This issue here is a common one in America. Though not distinguished in the dictionary, the typical American distinguishes “ethics” from “morality”, and it is important to understand the distinction.
America was unique in its founding, because it took exception to the European practice of asserting that their nobility was appointed “by God”, to rule. This meant that those who disagreed with the nobility had also committed a religious offense, for which they could be punished.
So though the founding fathers believed in God, they asserted, as was best stated many years later, that ours is a government, “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” While on the surface this seems to reject religious faith, in truth it shows it higher respect to religion, by saying, “We the people wrote these laws, so we the people can change and repeal them, without insulting heaven.”
And this caused a split between morality and ethics, which is the real “separation of church and state.”
In the mind of the typical American, an ethical person, or politician, is one who obeys the written law. The law written by the people.
A moral person is one who obeys the laws of God and heaven.
But the written law is codified, you can look it up to see if it has been broken or not, fairly objectively. Morality, however, is based on what church you attend, and what are your religious beliefs.
This is why typical Americans like ethical politicians. Their saying that they have obeyed the law, and will continue to obey the law, are good references to hold public office.
But when a politician asserts they are moral, there is confusion about what they mean by that. A moral “liberal Episcopalian” does not have the same morality as a moral “conservative Baptist”, nor as that of an Orthodox Jew, a Roman Catholic, a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist.
Politicians are aware of this ambiguity, and try to hide behind it, calling themselves moral, but not explaining what that means. No doubt such people as Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy would quickly assert that they were “moral Catholics”, though they were neither.
But if you look at their ethics, you leave holding your nose.
So back to Glenn Beck. Though he is a Mormon, and speaking to Baptists, the issue is, is he speaking ethically, or morally?
If he is speaking of ethics, the laws of America, and our shared ethos, the Baptists should not find him objectionable at all, for they likely are in full agreement with 98% of what he says. Objections are not based on his message, or even him as messenger, but as to his faith. This should not matter.
However, if he is to speak of morality, specifically of the Mormon version of morality, with considerable distance from the Baptist version of morality, this they could find objectionable.
But that is not likely. In a manner of speaking, what he has to say, from the Baptist point of view, will be pretty much “preaching to the choir”. “Nihil Obstat”, as the Catholics used to say, “Not Objectionable.”
America was unique in its founding, because it took exception to the European practice of asserting that their nobility was appointed “by God”, to rule. This meant that those who disagreed with the nobility had also committed a religious offense, for which they could be punished.
____________________________________________
And yet Joey Smith was elected as “king” and he called hiomself “King of the world”
and Briggy Young declared himself “king” of Utah...
and anyone who disagreed was punished...
However, if he is to speak of morality, specifically of the Mormon version of morality, with considerable distance from the Baptist version of morality, this they could find objectionable.
___________________________________
The mormon polygamy V Baptist monogamy or the “all Christian Churches are abominible” morality ???