Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mitt Romney - The Christianist Candidate
Andrew Sullivan - Times blog ^ | 11-21-2006 | Andrew Sullivan

Posted on 11/22/2006 10:11:01 AM PST by Deut28

The Christianist Candidate

In case you were unaware, it's Mitt Romney. As with most Christianists, the idea of allowing different states to try different solutions to the same problem is dispensable when moral absolutes are involved. In other words, the fundamentalists have no interest in federalism. If federalism means that California can have marriage equality and medical marijuana, today's GOP base wants none of it. Here's Romney's discussion of John McCain's approach:

Romney was less charitable to McCain, who on Sunday told ABC News: 'I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states.' McCain also said, 'I believe that gay marriage should not be legal.' Romney seized on the remarks. 'That's his position, and in my opinion, it's disingenuous,' he said. 'Look, if somebody says they're in favor of gay marriage, I respect that view. If someone says — like I do — that I oppose same–sex marriage, I respect that view. But those who try and pretend to have it both ways, I find it to be disingenuous.'

It's now disingenuous to have a position on a matter but believe it should be decided by indidividual states rather than by federal control? Disingenuous? Of course, Romney knows better. He's smart, he's aware of the important principle of federalism - but he's going for the Christianist wing, the wing that only supports states' rights when states support Christianist policy prescriptions. And so another conservative principle gets inverted by the allegedly "conservative" candidate.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: andrewsullivan; christianist; cult; electionpresident; religion; romney; sullivan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last
Apparently Sullivan has expanded his definition of Christianist, and continues to slip down the slope towards insanity.

I honestly can't tell from this article if Sullivan favors a federalist approach to addressing the marriage issue or not. I presume he's rather displeased with the recent election results from many states on the issue.

1 posted on 11/22/2006 10:11:02 AM PST by Deut28
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Deut28

Has Sullivan formally given up his facade of pretending to be a Christian?


2 posted on 11/22/2006 10:12:56 AM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deut28
Andrew Sullivan is gay. He doesn't like gay marriage bans and while I don't agree with him, I understand his position.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

3 posted on 11/22/2006 10:13:53 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I certainly can appreciate his emotional position on the issue, but I'm at a complete loss in trying to understand his political and legal position.

I can't even tell from his various writings if he feels it's a Federal or a State issue. All he seems to do is blast those that hold a different position, and never match their arguement with his own.


4 posted on 11/22/2006 10:23:44 AM PST by Deut28 (Cursed be he who perverts the justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Deut28
As with most Christianists, the idea of allowing different states to try different solutions to the same problem is dispensable when moral absolutes are involved.

I suspect that Mr. Sullivan is hypocritical on this issue, because I highly doubt he takes a state's rights position on slavery and other moral absolutes.

5 posted on 11/22/2006 10:26:44 AM PST by Jibaholic (Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic

Waiting on the "Romney can't be a christian...he is LDS and no one but no one but maybe his family will vote for him" posters to show up.

"I do think on the movement in the right, the areas that produced Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, there is a yearning for a clearer voice of conservatism and I think Mitt Romney has an opportunity to fill that". Newt Gingrich 11/19/2006


6 posted on 11/22/2006 10:28:24 AM PST by libbylu (" a clearer voice of conservatism and I think Mitt Romney has an opportunity to fill that" Newt G)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I understand his position.

I do too, but my mind doesn't want to go there.

7 posted on 11/22/2006 10:29:24 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I don't like changing the Constitution over queers or Flag burning.

We used to be able to be able to deride the dims for calling the constitution a "living breathing document".
Not any more.

We used to be able to deride the dims for being the party of big government.

Not anymore.
8 posted on 11/22/2006 10:31:49 AM PST by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: libbylu

LDS is no more Christian than Islam. However his religion alone would not prevent me from supporting him.


9 posted on 11/22/2006 10:36:49 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: libbylu

I know some Mormons well and they are definitely Christian in their basic beliefs. And didn't we go through this 44 years ago and decide that religious affiliations are not relevant in terms of government? Why such bigotry now?


10 posted on 11/22/2006 10:45:17 AM PST by BonnieJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Deut28

Have the rats issued a press release demeaning Romney the way they did when McCain and Giuliani set the wheels in motion for "exploaratory" committees? That will be interesting to see. I have a feeling the rats would prefer to see Romney get the nomination.


11 posted on 11/22/2006 10:51:20 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deut28

Sullivan is an idiot, but he is right that there is a certain section of the base that cares about federalism only when it suits their ends and not otherwise.

That said, he exaggerates that section's size and distorts the extent of their positions and oversimplifies the Gay Marriage issue far too much.


12 posted on 11/22/2006 10:53:38 AM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deut28

Sully sealed it for me,

Where do I get my Romney bumperstickers?


13 posted on 11/22/2006 10:55:24 AM PST by NeoCaveman (Have you thanked the rich person who subsidized your share of taxation today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deut28

Sulllivan is so blinded by his obsession with the male anus, that he can't see anything else.


14 posted on 11/22/2006 10:55:25 AM PST by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
"I understand his position"

Hopefully you also understand that the Supreme Court can invalidate any state law they want.

That is why McCain's position is disingenuous.

15 posted on 11/22/2006 10:56:11 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz

Sullivan is a single issue voter, though the issue changes by the minute. Sodomite marriage seems to be all he cares about at the moment but the next CNN story can change it back to the issue he loves to beat Bush up with and that is the alleged torture of Islamo Fascists.

I gave up on Sullivan when he said he wanted to fight the war against the Islamists but was voting for John Kerry.


16 posted on 11/22/2006 10:56:24 AM PST by Patrick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I thought Romney was a Mormon?


17 posted on 11/22/2006 10:57:21 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Deut28

How on earth do you handle this issue federally? Let me explain the problems with doing this one on a state by state issue:

1. People move. If two guys get married in Vermont and later move to Oklahoma are they still married?

2. The IRS. Does the Vermont couple file jointly as married and the Oklahoma couple not?

3. That 14th Ammendment. Yes, we don't care for it, but it'll mean the courts will decided this on a one size fits all matter.


18 posted on 11/22/2006 10:57:52 AM PST by NeoCaveman (Have you thanked the rich person who subsidized your share of taxation today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

It's more Christian then Islam.

I've done a fair amount of reading about Mormonism, I've found that there are a lot of hysterical things said about them that aren't true. There are also a lot of things they say that I don't believe and don't agree with, but don't think are important to the big questions of grace and salvation.

That said, there are things that I find flat out wrong theologically, things that I could see people saying, under the Christian understanding of grace, would deny them salvation. I have extreme trouble buying into their definition of grace, and if you can't recieve that...you are in a lot of trouble IMHO.

That said, they are extremely complicated issues that, personally, I'd rather leave up to God. They say they believe in grace, they have some concept of it, even if warped, so let's just let God figure it out.


19 posted on 11/22/2006 10:58:17 AM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Deut28

John McCain has made a deal with the radical gay activists to support gay marriage. This agreement give cover to some of the gay Republicans who were being threatened by the rabid, gay activists. I am thinking specificly of Lindsey Graham, who became a target during the impeachment, but was given a pass, once he joined the McCain camp.

The support of Andrew Sullivan should be a red flag for any Republican candidate. Sullivan is a one issue kind of guy. Sex is apparently all the man can think about.


20 posted on 11/22/2006 10:59:23 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
We used to be able to be able to deride the dims for calling the constitution a "living breathing document".Not any more.

Baloney. A "living breathing document" is one that never needs amended. A fixed, static one, where words mean what they say, is one that requires amendments from time to time.

21 posted on 11/22/2006 11:00:00 AM PST by NeoCaveman (Have you thanked the rich person who subsidized your share of taxation today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Deut28

Better a christianist than a butt-piratist, Andy.


22 posted on 11/22/2006 11:01:40 AM PST by Antoninus (I refuse to vote for a liberal--regardless of party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz
I don't mean to make a large deal about it. But as long as people apply label to themselves, it's up to us to come to our own conclusions about what these labels mean.

so let's just let God figure it out.

In my opinion, one of the reasons we are here on this Earth is to try to figure it out ourselves.

23 posted on 11/22/2006 11:02:45 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Correct, Romney is not technically a Christian.

But since the LDS teach traditional morality, he is considered as bad as an actual Christian by Sullivan and his ilk.

24 posted on 11/22/2006 11:03:07 AM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman
Where do I get my Romney bumperstickers?

Same table next to the Brady Campaign/VPC stickers.

25 posted on 11/22/2006 11:03:39 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Deut28

It doesn't take a Christian to be disgusted by sexual deviancy and the high cost of medical support required by the deviants. Even the Muslims find this behavior reprehensible, not to mention a myriad of others.


26 posted on 11/22/2006 11:04:13 AM PST by Neoliberalnot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman

NeoCaveman - I get your position, and that's why I'm open to handling it in D.C.

But I'm sure you're aware that states currently issue licenses and regulations that are handled federally in many other areas than marriage.

As for the IRS, Bill Clinton has already handled that issue through DOMA. Many, many states have already taken those steps as well through legislation and constitutional (state) amendments.


27 posted on 11/22/2006 11:05:21 AM PST by Deut28 (Cursed be he who perverts the justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman
How on earth do you handle this issue federally? Let me explain the problems with doing this one on a state by state issue:

1. People move. If two guys get married in Vermont and later move to Oklahoma are they still married?

2. The IRS. Does the Vermont couple file jointly as married and the Oklahoma couple not?

3. That 14th Ammendment. Yes, we don't care for it, but it'll mean the courts will decided this on a one size fits all matter.

1. Federal protection of marriage act answers this question.

2. Yes, because they are not married in the eyes of Oaklahoma.

3. That's not necessarily true. We don't know that yet, we'll only know when it actually comes up before the court.

I understand the problems with handling it at a state level, and if it doesn't work, i.e. if the courts mandate it, then I would support a Constitutional Amendment. Preferably, I would amend the Constitution to specifically make it a states issue, but if banning it federally were the only step available, I would take it.

I respect the side that says we need to act first, it's a respectable position and I understand their reasons, but I would rather wait till we know for sure that is our only out. Federalism has bent and broken enough on pressure from the left, it doesn't need pressure from the right unless absolutely necessary.

28 posted on 11/22/2006 11:05:35 AM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Deut28

Andrew Sullivan is a Homosexualist.


29 posted on 11/22/2006 11:06:20 AM PST by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BonnieJ

"Why such bigotry now?"

Recognize this truth -- The bigotry is fueled by the Old Media, the homos, and the ACLU.


30 posted on 11/22/2006 11:06:55 AM PST by Neoliberalnot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DManA
In my opinion, one of the reasons we are here on this Earth is to try to figure it out ourselves.

Uhh...that's pretty much counter to every part of the Bible I know of.

Makes it pretty clear, it seems to me, that we aren't to judge who goes to heaven and who doesn't.

Makes it pretty clear, it seems to me, that we won't ever be able to 'figure it out ourselves' too. God's too big for that. We are kind of like an ant trying to understand an elephant.

31 posted on 11/22/2006 11:07:51 AM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Argus

Argus - I find that turn of phrase more palatable than the 'buttpiratist' someone tossed out earlier!


32 posted on 11/22/2006 11:08:17 AM PST by Deut28 (Cursed be he who perverts the justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Eva
John McCain has made a deal with the radical gay activists to support gay marriage.

OH GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK.

Saying Marriage should be a states issue is hardly 'supporting gay marriage.'

Under that definition, are you also going to say that all of those who think Abortion should be a states issue are 'supporting abortion'?

33 posted on 11/22/2006 11:09:51 AM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz
I understand the problems with handling it at a state level, and if it doesn't work, i.e. if the courts mandate it, then I would support a Constitutional Amendment.

We are just going to disagree tacticly. I think that once the courts rule, the horse is out of the barn and isn't going back in. I probably would be loathe to support a Constitutional Amendment at that point knowing it would be far too late. You'd have sympathetic "married" couples to sway public opinion and then the issue would be do churches who not perform gay weddings lose their tax exempt status.

I'm for playing shut down defense NOW and not needing a Hail Mary pass in the fourth quarter.

34 posted on 11/22/2006 11:10:03 AM PST by NeoCaveman (Have you thanked the rich person who subsidized your share of taxation today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Deut28

I think John Derbyshire coined the term, for the political tendency to advance the gay agenda by any means necessary. Sort of like "Islamist" for the jihadis.


35 posted on 11/22/2006 11:10:23 AM PST by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Pietro

Gee, maybe we should make all laws national laws just in case the SC invalidates them!


36 posted on 11/22/2006 11:11:02 AM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman

I have trouble beliving that would be the case. Gay Marriage bans have passed in every single state they have been on the ballot, including blue states.

Frankly, if you ARE right, then I don't see what the point of trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment is anyway, before or after, because it won't pass. They can and would use the same tactics as they would to keep it from passing before hand then afterwards.


37 posted on 11/22/2006 11:13:17 AM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I really do not like being lumped in with mormonism as "christian" as much as I don't like Christianity being lumped in with islam as "religion".

It's like lumping Ted Bundy and Mother Teresa together as "human".


38 posted on 11/22/2006 11:13:49 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Deut28

Worthy points.

But seems like we'd end up leaving all this up to Anthony M. Kennedy writing for the 5-4 majority....


39 posted on 11/22/2006 11:14:45 AM PST by NeoCaveman (Have you thanked the rich person who subsidized your share of taxation today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Deut28
Apparently Sullivan has expanded his definition of Christianist, and continues to slip down the slope towards insanity.

Towards insanity? Hell, he beat me there by at least a country mile!

Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

40 posted on 11/22/2006 11:16:27 AM PST by BeHoldAPaleHorse (Republicans are told to court "the base," which translates to Arabic as "al-Qaeda.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA
"LDS is no more Christian than Islam. However his religion alone would not prevent me from supporting him."

Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints (LDS). Your definition of a Christian is?

41 posted on 11/22/2006 11:17:28 AM PST by EverOnward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lady lawyer

Awwww...dang...thanks for the image....ewwwww


42 posted on 11/22/2006 11:17:47 AM PST by Uriah_lost (We've got enough youth, how about a "fountain of smart")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EverOnward
Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints (LDS). Your definition of a Christian is?

Apparently, part of the issue here is that LDS theology is very different from Catholic/Protestant theology, particularly in the matter of who Jesus is.

43 posted on 11/22/2006 11:20:51 AM PST by BeHoldAPaleHorse (Republicans are told to court "the base," which translates to Arabic as "al-Qaeda.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior is a Christian. That is the dictionary defintion and we Mormons certainly qualify. We do not subscribe to some aspects of orthodox Christianity, but that just makes us unorthodox, not non-christian.


44 posted on 11/22/2006 11:20:53 AM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz
Frankly, if you ARE right, then I don't see what the point of trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment is anyway, before or after, because it won't pass. They can and would use the same tactics as they would to keep it from passing before hand then afterwards.

Right now the benefit to our side is that we are conserving the definition once the Court rules we will then be no conserving but reacting. Conserving/conservative has more appeal than reacting/reactionary, at least most of the time.

And frankly if Vermont wants gay marriage and Oklahoma doesn't and I really thought there was a way to sustain that, it would be fine with me. I really don't care what people in Vermont do.

45 posted on 11/22/2006 11:21:24 AM PST by NeoCaveman (Have you thanked the rich person who subsidized your share of taxation today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: EverOnward
The issue, EO, is that the LDS understands Jesus to be a being different from the Christian understanding of Jesus.

A label does not always accurately reflect the contents.

46 posted on 11/22/2006 11:21:56 AM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz

I did not opine about the eternal fate of LDS members. I merely said that in my opinion the differences between what LDS members believe and the historic Christian faith are so great that it makes sense to classify them as separate and distinct religions.</p>


47 posted on 11/22/2006 11:24:29 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Uriah_lost

Sorry. . . . . . . . I guess it wasn't very ladylike.


48 posted on 11/22/2006 11:26:28 AM PST by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Grig
Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior is a Christian.

That is superficially true, but breaks down when we observe that the LDS notion of God's nature is different from the Christian notion of God's nature.

Specifically: the LDS notion that God the Father is a deified man flatly contradicts the Christian notion of God the Father.

That is the dictionary defintion and we Mormons certainly qualify.

The dictionary definition of "Christian" is actually considerably vaguer than the definition you've provided.

We do not subscribe to some aspects of orthodox Christianity

That is putting it mildly, but accurately.

but that just makes us unorthodox, not non-christian

The canonical definition of Christianity is a person who believes that God is a consubstantial, coeternal, immuted and immutable spiritual Trinity, the second Person of which entered into an hypostatic union with Jesus of Nazareth.

An LDS believer maintains that the Trinity is a mixed entity and that the persons of the Trinity are not coeternal, not consubstantial and not immuted.

It's a point of view, but it is not a point of view compatible with canonical Christianity.

Don't get me wrong - I find the modern LDS to be quite an admirable institution and I would never vote against any individual for being a member of the LDS. To the contrary, I would consider it a recommendation given the high level of integrity I've personally experienced in dealing with LDS believers.

But there is an objective standard of what constitutes Christian belief, and it is not found in the LDS.

49 posted on 11/22/2006 11:33:42 AM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz

McCain has supported Gay marriage, period. Stating that it should be a states rights issue is only a way to provide cover for his stance. Abortion is a states rights issue, marriage is not, for the simple reason that marriage involves federal tax issues and movement of people across state lines.

Sullivan is an idiot, and McCain is obfuscating on this issue.


50 posted on 11/22/2006 11:35:27 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson