Posted on 12/07/2007 8:10:37 AM PST by ZGuy
The Reuters headline said: "Mitt Romney Vows Mormon Church Will Not Run White House." Unfortunately, this time Reuters got its story right. In his long-awaited speech designed to win over conservative evangelicals, Romney actually did say something to this effect, making many people wonder why he needed to make such a vow in the first place. It's a bit like hearing Giuliani vow that the mafia will not be running his White House—it is always dangerous to say what should go without saying, because it makes people wonder why you felt the need to say it. Is the Mormon church itching to run the White House, and does Romney need to stand firm against them?
It is true that John Kennedy made a similar vow in his famous 1960 speech on religion, and Romney was clearly modeling his speech on Kennedy's. But the two situations are not the same. When John Kennedy vowed that the Vatican would not control his administration, he was trying to assuage the historical fear of the Roman Catholic Church that had been instilled into generations of Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Kennedy shrewdly didn't say that the Vatican wouldn't try to interfere—something that his Protestant target audience would never have believed in a millions years anyway; instead, Kennedy said in effect, "I won't let the Vatican interfere." And many Protestants believed him—in large part, because no one really thought Kennedy took his religion seriously enough to affect his behavior one way or the other.
The Mormon church is not Romney's problem; it is Romney's own personal religiosity. On the one hand, Romney is too religious for those who don't like religion in public life—a fact that alienates him from those who could care less about a candidate's religion, so long as the candidate doesn't much care about it himself. On the other hand, Romney offends precisely those Christian evangelicals who agree with him most on the importance of religion in our civic life, many of whom would be his natural supporters if only he was a "real" Christian like them, and not a Mormon instead.
To say that someone is not a real Christian sounds rather insulting, like saying that he is not a good person. But when conservative Christians make this point about Romney, they are talking theology, not morality. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Mormon creed will understand at once why Romney felt little desire to debate its theological niceties with his target audience of Christian evangelicals, many of whom are inclined to see Mormonism not as a bona fide religion, but as a cult. In my state of Georgia, for example, there are Southern Baptist congregations that raise thousands of dollars to send missionaries to convert the Mormons to Christianity.
Yet if Romney was playing it safe by avoiding theology, he was treading on dangerous ground when he appealed to the American tradition of religious tolerance to make his case. Instead of trying to persuade the evangelicals that he was basically on their side, he did the worst thing he could do: he put them on the defensive. In his speech Romney came perilously close to suggesting: If you don't support me, you are violating the cherished principle of religious tolerance. But such a claim is simply untenable and, worse, highly offensive.
The Christian evangelicals who are troubled by Romney's candidacy do not pose a threat to the American principle of religious tolerance. On the contrary, they are prepared to tolerate Mormons in their society, just as they are prepared to tolerate atheists and Jews, Muslims and Hindus. No evangelical has said, "Romney should not be permitted to run for the Presidency because he is a Mormon." None has moved to have a constitutional amendment forbidding the election of a Mormon to the Presidency. That obviously would constitute religious intolerance, and Romney would have every right to wax indignant about it. But he has absolutely no grounds for raising the cry of religious intolerance simply because some evangelicals don't want to see a Mormon as President and are unwilling to support him. I have no trouble myself tolerating Satan-worshippers in America, but I would not be inclined to vote for one as President: Does that make me bigot? The question of who we prefer to lead us has nothing to do with the question of who we are willing to tolerate, and it did Romney no credit to conflate these two quite distinct questions. There is nothing wrong with evangelicals wishing to see one of their own in the White House, or with atheists wishing to see one of theirs in the same position.
Romney's best approach might have been to say nothing at all. Certainly that would have been preferable to trying to turn his candidacy into an issue of religious tolerance. Better still, he might have said frankly: "My religion is different and, yes, even a trifle odd. But it has not kept Mormons from dying for their country, or paying their taxes, or educating their kids, or making decent communities in which to live."
The article said — “To say that someone is not a real Christian sounds rather insulting, like saying that he is not a good person. But when conservative Christians make this point about Romney, they are talking theology, not morality. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Mormon creed will understand at once why Romney felt little desire to debate its theological niceties with his target audience of Christian evangelicals, many of whom are inclined to see Mormonism not as a bona fide religion, but as a cult. In my state of Georgia, for example, there are Southern Baptist congregations that raise thousands of dollars to send missionaries to convert the Mormons to Christianity.”
Well, it’s very clear that one can say, without a doubt, that the Mormon teachings and doctrines are clearly not traditional, historic and/or basic, fundamental (meaning “of the fundamentals”) Christianity.
In other words, Mormon teaching and doctrine *is not* Christian teaching and doctrine.
All one has to find out, about a “particular person” in regards to this particular issue is whether they adhere to Mormon teaching or doctrine — or rather — Christian teaching and doctrine (which is in opposition to Mormon teaching and doctrine).
Thus, while it does sound uncomplimentary, in a way, to say someone is “not Christian” — it’s definitely not uncomplimentary to say that Mormon doctrine and teaching is *not* Christian teaching and doctrine. And that’s how these things should be framed — because it is so abundantly clear from much Christian research and looking at much of the Mormon teaching and materials, that this is so.
What is so puzzling is why the Mormons try so hard at pretending to adhere to Christian doctrine and teaching and then go to trash it in their own teachings and undo it all by what they consider their authoritative works. Why don’t the Mormons simply distinguish themselves clearly — to the public — as *radically different* in their theology from Christian theology. That would be the much more honest position.
And when one doesn’t take the “honest position” (in regards to one’s own theology) one must ask why one is being so dishonest in this matter.
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. — I don’t have a problem with someone choosing Mormon theology for themselves, if that’s what they want, because the true Creator God of the universe allows every person the choice of whether they believe in the Messiah of Israel and His salvation and provided according to the Scriptures (and as outlined in Christian theology). Just be honest and say that you don’t accept the God of Christian theology and accept a different god of a different theology. It’s a free country here. Everyone can choose their own religion (even if it doesn’t get you “votes”... :-) ... ). Oh..., wait a minute..., that may be the source of the problem... ah yes... “getting votes...”
Yes
“Regardless of how Romney’s speech went, this is reflecting VERY poorly on evangelicals.” - Hoodlum91
You made a good point. Personally I think Romney did an excellent job yesterday....but evangelicals (the ones who view any faith bu their own a “cult”) will look bad if they continue to shy away from Romney because he is a Mormon.
Also, of course, evangelicals backing the very-liberal Huckabee wont help either
Meanwhile, where are the queries to B. Hussein Obama about his Islamic background and beliefs? Where are the polls asking Evangelicals of their views regarding Islam?
Oh, that’s right, daily colonoscopies are for the GOP only.
An odd position.
Dirty Harry Reid is Mormon, as were/are Flake (AZ), John Doolittle (CA), Wally Herger (CA), Howard McKeon (CA), Ernest Istook (OK), Mike Simpson (ID), Thomas Udall (NM), Rob Bishop (UT), and Chris Cannon (UT). Then in the Senate - Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, both from Utah, Mike Crapo of Idaho and Gordon Smith from Oregon.
I don’t understand why so many people dish crap on Mitt - the Congress usually has a greater effect on people than a president......
If you are into speaking and writing as exposition, it was a bad speech on many levels. If you are into emotional, political speech as theater, it was a good product/production.
The article says — “The Christian evangelicals who are troubled by Romney’s candidacy do not pose a threat to the American principle of religious tolerance. On the contrary, they are prepared to tolerate Mormons in their society, just as they are prepared to tolerate atheists and Jews, Muslims and Hindus. No evangelical has said, “Romney should not be permitted to run for the Presidency because he is a Mormon.” None has moved to have a constitutional amendment forbidding the election of a Mormon to the Presidency. That obviously would constitute religious intolerance, and Romney would have every right to wax indignant about it. But he has absolutely no grounds for raising the cry of religious intolerance simply because some evangelicals don’t want to see a Mormon as President and are unwilling to support him. I have no trouble myself tolerating Satan-worshippers in America, but I would not be inclined to vote for one as President: Does that make me bigot?”
And that’s why Romney is *not electable* (can’t win). He won’t get the support of committed Christians and/or Evangelicals (as a “group”). I know I won’t be voting for Romney is he ever gets the “nod”. I’m just hoping he doesn’t get the nomination, so I won’t have that kind of situation to deal with.
Regards,
Star Traveler
I can think of at least 5 reasons why this is so:
Point 1: If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist! The ramifications of having someone who may have something pulled over on them in the White House as the “leader of the free world” is no comparison to any other elected position.
Point 2: (This especially applies to POTUS and may or may not apply to all races): Bill Clinton was a presidential role-model disaster for our young generation re: the scandal. Any president the voting block elevates to the highest role model position in our land accords the highest vote of respectability to the public aspects of what that person stands for. If that person, for example, is a neatly tucked-away communist who's adopted a mask of "family values," & we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere. It would fuel their door-to-door boldness and other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!"
Point 3: (Not sure if this applies beyond POTUS). The Bible shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the true Lord & who do not worship false gods/idols. The OT is replete w/ such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture. It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" just like the soup kitchen down the street. History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader holds, the more trouble that leader's "exhaust" settles on the people-at-large. Kings & presidents need all the grace, mercy, & guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving & directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god & has no true relationship w/the living God is stifling access to God's resources; & a nation may suffer for that.
Point 4: Media intensity for POTUS cannot be compared to any other election. Taking potential voter alienation into consideration (based upon common polls), & taking the MSM onslaught into consideration in '08, a smart voter MUST consider candidate viability. Come '08, we'll see MSM questions like, "Do you believe you will be a god? Do you believe conservative voters from other churches are 'apostates?' Do believe that although polygamy is no longer practiced on earth, it's being practiced at now & for eternity in another dimension known as the celestial kingdom?"
Point 5: If I... .
(a) was a POTUS candidate from a commonly regarded "cultic group"; and .
(b) mislabel 75% of my voting base's primary faith tenets & claims as mere "apostate" status (Note: 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party) Then...
Conclusion: I not only show open disdain for my voting base, but betray my ability to inspire confidence in my ability to accurately define a major world religion. If I cannot accurately define a major world religion, what confidence do I inspire re: my ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?
Thanks. Personally it’s just not that important to me one way or the other. The point I was trying to make is that there are lots of Roman Catholic beliefs that are specific to their religion that some believe while others do not. Yet no one ever expects a RC candidate to somehow justify each one of these beliefs as “Christian”. (obviously virgin birth is not one of these)
I think it was a good speech.
But it was a sign of desperation on Romney’s part. He is chalking up his losing to Huckabee to bigotry. Thats bull.
Huck hasn’t taken much of Romney’s support away.
Ah yes..., that was good...
“The problem is that the much-hyped speech did nothing to achieve his goal of convincing doubting Evangelicals and Catholics that his Mormon beliefs will not hinder him from being a good president. Instead, for the most part, he pretended he wasn’t Mormon, or that being Mormon was so strange it is in his interest to keep it secret. In this speech about Mormonism, he uttered the word “Mormon” just once, while saying “Jews” and “Muslims” two times each and “Catholic” three times. Still more abrasive to Christian sensibilities was the attempt to pass off Mormon doctrine about Jesus Christ as equal to that of Christianity. He said, “What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the savior of mankind.”
OK, Mitt. But do you really want to get into what that means for you?”
Thanks for that article.
Regards,
Star Traveler
This BS about Romney not addressing the finer details of his faith is just that, BS and smokescreen.
Is there any religion on the planet that does not have some pretty strange (if viewed dispassionately) core beliefs? Virgin birth? Rising from the dead? C’mon.
I confess that it is BS such as this that has driven me from organized religion, but since it is difficult to lose my upbringing, I find myself simply agnostic with a big helping of secular humanism. I await my coming flaming for admitting such.
Then a Mormon would believe it too?
Sorry rhombus, I don't know the answer to that. I only know Biblical Christianity, and some of my former Catholic lessons.
Maybe someone else on this thread can help.
.
How's that?
How is that? Where is all the anti-mormon bigotry in Iowa?
If we don’t vote for Romney we are bigots?
That is what the line will be when he loses.
How pathetic.
We do.
This is pure B.S. I don't know how old this writer is, but I am old enough to remember JFK's candidacy. In 1960, when JFK was running, the general public did not know of his behavior with women, etc. One of his closest friends and advisors was the late Cardinal Cushing of Boston, one of he most powerful clerics in America at that time.
Thanks, but it’s not really that important to me. It’s just a red herring. My point was nobody expects every RC candidate to explain the intricacies of the RC faith that aren’t believed by other “Christian” faiths. This discussion of who is in and who is out is probably not something that any person is qualified to make so statements like Mormons aren’t Christian just seem preposterous to me.
Thanks. See my other posts. The details are really unimportant to me.
2. Later, publicly express your unqualified love for all things Mitt and Mormon(ish).
3. With in limits, you’ll now be qualified to make pre approved statements vis a vis Mitt, et al.
Got it? Carry on.
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.