.

  • Amused

    Well after hearing Chino_Blanco's PAVLOVIAN RESPONSE , one can only be chagrined at the mentality …lol.which pervades these threads . SO , Of Course ! "It's a DEMOCRAT who would most likely oppose a Mormon Candidate ." lol….and those intolerant liberals …lol…can any of you actually be guilty of an original thought , that hasn't been implanted in your brains from out ??? Not very likely . You blame your own foibles on your opposition ! DUH ! ….it was Republicans[ sucking up to their christian fundy base ] who REJECTED ROMNEY last election…the only candidate who could have defeated Obama …and you'll do the same this time around , but worse , with some religious fanatic like Bachman or Perry [look up their past statements and behavior } Instead I hear some really dumb , mindless ,misinformed statements like John From Indonesia [ stay there John , lol…you're in your element .

    • intrcptr2

      Waste of my time, but, whatever.

      The article quite clearly referenced a recent Pew poll, which found that liberal dems reject Romney than white Protestants.

      Reading really is fun; you should try it sometime.

      • Amused

        As far as reading goes , it's WHAT you read that counts , and in your case its sheet in , sheet out . BTW , you can't waste my time , you're a case study of what';s wrong with the Republican Party . Curiosity turns to amusement with you guys , a veritable rogues gallery of political parrots , without a single original thought out of any .Most NORMAL perople could care less whether Romney's a Mormom or Budhist or Hindu ….but not the christian fundie base that the Republican party is pandering to . I guess you weren't paying attention last time around eh ?

  • aamador1776

    Politics is a messy business. I am a bit surprised that Herman Cain would use such tactics. It proves that he is fast becoming a politician.

  • Amused

    Oh well , if there's one thing I've learned from reading blogs like FPM , and the Democratic counterparts ……it is that there are many , many dumband ignorant peole in this country . One can only hope that this is confined to the sewer we call the internet . All the phony "authors " and "editorialists " who liken themselves to "journalists " and "authoritative voices " find a home on the net , where people like Breitbart and Raimundo ,accomplished LIARS are considered valid credible voices .Add to this the real professional liars in Washington , and brother , we are in deep sheeeet . But hey , this is a sign of the times .

    • Poppakap

      …as are your tired comments.

      • Amused

        yea , yea , yea Popp , but you know damn well its TRUE .

  • StephenD

    Does it really matter anymore what a candidates professed religious views are? It didn't appear to be in the last election. I don't think it will in this one. Besides, we all know they can profess anything and be comfortable in their skin acting contrary to those beliefs. They are, after all, politicians. You want to believe Perry is a "Far Right Christian." Yet, he was the Texas Chairperson for Al GORE when Gore ran! Can you wrap your head around that?!? How could any believer think Gore would have been good for the country? He also is promoting the inclusion of Islamic favorable language in text books in Texas Public Schools, encouraging children to celebrate Islam as a great religion. I don't know about you but he can CLAIM to be a Christian…but with politicians, I'd rather judge their actions.

    • Amused

      Romney did profess anything , last election . It was clear the Republican party KNEW a Mormon was unacceptable [as President } as far as their christian base was concerned . This election they will have the excuse , that Romney – had Romney-Care , but bottom line , it's because he's a Mormon .And if the front runners won't state it , they'll allow the second string to spread it around . Oh ..and BY ALL MEANS …DO JUDGE PERRY BY HIS ACTIONS ….he's done enough of them to date to convince any sane person , you dont want this guy as POTUS .

    • Jim_C

      His Mormonism matters to faux-"Christian" religious bigots just as Kennedy's Catholicism mattered to faux-"Christian" religious bigots.

      To decent, honorable people, Romney's religion matters not a whit. To people who are too ignorant to be worthy of the name "American," (and who in their dark hearts would probably prefer to secede) it matters quite a bit.

      But this is politics, and if it can be used against him, it will.

  • aharris

    I find it sad that with the election of Obama it has become patently obvious that it is apparenltly far easier in this country to elect someone who has no clear faith in God than it is to elect someone who admits to having a strong faith in God.

    • Ron Goodman

      If true, to me that's very reassuring. I don't want politicians bringing their religious baggage into public life, be it Christian, Islam, or Pastafarianism..

  • S. Petersen

    Although we all have an equal right to believe in it, Mormonism is a preposterous confection of millenialism and sci-fi. It is impossible for a reasonable person to believe its tenets. Therefore, a Mormon is either unreasonable (for accepting its tenets) or a hypocrite (for professing what he does not believe). In either instance, he is unqualified for public office.

    • Charles Teachout

      I appreciate Petersen's explanation of the irrationality of the Mormon position. This is why it is a cult as opposed to a true church. Its adherents simply refuse to debate the preposterous "revelations" of their founder and his descendants with "outsiders". There is definitely a fundamental aspect of gnosticism, or secret society about this cult. It is sad, because many of these people are otherwise personal friends of mine and very upright and patriotic citizens.

      • Poppakap

        You appreciate his comments because you are as bigoted as he is.

        You offer subjective commentary that cannot be proven objectively (i.e., Its adherents simply refuse to debate the preposterous "revelations" of their founder and his descendants with "outsiders".) as truth and build on that proposition as though it was undeniable. That is a very slippery slope logically, rationally, and spiritually. All you have said is, "I don't believe Mormonism so I hold it irrational." Once again, atheists can say the same thing about any person of faith. The weight of your argument is as light as your commitment to Christ's command to "love your neighbor as yourself."

    • Poppakap

      Pure bigotry, uncut and unrefined. Atheists can use the same fallacious reasoning to condemn all people of faith. Hatred rarely expresses itself so clearly.

      FWIW, I don't support Romney. I lean towards Michelle Bachman and wish Bobby Jindal would get in the race.

  • Stephen_Brady

    I am not a Romney supporter … my choice is Bachmann. But his religion is not a factor, to me. I am not a Mormon, nor will i ever become one (though I once considered it, just to get into the Tabernacle Choir!). There are significant differences between Mromonism and traditional Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant beliefs. But these differences should not be the basis of an INFORMED vote.

    I would not vote for an atheist, or the adherent of an Eastern religion. That said, if Romney gets the nomination … and I hope he does not, because I don't trust his "conversion" to conservatism … I will have no choice but to vote for him. Obama must go …

  • Mark G

    To ask evangelicals about Mormons is like asking Nazis about Jews. You are not likely to get much truth. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ( the Mormons ) simply claims to be first century Christianity restored. Evangelicals teach that all those who don't believe in their version of faith, will literally burn in hell forever. I wonder if Jews and Catholics will join the Mormons in the flames. That this group of hateful bigots has so much influence among republicans is sad indeed.

    • intrcptr2

      Thanks, Mark, I do so like being considered a racist rube who can't read or think for himself. Do take note, Mormons and Catholics believe in hell, too.

      Care to try this one on for size? Joe Smith claimed that it was Jesus himself who appreared, with The Father (Odd, considering that not even Moses saw God. Oh, yeah, and that The Father doesn't have a body!), confirming his thoughts that ALL Christianity had gone to hell.

      That being their story, could you perhaps explain how it is that Lehi, not a priest, sacrificed in the Arabian desert when the Temple still stood, in clear contradiction of God's command?

      Or maybe a Mormon argument will suffice?

      • Poppakap

        Wow, another so-called Mormon expert going off on tangential (never mind incorrect) doctrinal thoughts while not sticking to the point of the article. The same kind of nit-picking about doctrine can be done to Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, and even groups of evangelicals. When I read this kind of dribble it truly makes me sad because it proves two things; first, the point of the article, and second, that too many on the right can not bring themselves to speak of another religion they do not embrace with the slightest degree of respect or civility. That is, according to my study of God's Word, counter to the light of the everlasting gospel and the example of the Savior.

        • intrcptr2

          Whether or not a non-priest was allowed to make a sacrifice in the desert while the Temple stood is not nitpicking (Perhaps you remember Aaron's two sons who God slew for offering "false fire" before him?).

          I am neither right nor left, thank you very much. The point of the article is off the mark; Americans have every right to elect who we choose, and religion ought to and does enter into that. If people decide that his Mormonism is irrelevant, so be it. But stating uncategorically that it is beforehand is positively daffy; religion makes a man what he is, how does that not matter?

          And if you would care to show me my hatred or lack of civility, please do; otherwise, drop the hypocrisy (And the word you're looking for is "drivel").

          I would like to ask further, how is my point doctrinally incorrect? According even to the article I linked (Which I just found yesterday by Googling), NO books mention what authority Lehi had for his sacrifices, the injunction in Deuteronomy stands, against him as a heretic rather than a prophet like isaiah or Moses. Christians and Jews ought to reject Joseph Smith's religion. Whether they reject Romney is their choice.

      • Dandini

        intrcptr2, you must not read your Bible very much.

        There are numerous accounts in the OT and NT of the Bible regarding those who "saw" God, It uses that very specific word, however you may prefer to 'interpret' as many do, rather than read it and understand it literally.

        Moses spoke with him face to face, even as a man speaks to a friend. How plain and simple.

        Stephen saw Christ in heaven, standing on the right hand of God. Sounds to me like he saw them both.

        And there are many more that say much the same. Unless you prefer interpretive, rather than literal meaning.

        • intrcptr2

          No, Dandini, I read it quite a good bit; that's why I noticed Lehi's error in my Book of Mormon, on page 8.

          It is not so much an interpretive reading. Jesus is God, and the Bible is pretty clear that The Father is spirit. It is also clear that no man has seen God but The Son. Accepting those revelations together demands one of two things; either the writers were inventing things as they went along, and too slow to catch themselves in such obvious contradictions, or; all those people saw Jesus, whom the OT writers named God as did the NT writers.
          This second line of argument is also literal; it does no damage to the words or the spirit of the texts, and fits the plain meaning of the text. I would argue that Joe Smith's inability to reconcile such things helped lead him to conjure up the Mormon distinctions between Elohim and Jehovah.

          The trick for the Mormon is that the Book Mormon clearly states that God the Father has a physical body just like Jesus, and that Mormon saw both Jesus and God the Father here on Earth. Or in their own words;

          As I mentioned to my other friend, Christians are right to see Mormons as members of a false religion, just like Muslims, or Hindus, or pagans. But it is up to each of us to decide for ourselves whom to vote for, and whether religion enters into that or not; rejecting such considerations out of hand, as Alan suggests (Rather, demands), is poor democracy and a partial repudiation of the 1st Amendment.

        • intrcptr2


          I am also not denyinng that Scripture can be read metaphorically. I would argue that prophecy ought to be read more literally than allegorically. I would also argue that the Christian church still gets itself into trouble by avoiding plain, literal readings too much.

          But do remember that the Bible does speak of man knowing God, as well as men knowing their wives; do they both speak of sex, or neither? Or rather, does it depend?

      • Jim_C

        Yeah, Mormonism is kooky. Most religions are kooky when it comes right down to it.

        Point being, it doesn't make Romney any less qualified than a more orthodox/mainstream Christian peer.

        • intrcptr2

          I agree about most religions, but then that's only because I don't consider Christ the center of a "religion".

          My point about Alan's post, properly stated, is that a religious test once was a ballot restriction, which Americans have long rightly recognized as illegitimate. But arguing that voters ought to leave a candidate's religion out of their decision to vote for or against him, is both poor logic and worse democracy.
          Put the question into the market place, and let people decide, rather than barring the questions.

          While it is not a universal, I think a good many people would refuse to vote for a muslim candidate who openly supported the elevation of sharia in American courts. I also think a good many would oppose one who demanded a National Socialist position concerning Catholics and gays.
          The entire point of religion is to make people better. The entire point of the 1st Amendment is too allow us each to do that, along with discovering what any of us thinks.

  • 1mrsdash

    @ Mark G:

    You really won't get much truth, but you can find it for yourself in any one of a number of books on the history of Mormonism.


    Joseph Smith, Jr. was of the experience/belief that all Christian denominations of his day were corrupt. He was led to start a new church — can't fault him for that!

    Corruption is a very good reason to start over. Governments are no exception.

    • Poppakap

      You said, "You really won't get much truth, but you can find it for yourself in any one of a number of books on the history of Mormonism."

      If one won't get much truth, why bother with the link? I don't mean to be overly critical, but your comment is rather confusing. What is your point?

      • 1mrsdash


        Mark G said, "To ask evangelicals about Mormons is like asking Nazis about Jews. You are not likely to get much truth."

        I concurred — i.e., you will get nothing but biased, misanthropic misinformation about Mormons from members of other sects of Christianity. Protestants (evangelicals) do not even consider Mormons to be Christians. This is malarkey as Mormons are followers of Christ, but do not adhere to the Trinity doctrine (which was contrived at the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E.). You will have to do your own research as I did, and the book I referenced is an excellent start. Did I make my point clearly enough?

  • Charles Teachout

    I wish that MHunt would consider that there are thoughtful Christians who disapprove of Mormon doctrine, and question whether a member of the Mormon Church would be qualified for the Office of the Presidency. Whenever I hear the term "Far Right", it usually indicates some kind pejoritive manner of personal attack on one's opponents and their opinions . Having doubts about Governor Romney's Mormonism is based on a thorough knowledge of Catholic doctrine, if not that of Protestant denominations, and a careful evaluation of how the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints fundamentally contradicts these principles. As much as I personally admire Governor Romney, and appreciate his forthright approach to these issues and all other issues associated with his candidacy, this aspect of Mormon doctrine presents a real problem to many thoughtful Christians like me that cannot be ignored.

  • Denise

    Can you say Jeremiah Wright?

    I'll take a Mormon any day!!!!!!!

  • jack

    Obama: Illegal immigrant
    Perry: Bilderberger and maimer of children
    Bachmann: IRS Enforcer
    Romney: mormon — jack or real
    Paul: Unwavering Constitutionalist

    Take your pick.

  • Dandini

    Romney turned around a struggling 2002 Winter Olympics with millions in debt and made it into one of the most profitable Olympics in history. And only took a $1 dollar salary. Who else would have done that!?

    He is against federalization and big government and believes in state’s rights to govern their own affairs.

    He believes in marriage between a man and woman, the importance of family, and lives the example.

    He is for a strong military and believes the borders should be better protected.

    The list of real positives is far greater than the supposed list of negatives.

    And the Democrat Party is most afraid of Romney.

  • Dandini

    MA’s super majority Democrat controlled legislature wanted desperately some kind of Universal Health care program. Romney worked with them to create one that would work, similar to mandated auto insurance (most states have such mandates). It is estimated that 98% of the residents are now covered. It was within projected budget (about 1% of the State budget) until Romney left and MA made changes to the program and now it is costing them. Romney believes that states — not the federal government — should be free to design their own plans for covering the uninsured if that is what they want to do.

    Yes, he compromised on some political issues, again dealing with a super majority Democrat Legislature and Judicial Branch in MA, in order to keep the state government working together and moving forward.

    • Jim_C

      Hmm, I wouldn't say we're "afraid" of Romney–he's a pretty dull dude with a Ken doll demeanor and a lot of flipflops to pick and choose from…but it's true he'd be the candidate who would give the President the most challenge.

      • Reason_For_Life

        On the contrary the Democrats desperately want Romney to be the candidate. Obama will utterly humiliate him in the debates because RomneyCare is virtually identical to ObamaCare.

        The last time that the Democrats were so enthusiastic about a Republican challenger was 1936 when the Republicans ran Alf Landon against FDR. Landon was a big government Republican who couldn't muster a single argument against the New Deal (which was wrecking the country just as Obama's policies are doing today) because he had supported the virtually identical policies of Hoover.

        "Alf" Romney will be crushed in the election.

  • Dandini

    Funny. Half of MA loves what Romney did, the other half hate him, maybe because he left after completing only one term. Maybe he is not a “career” politician, do you always need a “career” politician to get the job done?

    Yes, he worked as the MA governor for his entire term for FREE!!! Who else would have done that!?

    Yes, during his 4 years as governor MA ranked 49th in job creation for half of his term before moving up to 47th in his final year. Not a stellar record to some. Yet Romney also reduced corporate loopholes and cut state spending in order to cut taxes and increase consumer spending. MA had a huge deficit, about 3 Billion dollars when he started, and he left MA with a 600 million surplus and balanced budget at the end of his term (yes, he raised state “fees”, but still kept them below the national average). He can't help it if the government screwed up after he left.

  • Dandini

    Despite the political and even religious diatribe, most of which is innuendo and false accusations from the undereducated…

    It’s still going to be about the economy and who can get the job done!

    Romney knows and understands world economics. In the private sector, for most of his life, he successfully and profitably managed large companies, helped turn around large companies that were sinking and helped other companies get started, saving and creating thousands of jobs, Domino’s Pizza and Staples to name just a few of many.

  • Sashabill

    I am not surprised by the number of liberal Democrats who will not vote for a Mormon. They are demonstrating their hypocritical, selective attitude regarding minorities. The Mormons, for some 180 years, have generally been a successful minority. While they have been victimized in the past, they aren't in the habit of playing the "victim card," and thus no not elicit guilt feelings from liberals. The Mormons have a favorable overall attitude toward the United States, and do not share the elitist angst that many liberals feel toward this country. Also, the Mormons have moral standards and are not afraid to say so,as was demonstrated during the Prop 8 campaign. These, I would suggest, are some reasons why the Mormons are one minority that does not get fawned over by liberals.

  • Gene W.

    It has been proven on one page that God authored the Bible in Yet I estimate significantly fewer than 10% of this country believe this scriptures enough to have established a personnal relationship with Jesus as the only pathway to eternal life in Heaven.
    No other scripture can claim such authorship and any religion that is founded on anything, book, tenet or beliefe contrary to the Bible is a cult.

  • Saul Kane

    The evangelical "Christian" movement gets their doctrine from the Acme marketing group: wherever the wind blows and whatever the masses want to hear. What a confused bunch of kooks. Ever been to one of their camp meetings? They're all waving their hands in the air mumbling holy-holy-holy and praying for the mothership to come down. Creepy. I got outa there before they started lining up for the grape Koolaid in the little paper cups…