Posted on 07/08/2011 11:59:15 AM PDT by delacoert
(WNS)--Mitt Romney and every American is free to believe whatever he wants, and religious belief – whether benign or bizarre -- should not prevent anyone from running for public office.
But that doesn’t mean voters shouldn’t take a candidate’s religious views into account. Indeed, a person’s religious beliefs tell us a great deal about both a candidate’s character and the core principles that inform his governing philosophy. When we evaluate candidates for public office, religion matters – and should.
As for Romney, I start with the understanding that Mormonism is not orthodox, biblical Christianity. If this understanding is true, then the promotion of Mormonism would be to promote a false religion. So the real question is whether supporting a Mormon for president would promote Mormonism. My answer to that is “yes.” It is inconceivable to me that electing a Mormon to the world’s most powerful political office would not dramatically raise the profile and positive perception of Mormonism. That is why I cannot in good conscience vote for Romney, despite agreeing with him on a good many social and fiscal issues.
Some argue that we elect a president, not a preacher, but this argument fails to account the presidency as “bully pulpit.” He is a preacher, apologist-in-chief for the American Vision. In this vital role, worldview matters. We have a right to expect the president to project a vision consistent with the beliefs, values, and ideals we’ve long held as a country.
I sometimes hear the related argument that we don’t ask an airplane pilot his religion, only that he can fly the plane. However, we do ask airplane pilots their religion -- at least indirectly. A theologian friend is fond of saying, “There are no postmodern airplane pilots.” He means that pilots do not merely push levers and twist knobs. They have a core set of beliefs and values about how the universe operates. They believe in the physical laws of the universe. Their behavior in the cockpit directly connects to their beliefs about the world.
Romney’s strategy has been to talk about “values” and dodge questions about religion, as if they were somehow unrelated. He hopes that as America accepted John Kennedy’s Catholicism, so too will America accept his Mormonism. But Kennedy gave a famous speech to the Houston Baptists about religion that explained his views and calmed concerns. Romney’s problem is that if he really believes what the Mormon Church believes, he dares not make that speech. The American people will say, “Really? Are you kidding me?” Or, if he says he doesn’t believe what the Mormon Church teaches, fellow Mormons will feel betrayed and even those who have trouble with the Mormon Church will nonetheless wonder about a man who can’t stand up for his own.
Yogi Berra famously said that “predictions are dangerous, especially predictions about the future.” That said, my prediction is that for Romney these problems are insurmountable and will ultimately bring down his bid for the presidency.
Some argue that we elect a president, not a preacher, but this argument fails to account the presidency as “bully pulpit.” He is a preacher, apologist-in-chief for the American Vision. In this vital role, worldview matters. We have a right to expect the president to project a vision consistent with the beliefs, values, and ideals we’ve long held as a country.
So does this person vote for Obama instead? What about the worldview and all that which is emcompassed in the theology of Reverend Wright’s church? Does this writer hold Obama to the same standard?
Maybe this writer can’t vote for anybody in the next election. Or will vote for a 3rd party or independent who has no chance of winning. I get his point, but in a two man race, you have to decide if you want to help decide that race, rather than cast a vote which won’t affect the two man race.
And yet a non Mormon has zero percent chance winning the Utah primary.
Satan and his disciple obama really admire such principled stands.....
I will be voting Thrid Party if Romney is nominated.
For too long both Parties have stayed in power by using the lesser of two evils argument, or the Third Party can’t win, etc. Quite frankly, I don’t care. I refuse to be a useful idiot for these people anymore.
If Romney is nominated, I will not vote for him for President. It will be Third Party for me and I don’t care if I am the lone vote that sends Obama back to the WH.
What you said.
And, good grief, there are so many more critical reasons to NOT vote for Romney, it just seems like gratuitous pontificating to focus on his religion.
So a Muslim is better?
What you said.
And, good grief, there are so many more critical reasons to NOT vote for Romney, it just seems like gratuitous pontificating to focus on his religion.
This article didn’t need to be written. It is stumbling block and divisive. There are so many reasons to not vote for Romney and this is the least of them.
I consider this viewpoint juvenile and untenable, particularly when we have Obama in the White House.
That said, I believe we have candidates much more conservative in a position to win this year than we did in 2008. I strongly supported Romney in 2008, mainly because I saw Fred Thompson as being far too lax and not all that serious about running.
I will not be supporting him this time around.
When I see men like Kerry, Edwards, and Tron (Obama) running around, Romney’s faith is something to be commended. Frankly, your average Christian could learn something from your average Mormon about family values given the latter’s larger family size and lower divorce rates with high rates personal and financial achievement.
It still baffles me when we have at the very least a Muslim sympathizer in the White House (and at best (if you want to call it that), a liberation theology proponent) that people still worry about Mormons, who are on the whole most excellent people and a culture undoubtedly American and imbued with the pioneer spirit. Would we be having this conversation about Jews?
Why don't we just say that we won't vote for Romney because he tried to be as liberal as Ted Kennedy and leave it at that?
Jimmy Carter was a big-time Born Again Christian. Would you vote for Jimmy Carter over a true conservative Mormon?
By that logic, no Catholic voter could ever support a Protestant Presidential candidate and Jews might as well forget about voting in just about all Presidential elections.
If Romney were a good, strong, conservative candidate, I would vote for him in a heartbeat even if he were a Hindu. We are electing a President to run a secular State. We are not electing a Pope or electing your Pastor.
"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."
Back in the 1600's, the battle used to be between Our Religion vs. The Other Guy's Religion.
In 2011, the battle is between those who respect religion and those who want to destroy all religious values.
I have mixed feelings.
On one hand, there is no doubt if you look at Mormonism’s impact on the US, it has been a good one. Most Mormons live blameless lives and are good Americans. How many Mormons can you point to and say they are a burden to society?
At the same time, I can’t get my head around the fact that Mormonism is a kooky cult that has no basis in reality.
It can’t be compared to Judaism.
“It still baffles me when we have at the very least a Muslim sympathizer in the White House (and at best (if you want to call it that), a liberation theology proponent) that people still worry about Mormons, who are on the whole most excellent people and a culture undoubtedly American and imbued with the pioneer spirit. Would we be having this conversation about Jews?”
Stirring up anti-Mormon sentiments does not accomplish anything of value, except for helping the one doing the stirring feel like one is thereby pleasing God for doing so. Such self-aggrandizing efforts waste energy that could be used in supporting constitutional government in ways that welcome anyone of any religious background to join in the cause of saving America from those who are trying to take away our freedoms.
Harry Reid is an evil man with an evil agenda that many other Mormons strenuously oppose. Glenn Beck is a good man with a good agenda that many other Mormons enthusiastically support. Our constitution does not forbid persons of any specific religion from running for public office or from becoming influential in the media. There are many people of Catholic beliefs serving in public office or having influence in the media. Some of them, like Laura Ingraham, are working to preserve our freedoms. Others, like Nancy Pelosi, are working to take them away.
My impression of Romney is that he is a decent man who loves freedoms, but who has been deceived by some of the anti-freedom agendas being pushed by progressives. So the reason I don't want Romney to be the Republican nominee for President is the fact that he continues to be deceived by some "progressive" thinking. Romney could have learned a lot from Glenn Beck about progressives. He did not, and now it is too late for Romney. Even if he woke up to the agenda behind the global warming hoax, it would only add to his reputation as a flipflopper.
Well, back in the 1800's, the Mormons were bat-sh#t crazy. The Mountain Meadows Massacre comes to mind.
In the 1900's, they became as vanilla ice cream as Donny & Marie. .... and, most importantly, their votes help keep flaming liberals out of the White House and Justices that believe in "penumbras" out of the Supreme Court.
At the same time, I can’t get my head around the fact that Mormonism is a kooky cult that has no basis in reality.
By definition, the other guy's religion is always "a kooky cult that has no basis in reality."
Comparison of Christian Denominations' Beliefs
The way I interpret Matthew 22:21 is ....
When you are electing a Pastor or a Pope, pay attention to his religious beliefs.
When you are electing a secular leader of a Secular State, pay attention to his secular political positions.
ahh - see post #5
The problem with that line of thinking is that it rejects the fact the Founders never intended the US to be a secular state:
"Our CONSTITUTION was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams (First President to live in the White House)
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." (Patrick Henry)
The possibly valid reason is the Mormon believer's oath to advance the interest of their church as opposed to all other interests. It's fair to ask that Romney and any other Mormon running for the Presidency should publicly address that issue.
The invalid reason is that "Mormons believe that God was once a man, that we can all become gods, blah blah blah..." Anyone who thinks that a Mormon should not be president for that reason is in effect saying that belief in the Nicene Creed is a mandatory qualification for the Presidency, which is dangerous nonsense.
I don’t think Carter is a “born again” Christian.
AFAIK, he was raised Baptist and has remained Baptist.
Once baptised, there is no reason to be “born again” again.
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.