More Republican Hypocrisy

[Sandy]

There's lots of criticism of Obama's position on gay marriage on religious grounds, which I find interesting in light of Romney's Mormonism, which denies virtually every foundational point of the Christian faith. I have to wonder whether Pastor Worley realizes that Romney believes Jesus and Satan are biological brothers, and that Jesus doesn't have a divine nature or the power to save from sin.

[Dave Roberts]

There is such a desire to beat Obama, the RR doesn't even ask who. Even Richard Land doesn't find Mormonism a problem. He obviously hasn't spent any time in the Intermountain West.

[Ed Pettibone]

There is such a desire to beat Obama, the RR doesn't even ask who. Even Richard Land doesn't find Mormonism a problem. He obviously hasn't spent any time in the Intermountain West.

Ed: And Dave what sort of problem does a Mormon President pose?

[Dave Roberts]

There is such a desire to beat Obama, the RR doesn't even ask who. Even Richard Land doesn't find Mormonism a problem. He obviously hasn't spent any time in the Intermountain West.

Ed: And Dave what sort of problem does a Mormon President pose?

After so much has been created by the RR about that they cannot believe Obama is a Christian even though he professes to be, it seems extremely hypocritical not to apply the same standard to Romney whose faith is obviously much farther outside the mainstream of Christianity than is the UCC.

[Ed Pettibone]

There is such a desire to beat Obama, the RR doesn't even ask who. Even Richard Land doesn't find Mormonism a problem. He obviously hasn't spent any time in the Intermountain West.

Ed: And Dave what sort of problem does a Mormon President pose?

After so much has been created by the RR about that they cannot believe Obama is a Christian even though he professes to be, it seems extremely hypocritical not to apply the same standard to Romney whose faith is obviously much farther outside the mainstream of Christianity than is the UCC.

Ed: Dave, you didn't answer my question. And btw, I do not see the RR questioning Obama's relationship to the UCC. It seems to me that what they question is his his personal belief and practice. I am not much enthused with either candidates choice of religious affiliation. Nor am I enthused with religious right extremist. But I am also less than enthused with Religious Left extremist and those who to me seem to use religious phrases to sound good.

[Dave Roberts]

Ed: And Dave what sort of problem does a Mormon President pose?

After so much has been created by the RR about that they cannot believe Obama is a Christian even though he professes to be, it seems extremely hypocritical not to apply the same standard to Romney whose faith is obviously much farther outside the mainstream of Christianity than is the UCC.[/quote]

Ed: Dave, you didn't answer my question. And btw, I do not see the RR questioning Obama's relationship to the UCC. It seems to me that what they question is his his personal belief and practice. I am not much enthused with either candidates choice of religious affiliation. Nor am I enthused with religious right extremist. But I am also less than enthused with Religious Left extremist and those who to me seem to use religious phrases to sound good.

I never said that a Mormon President poses any religious issues at all. However, when he gets a free pass on what he believes and Obama was blamed for the sermons of his former pastor, I find the double standard is glaring.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed: Dave, you didn't answer my question. And btw, I do not see the RR questioning Obama's relationship to the UCC. It seems to me that what they question is his his personal belief and practice.

It amounts to the same thing Ed. As far as I can tell his beliefs and practices fit right in line with what my UCC friends believe. The Religious wRong basically teaches that anyone who isn't a right wing Christian is suspect and may not be a Christian at all.

[Sandy]

Ed: And Dave what sort of problem does a Mormon President pose?


Ed: Dave, you didn't answer my question. And btw, I do not see the RR questioning Obama's relationship to the UCC. It seems to me that what they question is his his personal belief and practice. I am not much enthused with either candidates choice of religious affiliation. Nor am I enthused with religious right extremist. But I am also less than enthused with Religious Left extremist and those who to me seem to use religious phrases to sound good.

The point here, Ed, isn't what kind of a problem Romney's Mormonism poses to the presidency. Though I could provide you with several pages of text on exactly why a Mormon shouldn't serve in the nation's highest office, the point is not Mormon theological quirks, but the hypocrisy of the religious right in condemning Obama because he believes in gay marriage, while ignoring the fact that Romney denies virtually every fundamental doctine of the faith that they consider essential to orthodoxy. If Obama is bad, from the perspective of an Evangelical, Romney should be fifteen times worse. And aside from the fact that a Romney presidency is counter to the remotest sense of Christian perspective when it comes to economics, and that he will turn the middle class into beggars, and transfer the wealth to those who already have it, there is the fact that Mormons will use his election, if it happens, to claim legitimacy and continue to deceive people right into hell, while the religious right holds their coat tails and cheers them on.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: And Dave what sort of problem does a Mormon President pose?


Ed: Dave, you didn't answer my question. And btw, I do not see the RR questioning Obama's relationship to the UCC. It seems to me that what they question is his his personal belief and practice. I am not much enthused with either candidates choice of religious affiliation. Nor am I enthused with religious right extremist. But I am also less than enthused with Religious Left extremist and those who to me seem to use religious phrases to sound good.

The point here, Ed, isn't what kind of a problem Romney's Mormonism poses to the presidency. Though I could provide you with several pages of text on exactly why a Mormon shouldn't serve in the nation's highest office, the point is not Mormon theological quirks, but the hypocrisy of the religious right in condemning Obama because he believes in gay marriage, while ignoring the fact that Romney denies virtually every fundamental doctine of the faith that they consider essential to orthodoxy. If Obama is bad, from the perspective of an Evangelical, Romney should be fifteen times worse. And aside from the fact that a Romney presidency is counter to the remotest sense of Christian perspective when it comes to economics, and that he will turn the middle class into beggars, and transfer the wealth to those who already have it, there is the fact that Mormons will use his election, if it happens, to claim legitimacy and continue to deceive people right into hell, while the religious right holds their coat tails and cheers them on.

Ed: Sandy I can honestly say I haven't heard much of what the RR has said about Obama But I see no Hypocrisy in their condemning his stance on same sex marriage since they condemned it long before he committed to it. And I am not sure how they or you could/can make Romney's religion a major point in their opposition to his election and claim to believe in freedom of religion and/or separation of church and state. And would you agree that in reality the religious right and the republican party are two houses, each divided? Note I did not say equally divided.

[Matto]

Ed: Dave, you didn't answer my question. And btw, I do not see the RR questioning Obama's relationship to the UCC. It seems to me that what they question is his his personal belief and practice.

It amounts to the same thing Ed. As far as I can tell his beliefs and practices fit right in line with what my UCC friends believe. The Religious wRong basically teaches that anyone who isn't a right wing Christian is suspect and may not be a Christian at all.

Timothy, you seem to think that there is a Christian Left and Christian Right, there isn't.

There's Christian and there's not.

Christians consistently for 2000 years have taught homosexuality and abortion are sinful.

Those who justify homosexuality and abortion have departed the 2000 year old Christian belief, and are on a frolic of their own. They give themselves the title of Christian, but Christianity is not just a title, it's a practice, and in practice they have departed Christianity.
" These people honor me with their lips, yet their hearts are far from Me"

I wouldn't want to come before the Throne of Christ justifying sinful homosexual depravity, or the murder of innocent babies. It was not God that taught them these evil things, if they are determined to justify it, then I say good luck with that.

[Haruo]

Ed: Dave, you didn't answer my question. And btw, I do not see the RR questioning Obama's relationship to the UCC. It seems to me that what they question is his his personal belief and practice.

It amounts to the same thing Ed. As far as I can tell his beliefs and practices fit right in line with what my UCC friends believe. The Religious wRong basically teaches that anyone who isn't a right wing Christian is suspect and may not be a Christian at all.

Timothy, you seem to think that there is a Christian Left and Christian Right, there isn't.

There's Christian and there's not.

Christians consistently for 2000 years have taught homosexuality and abortion are sinful.

Those who justify homosexuality and abortion have departed the 2000 year old Christian belief, and are on a frolic of their own. They give themselves the title of Christian, but Christianity is not just a title, it's a practice, and in practice they have departed Christianity.
" These people honor me with their lips, yet their hearts are far from Me"

I wouldn't want to come before the Throne of Christ justifying sinful homosexual depravity, or the murder of innocent babies. It was not God that taught them these evil things, if they are determined to justify it, then I say good luck with that.

I think if you look deeply into the writings of Thomas Aquinas (a canonized Saint and a Doctor of the Church) on the subject of "murder of innocent babies", he held that early abortion was not murder; that the soul did not enter the fetus until quickening, which he believed to be after the first trimester. Not saying I agree with him, but I think your position is a gross oversimplification of the complexity both of the issues and of the history of Christian thought and teaching. Or maybe you just think Aquinas had "departed Christianity". Luckily he got back in time for his canonization!

[Matto]

Timothy, you seem to think that there is a Christian Left and Christian Right, there isn't.

There's Christian and there's not.

Christians consistently for 2000 years have taught homosexuality and abortion are sinful.

Those who justify homosexuality and abortion have departed the 2000 year old Christian belief, and are on a frolic of their own. They give themselves the title of Christian, but Christianity is not just a title, it's a practice, and in practice they have departed Christianity.
" These people honor me with their lips, yet their hearts are far from Me"

I wouldn't want to come before the Throne of Christ justifying sinful homosexual depravity, or the murder of innocent babies. It was not God that taught them these evil things, if they are determined to justify it, then I say good luck with that.

I think if you look deeply into the writings of Thomas Aquinas (a canonized Saint and a Doctor of the Church) on the subject of "murder of innocent babies", he held that early abortion was not murder; that the soul did not enter the fetus until quickening, which he believed to be after the first trimester. Not saying I agree with him, but I think your position is a gross oversimplification of the complexity both of the issues and of the history of Christian thought and teaching. Or maybe you just think Aquinas had "departed Christianity". Luckily he got back in time for his canonization!

Regardless of when he thought ensoulment happened, Aquinas regarded abortion at anytime a as sinful act and against the natural law.
Aquinas got his 40 to 80 day idea from Aristotle, however at no stage was abortion justified by Aquinas. The Church has always held that abortion at any stage is sinful.

As brilliant as he was he overlooked the scripture.
Aquinas overlooked the fact that the biblical view of the soul cannot be squared with Aristotle's. In Psalm 51:5 David says he was a sinner from conception, but sinfulness is a spiritual quality, so David must have had a spirit, a soul, from conception. Even so Aquinas regarded abortion before ensoulment to be sinful.

Christianity has always held abortion to be sinful.

[KeithE]

Historical Christian Views on Abortion (mostly Catholic)

Reading the above, it does seem that for the most part Christians have believed and taught that abortion is wrong in the Catholic Church. Some even equated abortion with murder, e.g,

Tertullian (circa 155 - 225 CE):
"...we are not permitted, since murder has been prohibited to us once and for all, even to destroy ...the fetus in the womb. It makes no difference whether one destroys a life that has already been born or one that is in the process of birth."

Today in the Catholic Church, anyone found to have committed an abortion is to be excommunicated.

Leo XIII (1878-1903):
He issued a decree in 1884 that prohibited craniotomies. This is an unusual form of abortion used late in pregnancy and is occasionally needed to save the life of the pregnant woman.
He issued a second degree in 1886 that prohibited all procedures that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman's life. The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for previous centuries ended. The church required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy. This position has continued to the present time.

But there are notable exceptions especially in the period AD 350-1600 that allowed early term abortion:

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, by returning to the Aristotelian Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote 7 that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church's canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

So Matto, you are technically incorrect to say:

Christianity has always held abortion to be sinful.

and you continue to usurp God’s prerogative as Judge by positing the Matto test as to who is genuinely “Christian”

Those who justify homosexuality and abortion have departed the 2000 year old Christian belief, and are on a frolic of their own. They give themselves the title of Christian, but Christianity is not just a title, it's a practice, and in practice they have departed Christianity.

There is a lot of technically incorrect posts here at BL, but your usurping God’s role is more than just technically incorrect.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: And KeithE when you say to Matto "and you continue to usurp God’s prerogative as Judge by positing the Matto test as to who is genuinely “Christian” is it possible that you are usurping God's prerogative as judge by positing your own test as to who is usurping God's Prerogative? Why not deal with Mattos contention rather than passing your judgement upon him? By the way wile I think,from what I have seen that, I agree with Matto on Homosexuality, I believe he is overly adamant on abortion. But it seems he is constant with the teachings of his church and why should we attempt to dissuade him, since there is no official Baptist position on abortion or homosexuality.

[Haruo]

Christians consistently for 2000 years have taught homosexuality and abortion are sinful. ...

I wouldn't want to come before the Throne of Christ justifying sinful homosexual depravity, or the murder of innocent babies...

I think if you look deeply into the writings of Thomas Aquinas (a canonized Saint and a Doctor of the Church) on the subject of "murder of innocent babies", he held that early abortion was not murder; that the soul did not enter the fetus until quickening, which he believed to be after the first trimester.

Regardless of when he thought ensoulment happened, Aquinas regarded abortion at anytime a as sinful act and against the natural law.
Aquinas got his 40 to 80 day idea from Aristotle, however at no stage was abortion justified by Aquinas. The Church has always held that abortion at any stage is sinful.

But in Christianity (and especially in Catholicism) there's sin and then there's sin. Murder is mortal sin. Killing an unquickened (= unensouled) fetus is not mortal sin. Or at least wasn't for Augustine or Aquinas, nor for most other canon lawyers until the 1800s. (I was wrong in my reference to trimesters; an anachronism, and one that could lead to murder. If as you say Aquinas actually held to a 40- to 80-day rule, then that's what he held to. But the principle of the thing, namely that Aquinas held that there was a period in the first part of a pregnancy during which embryonicide was not murder, holds.

[KeithE]

Ed: And KeithE when you say to Matto "and you continue to usurp God’s prerogative as Judge by positing the Matto test as to who is genuinely “Christian” is it possible that you are usurping God's prerogative as judge by positing your own test as to who is usurping God's Prerogative? Why not deal with Mattos contention rather than passing your judgement upon him? By the way wile I think,from what I have seen that, I agree with Matto on Homosexuality, I believe he is overly adamant on abortion. But it seems he is constant with the teachings of his church and why should we attempt to dissuade him, since there is no official Baptist position on abortion or homosexuality.

And Ed I didn’t go to the extreme of declaring Matto unChristian. I leave those declarations to God (and I think we all may be surprised). I just said his tactic of calling those who disagree with his various views as being outside the faith is “more than technically incorrect”.

I’m not trying to dissuade him of his positions at all - in fact I agree that both homosexuality and abortion are wrong/sin [possible rare exception for a very bonafide threat to the life of the mother w/o possibility of viable fetus extraction] . Just do not like his overstatements (sometimes “technically incorrect”) and Judgmental tone. In my own way (as Moderator of this forum) I’m asking him to tone it down.

[Sandy]

Sandy I can honestly say I haven't heard much of what the RR has said about Obama But I see no Hypocrisy in their condemning his stance on same sex marriage since they condemned it long before he committed to it. And I am not sure how they or you could/can make Romney's religion a major point in their opposition to his election and claim to believe in freedom of religion and/or separation of church and state. And would you agree that in reality the religious right and the republican party are two houses, each divided? Note I did not say equally divided.

Obama's position on gay marriage is what the RR is saying about Obama. To them, that's an issue which demonstrates, at the very least in their view, he's not a Christian in the traditional sense of the word. So I look at it this way. What characterizes a Christian in the view of the religious right? It is belief in Jesus as the Christ, and in his ability to sanctify a sinner, and justify him in God's judgement. If Mitt Romney follows the Mormon doctrine of salvation from sin that his church teaches, he does not believe in the divine nature of Jesus, nor does he believe Jesus has the ability to sanctify him from sin, and justify him before God. Sanctification only comes by his own works, and justification comes through his testimony in the truthfulness of the Prophet Joseph Smith. So if Obama got it wrong on gay marriage, and you can't vote for him because of his view on that, obviously you can't vote for Romney based on his view of salvation, either.

[Matto]

in fact I agree that both homosexuality and abortion are wrong/sin

Good, then you will agree that no Christian can approve of or justify sin.

Sin is an act that violates Gods will, no Christian can approve of or condone sin.

[Gene Scarborough]

Gentlemen---

This discussion is a far cry from the real problem of Republican Hypocrisy!

The problem is with total lies coming to me almost daily from Republican supporter friends which clearly violates the Commandmandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Here is the latest from a friend who is old and a retired USAF Colonel bent on sending whatever is sent to him. It lacks any real verification. It is stuff floating around ever since the President took his oath of office. Over and over much of it has been proven false and unvalidated, yet it continues to float across the Internet as rumor and, I think, slander and liable:

Quit Trashing Obama's Accomplishments

An impressive list of accomplishments:

First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States

First President to violate the War Powers Act. .

First President to be held in contempt of court

for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

First President to defy a Federal Judge's court order

to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.

First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

First President to spend a trillion dollars on 'shovel-ready' jobs when there was no such thing as 'shovel-ready' jobs.

First President to abrogate bankruptcy law

to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

First President to order a secret amnesty program

that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

First President to terminate America 's ability to put a man in space.

First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

First President to arbitrarily declare

an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

First President to threaten insurance companies

if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.

First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

First President to file lawsuits against the states

he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

First President to withdraw an existing coal permit

that had been properly issued years ago.

First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

First President to appoint 45 czars

to replace elected officials in his office.

First President to golf 73 separate times

in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.

First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.

First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

First President to go on multiple global 'apology tours'.

First President to go on 17 lavish vacations,

including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.

First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer

for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

First President to repeat the Holy Quran

tells us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

First President to take a 17 day vacation.

The basic definition of "SIN" is "separation." Such stuff is clearly meant only to divide an already divided electorate! How can anyone govern when the opposing branch of government to the Executive and Judicial has taken an oath to defeat anything proposed by the Executive Branch? They have the votes in the House and we are suffering a bad economy because there are few Statesmen in Congress right now---only division and hate. I won't even cite the Tea Party sinfulness---even against fellow Republicans.

[KeithE]

in fact I agree that both homosexuality and abortion are wrong/sin

Good, then you will agree that no Christian can approve of or justify sin.

Sin is an act that violates Gods will, no Christian can approve of or condone sin.

Christians can have alternative views. We are not now or ever will we be totally myopic in defining ethical rules. And we should not be so uncharitable as to call them unChristian when they express those views that might differ from our own.

I also have trouble with those that single out certain sins and with special vehemence denounce that and a handful of hot button sins. And to extend that vehemence and denouncement into the political realm (as you have in the The Great Polarisation (six) topic), shows that your hot button issues are chosen more along what the RW is popularly promoting than what Jesus has taught and emphasized.

There is also a distinction between Christian ethics and the laws of a country which allows freedom of religion.

[Dave Roberts]

In the constant attack on Obama by some in the RR that has nothing to do with his abortion stand, according to the Public Partnership Research Institute in a survey in partnership with Religion News Service, "A slim majority of voters--51 percent--knows the presumed Republican presidential nominee is Mormon" It was also reported that "President Barack Obama is incorrectly thought to be Muslim by 16piercent of American voters, and only one quarter of voters can correctly identify him as a Protestant." Also reported was this: "While Americans across the board got the President's religion wrong, the religious group that most often thinks Obama is Muslim is white evangelical Protestants (24 percent). Americans unaffiliated with a religious group make the error least often: just 7 percent identify Obama as Muslim" (Report from the Capital, Baptist Joint Committee, June 2012, p. .

I receive the garbage about Obama being Muslim from Christian friends, all of whom are RR folks, almost daily. They persist in perpetuating a falsehood in the name of Jesus. When will be stop accepting their ways?

[Gene Scarborough]

Here is what I am doing:

When I get an email, I respond with copies to several friends who enjoy detailed research. One is the Secretary for our local Democratic Party, another is a serious researcher with several degrees, another is a serious retired Baptist minister.

Every time the rascal sends stuff, it gets a review and, thus far, total anihalation when reviewed over factual accuracy. He has not gotten the message, nor do I expect him to change his political position.

The more we expose the lies and distrotion far and wide, the more people have to consider just how accurate it is.

This will be the most vicious campaign ever fought. The outcome dictates whether we go back to the party and policies which gave us this Recession. Democrats must deal with welfare and Republicans with warfare. Some who have the guts to once more be Statesman have to start working together for the common good---or we are all going to be riding trains looking for work or standing in soup kitchen lines!

[Matto]

Christians can have alternative views.

Yes, but not regarding sin and justifying it. What has been taught as sinful for 2000 years of Christianity does not change.

And we should not be so uncharitable as to call them unChristian when they express those views that might differ from our own.

No, it is charity to warn people when they depart the Christian teaching, for the politically correct secular view of the world. Christ would not approve the killing of the little ones. No Christian has for 2000 years, it is murder.

A Christian has nothing to do with murder, it is completely antithetical to Christianity. A Christian that accepts and justifies murder, has stepped off the Rock. They have left Christianity, and become something other.

There are positions that are antithetical to Christianity, a position that justifies murder, and not just murder but the murder of innocent babies, has more akin with satanism than it does with Christianity.

There are no other issues that are important enough to vote on at the moment.

The only issue is abortion, everything else is secondary.
Whilst the greatest holocaust in human history is occurring and millions of babies are being thrown into the ovens, there is no economic recovery, there never will be.
A Nation that does this to it's infants has no future, no blessing, and no hope.

There is a reptilian mind behind the murder of babies, and no Christian shares that mind.

[Matto]

Here is what I am doing:

When I get an email, I respond with copies to several friends who enjoy detailed research. One is the Secretary for our local Democratic Party, another is a serious researcher with several degrees, another is a serious retired Baptist minister.

Every time the rascal sends stuff, it gets a review and, thus far, total anihalation when reviewed over factual accuracy. He has not gotten the message, nor do I expect him to change his political position.

The more we expose the lies and distrotion far and wide, the more people have to consider just how accurate it is.

This will be the most vicious campaign ever fought. The outcome dictates whether we go back to the party and policies which gave us this Recession. Democrats must deal with welfare and Republicans with warfare. Some who have the guts to once more be Statesman have to start working together for the common good---or we are all going to be riding trains looking for work or standing in soup kitchen lines!

A vote against abortion is a vote for economic recovery. A whole generation of more than 60 million Americans and 2 million Australians have been destroyed. When you genocide whole generations of your people, it's going to destroy your nation economically.
Economies are people driven, there is no economic growth without population growth. There will be no entrepreneurs or tax payers enough to support the aging and ailing population, if they have been thrown into the ovens.

God has already sent the solution to Americas problems, but it was murdered in the womb and thrown into the fire.

The vote isn't about republican or democrat, it is about Life or Death. That is the only vote.

[Ed Pettibone]

In the constant attack on Obama by some in the RR that has nothing to do with his abortion stand, according to the Public Partnership Research Institute in a survey in partnership with Religion News Service, "A slim majority of voters--51 percent--knows the presumed Republican presidential nominee is Mormon" It was also reported that "President Barack Obama is incorrectly thought to be Muslim by 16piercent of American voters, and only one quarter of voters can correctly identify him as a Protestant." Also reported was this: "While Americans across the board got the President's religion wrong, the religious group that most often thinks Obama is Muslim is white evangelical Protestants (24 percent). Americans unaffiliated with a religious group make the error least often: just 7 percent identify Obama as Muslim" (Report from the Capital, Baptist Joint Committee, June 2012, p. .

I receive the garbage about Obama being Muslim from Christian friends, all of whom are RR folks, almost daily. They persist in perpetuating a falsehood in the name of Jesus. When will be stop accepting their ways?

Ed; So Dave, since Obama is incorrectly thought to be Muslim by 16 percent of American voters and 24 per cent of white evangelical Protestants, and also 7% of folk unaffiliated with a religious group make the error maybe we need to have that translated into whole numbers rather than percentages. And a definition of Evangelical Protestants as used in this study. BTW Dave, I haven't encountered any one making the "Obama is a Muslim" claim in months. I would like to think that is due to the ABC-USA influence in this area, but I doubt we can justify such a claim. And unfortunately the May copy seems to be the last edition of the Report from the Capital that I have. Trudy may still have the June issue in her office. I really have a hard time believing that 24% of the White Evangelical Protestants believe Obama is a Muslim. When was the survey conducted and when was it first published?

I ask because I did find online a survey with similar results by an organization with a similar name but it was done in June of 2011 not 2012. see: http://publicreligion.org/research/2011 ... gion-2012/