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."
Christ could banter and be ironic in the most delicate situations. Earl Palmer points out how He teases Nathaniel on their first meeting in John 1:47, saying “Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false,” as if all other Israelites were liars.[4] Elton Trueblood’s brilliant exposition of the healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter in Mark 7 gives us another example of how Jesus ironically teases others. It has always been difficult to understand how our Lord could be as cruel as He is verse 27 when the woman asks Him to deliver her daughter from a demon. He’s only been healing Jews to this point, and He tells her “it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
Taken from:
A Sermon from
Valley Covenant Church
~”Only Jesus saves.”~
On that, we agree.
Moving from the personal to the general, I largely agree with that. I think it’s self-evident that God has a sense of humor, and Christ inherited it. As you point out, there are a number of instances where Christ’s wryness was on display.
It’s also true that Christ’s humor was impeccably appropriate. His perfect charity ensured that his humor and irony were never at the expense of tearing down another. As mere humans, this is a difficult standard for us to achieve. Even self-deprecation doesn’t really meet this standard.
LOL, Mr. Threadkiller at work! I asked for a link! If I wanted to read your PERSONAL work, I’d go to your website.
Some evangelicals, like Billy Graham, I have a lot of respect for. However - I'm convinced that others wouldn't have a purpose in life if they didn't have another faith to disparage (see comments made about Catholics in the religion forum to see what I am talking about). 'F em.
My mistake. It was restornu. I stand corrected, sir.
Yeah, defnotlib, if ya wanna go buy a used car, be sure to go direct to the source, do not stop at any consumer reports mag, and don't check the carfax Web site...don't worry, the used car dealer himself will tell ya all ya need to know about each car.
How ironic. Delphiuser & other LDS apologists are quick to try to distance themselves from LDS prophets' sermons (Brigham Young especially), from LDS apostles' books (Bruce McConkie especially), & from other talks & writings by LDS general authorities (Journal of Discourses).
Why? 'Cause they want to make BIG distinctions between canonized content & uncanonized content; between "official" content & "unofficial" content. Yet you are quick to highlight & recommend uncanonized, unofficial Mormon content. (Where are the LDS apologists when you need them for recommending or citing LDS material from uncanonized, unofficial sources when you need them?)
IMHO, the LD’s on this thread are making big asses of themselves.
I got distracted on my own post...
the last parenthetical question I meant to ask actually should have read: (Where are the LDS apologists when you need them? Where are they to bash those who recommend or cite LDS content from uncannonized, unofficial sources?)
Think about it: if the issue of the strangeness in Mormonism were not a significant issue, why would Romney make a speech about religion trying to prevent open opposition on the grounds of his religion? If the issues are significant enough the DNC will exploit them far more than you've seen so far. IF, on the other hand, the issues of the strangeness in Mormonism are not significant, why the speech to focus upon trying to shame people into not factoring in Romney's religion. Think about it, Mormon.
Romney has made a huge miscalculation. His intent was to embarrass religious conservatives into supporting him or shutting up. Well, I’m not shutting up about his radical liberal record up to this point.
He is trying to make it seem that our opposition to him is about his mormonism. As I told La Enchiladita the other day, I’d support Duncan Hunter (or Thompson, for that matter) if they were Mormon, because they BOTH have a record as staunch conservatives.
I didn’t need another speech about toleration. I had no fear that some apostles in Salt Lake were gonna own the White House. The coded message was simply: “Waaaaahhhhh...those big bad religious conservatives won’t let me play.”
Well, Romney attacked the wrong people. His real enemy was Giuliani who is funding and supporting Huckabee’s rise in Iowa. It was very calculated on Rudy’s part. Romney was at the top in Iowa and showed promise of running the first 6 states and creating a tidal wave that would unseat Rudy on Feb 5, Super Tuesday.
I predicted at the time that Rudy would support Huck for only so long, and then they’d have to bring Huckabee down a notch or two. That process is now starting. I noticed on FoxNews beginning Thursday that every mention of Huck on Thursday and Friday referred to him in a distasteful voice as “Baptist Preacher Huckabee...”
The man injecting religion into this race is none other than Rudy Giuliani. Like the good mobster that he is, his fingerprints aren’t on the weapons. He’s doing it through news surrogates...button men in the media.
Liberal Rupert Murdoch is pulling as many strings as is George Soros to try to determine the next president of the USA.
Well, that is certainly something I hadn't considered. I still think a good part of Huckabee's rise was due to the debate and Mitt flubbing the Bible question. After all, I would imagine it's common knowledge among the Christians that the reason he stammered over the answer was because of the addition to the Bible, the BOM.
Now, THAT’s funny!
Hmmm, and yet when I cite my own works, I’m the bad guy? lol!
The fact remains NO Mormon is obligated to accept as doctrine any source if it’s not in the Scriptures. Period. We can use other sources for support, but they are always below the Scriptures in importance.
Why is this so hard?
You anti-Mormons demand we conform to YOUR definition of Mormonism so you can erect a strawman and make yourselves look good. But when you encounter a knowledgeable Mormon who knows what you’re doing and whacks you about the side of your head; you COMPLAIN we’re not playing fair.
Well, WHO asked you to make yourself an authority on how false and stupid Mormonism is? If you can’t walk the walk perhaps you should get out of the kitchen and not let the door hit your rear on the way out?
lol!
Oh, boo hoo ED. You were duped by anti-Presbyterian propaganda and instead of recognizing it for the lies and deception it is; you’ve allowed it to warp your soul into hatred of everything Non-Mormon.
Well stated.
But, then again, this Mormon has been so great for the Conservative cause.
~”Yeah, defnotlib, if ya wanna go buy a used car, be sure to go direct to the source...”~
You might have noticed the phrase “in addition” in there somewhere, if you’d been reading carefully.
Still, the logic is sound, with some tweaks. You wouldn’t ask a Ford dealer about a Chevy car.
Ok.... You’ve found me out!
But... HOW?
Wasw it the Burning confirmation of your doubts?
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.