• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Posted on 11/25/2007 6:29:57 AM PST by Reaganesque
I was talking with an old friend, a longtime Democrat, and she asked if I knew what religion a certain presidential candidate was. I replied that I didn't know and hoped I'd never find out...
I didn't mean it and yet I meant it, for we have come to an odd pass regarding candidates and their faith. It's not as if faith is unimportant, it's always important. But we are asking our political figures--mere flawed politicians--to put forward and talk about their faith to a degree that has become odd. We push them against the wall and do a kind of theological frisk on them. We didn't use to.
...snip...
...It's never wholly unimportant, but you should never see a politician as a leader of faith, and we should not ask a man who made his rise in the grubby world of politics to act as if he is an exemplar of his faith, or an explainer or defender of it.
We have the emphasis wrong. It's out of kilter. And the result is a Mitt Romney being harassed on radio shows about the particulars of his faith, and Hillary Clinton--a new-class yuppie attorney and board member--announcing how important her Methodist faith is and how much she loves wearing her diamond cross.
...snip...
We should lighten up on demanding access to their hearts. It is impossible for us to know their hearts. It's barely possible to know your own. Faith is important but it's also personal. When we force political figures to tell us their deepest thoughts on it, they'll be tempted to act, to pretend. Do politicians tend to give in to temptation? Most people do. Are politicians better than most people? Quick, a show of hands. I don't think so either.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Liberalism or the religion of the Senator from Connecticut?
And we know that Romney, despite holding a faith were most are conservative, is a flaming liberal who’s social agenda includes support for the destructive gay agenda and appointment of liberal judges. Add this to his addiction to big government solutions, as evidenced by his RomneyCare boondoggle, and you have about as liberal a politician as you will find in either party. No thanks.
I didn’t read Peggy’s whole sermon.
Did she say whether she would vote for someone of the Islamic persuasion, or not?
pardon, but isn’t that picture kind of scary, for what it’s trying to make people believe about the guy under the banner?
That's the interesting thing about Ms. Noonan's following on FR. Everyone criticizes what she writes, but no one reads it.
For the U.S. to have a chance at prosperity and freedom the politicians must not be of a faith which denies freedom like Islam.
[..It’s never wholly unimportant, but you should never see a politician as a leader of faith, and we should not ask a man who made his rise in the grubby world of politics to act as if he is an exemplar of his faith, or an explainer or defender of it.]
In other words, a man’s religion is completely and utterly meaningless. Therefore everyone from Jihadis to Scientologists to Buddhist pacifists to Satanists are peachy.
[We have the emphasis wrong. It’s out of kilter. And the result is a Mitt Romney being harassed on radio shows about the particulars of his faith, and Hillary Clinton—a new-class yuppie attorney and board member—announcing how important her Methodist faith is and how much she loves wearing her diamond cross.]
I think the emphasis is just fine, if a politician doesn’t believe in their own religion, or their religion is bizarre, that is a big piece of the presidential puzzle (not the only one, but a big one). Hillary’s hypocrisy is just as important as the man-God beliefs of Romney.
I find this a bizarre distortion of the prominent place religion plays in the moral fiber of our nation.
I tried.
Me, too.
How many times has the country applauded with approval when we hear: God, family, country.
Some people must have been faking.
despite holding a faith were most are conservative,
—In other words, a man’s religion is completely and utterly meaningless. -—
No. It means that the politician shouldn’t be seen as a spokesperson or leader of the particular religious denomination to which they belong, which is exactly what Peggy said.
[No. It means that the politician shouldn’t be seen as a spokesperson or leader of the particular religious denomination to which they belong, which is exactly what Peggy said.]
Does that mean that Bishop/Stake President/ High Melchizedek Priest Mitt will not be influenced one iota by peep stones and the church?
Pardon me while I suspend all rational thinking to believe that.
Then ask Fred and the rest whether they believe that the Eucharist is symbolic or actual.
“Then ask Fred and the rest whether they believe that the Eucharist is symbolic or actual.”
I’ll be happy to, as long as Romney can be asked how many Celestial wives he will have, whether peep stones can be used for revelation, whether he has plans for exaltation to God hood (and if not, why not), etc.
I know what answer I would give, that it is none of your damned business what I believe. The substance of my faith is between myself and G-d and with whatever fellowship of men that I choose to share it.
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.