Answer: No. And neither is Mitt Romney.
Photo: Don’t worry folks, Fred isn’t going to serve you any poison Kool-Aid.
So, first wack job Evangelical “minister” Bill Keller calls Mitt Romney a cultist, and now another wack job Evangelical “journalist” says the same thing about Fred Thompson. Here’s a quote:
Thompson has been very elusive about his faith since Focus on the Family’s James Dobson suggested that Thompson should declare his faith. At that time, a Thompson spokesman said that the prospective candidate was baptized into the Church of Christ—a sect that some consider a dangerous cult because of its teachings on baptism and works based doctrines that question the atonement of sins through Jesus Christ.
[HT: Article VI]
Huh? So…Fred’s in a cult, Mitt’s in a cult, everybody’s in a cult. Imagine if we get a Mitt-Fred or a Fred-Mitt ticket – the first all-cult administration, baby! Seriously, though, I know a lot of Church of Christ people (it’s pretty big here in NashVegas) – and they are no cult. Same goes for Mormons. The Heaven’s Gate people – now there’s a cult. Am I the only one who can tell the difference between a cult and a church?
Aren’t churches supposed to disagree with each other? Otherwise, why have so many? According to these people, if you disagree with a mode of baptism, or don’t subscribe to some Roman creed you are all the sudden a cult. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Where does this lead? When are these Evangelicals going to publish a list of approved churches for politicians? Oh wait, isn’t there something about that in the Constitution?
5 Comments
June 28, 2007 at 11:40 am
This is just getting silly now. I totally agree with you, aren’t we supposed to disagree with each other? or at least have some kind of differences? That’s what makes religion so interesting. I really feel badly for these candidates (although deep down i’m kind of glad that mormons aren’t the only ones being picked on), but in all seriousness nobody deserves being ridiculed because of their religion.
June 28, 2007 at 2:56 pm
To the previous comment, I think this is what the article is saying. In his own little way, the author is bringing out the irony of people in the US as well as fellow candidates for the Presidency.
June 28, 2007 at 3:10 pm
To Jeff in KY, I think I was unclear, I was actually agreeing with Practical Reasoning.
June 28, 2007 at 4:09 pm
It is not worth the ink or time. When the spectrum in the speaker brain is so narrow you cannot respond and make a dent. Ask him, as you did, the religion that is perfect for our legislators.
Best to move on to meaningful discussion. So far the stones they have tied around Fred’s neck have no weight at all. Now they are grasping at space.
Come see us: MyManFred.com
Don Jones
June 30, 2007 at 8:13 am
The foundation of our country is freedom of any religion – if it is worship of snakes, rocks, a false God, or a true God that is what our constitution allows. Why the debate over Fred’s God or Mitt’s God. I just don’t get it. And, further, if the debate is over what is true Christianity, then the argument is further flawed. John 3: 16-17, which says God, sent not his son to condemn the world. Christians are supposed to be about love and acceptance. These web logs sure do a lot of condemning over Mormons and now Fred’s church. That is not only unchristian but it’s unpatriotic. Ok, I’m a hypocrite, for being a critic, too. At least the Mormon’s don’t try to bomb buildings and crash planes into the pentagon. I don’t think they would try to overthrow our country. They are loving people who believe America’s freedoms should be protected. I am all about that.