Questions of Faith

OpinionJournal.com ^ | June 25, 2007 | John Fund

[gpapa]

Does it matter that Mitt Romney is a Mormon? To some extent--but it shouldn't.

Since 1960, when John F. Kennedy settled the issue of whether a Catholic could be president, there's been general public agreement a candidate's religion shouldn't matter.

[garylmoore]

I don’t know if I want to vote for someone that is confused enough to be a morman.

[Colofornian]

USA Today examined 7,000 interviews it conducted as part of polls it does jointly with the Gallup organization and found that "Mormons comprise 21% of [Mr. Romney's] supporters," even though they represent only 2% of all Republican voters...His Mormon support may also explain why he can expect to do well in Nevada, which has a large Mormon population and will hold an early caucus.

Let's break this down: 1 out of 50 Republican voters are LDS; Over 1 of 5 Romney's supporters are LDS. Last I heard 1 in 8 1/3rd voters favored Romney (about 12%).

What that means is that if 12% favor Romney, and of that group, 21% is LDS, then 2.5% of the voters out there are pro-Romney LDS.

The key point is obvious: Just about every LDS voter that the media is surveying indicates they favor Romney. You can't have LDS measuring up to only 2% of the Republican base & yet LDS voters constituting about a 2.5% Romney makeup, with the rest of the 9.5% coming from non-LDS.

Isn't this "bigotry" to have just about every LDS voter surveyed picking Romney? Are these folks primarily picking him on the basis of religion & faith? Where are folks up in arms about this...especially the "bigotry" labelers? Why no frothing at the mouth when folks vote for a candidate only or primarily on the basis of religion? I thought this was a clear "no-no." Where is the chastisement from the "bigotry" labelers? Where is the chastisement from the MSM?

Mr. Romney notes the indisputable fact that most Americans are religious and goes on to say: "I think the American people want a person of faith to lead the country. I don't think Americans care what brand of faith someone has." That is not entirely true.

Oh. A scientologist in the Oval Office? (Oh who cares?) A wicca priestess? (Oh, as long as it's a person of faith.)

Ya know, somebody should tell the multiculturalists that the shamans of the east and west are "people of faith" but that any ole "religious brand" isn't interchangeable with any & all others. Witchcraft adherents are people of "faith" but the object of their faith does not correspond with say, the object of faith of many of the founders of this nation. Had our nation been founded by "people of faith" such as shamans & witches, our nation would be a totally different nation today.

In "It's a Wonderful Life," you remove the Bailey clan & you get Pottersville. In our country, were you to remove the Christians at the helm of its foundation, & you get a similar "Pottersville."

If there's one lesson the movie "The Wizard of Oz" taught viewers is that any ole faith won't cut it. "The great and 'all-powerful' Oz" was a mere man who dabbled in smoke & thunder & trinket & trophy-giving; he was a great deceiver who relied upon fear to manipulate the locals.

The only entities in that movie who had any real supernatural power (other than manipulating the masses) were the two witches, and we never really saw a full resume' of the supposed "good" witch to know enough about her other than she was pro-Dorothy.

It doesn't matter if faith is "sincere;" folks can be sincerely wrong when it comes to both the universals & defining (& knowing) the true Power of the Universe.

In a country as diverse as ours, we will benefit if there are as few religious barriers as possible to those seeking high office. We've made great strides. After all, few people know or care that there are now two Buddhists in Congress--Democratic Reps. Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.

OK. Last I heard Buddhists weren't pretending to be Christians. Just ask LDS if they appreciate polygamous "Mormon fundamentalists" being labeled "Mormon" and they will tell you "no." They want "Mormon" to be distinctive and to mean something minus what they think is a redefine. They want that privilege, but then they want the term "Christian" to be up for grabs to whoever claims it...never mind that the "Christ" they have in mind is Lucifer's bro; never mind that the "Christ" they have in mind is a weakling who couldn't keep His word & keep a church together [Joseph Smith boasted he was the only man who was able to keep a church together...that even Christ couldn't do what Christ had promised--to never let the gates of hell prevail against the church]; never mind that the death of the Book of Mormon "Christ" immediately resulted in the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people as a result of supposed natural catastrophes. The Mormon "Christ" is one of death, destruction, false promises, and is Satan's "elder brother."

But the Wall Street Journal thinks that the "barriers" lie on the Christian voter side. Wrong. The "barriers" are self-erected by the LDS church who thinks they can build a "bootstraps" ladder to heaven [LDS prophet S. Kimball even used the word "bootstraps" to define the LDS ascent to godhood for their members]. It wasn't the fault of those who rejected the Tower of Babel for its eventual demise. Heaven was simply an "overreach" for its builders; history would soon show that when ladder appeared to Jacob, the ladder descended from heaven instead of it being constructed earth-side.