Mitt Romney is free to practice Mormonism. And he is free to run for President of the United States. But he should not be free from answering questions about what he actually believes.I agree with that, and wish he would deal with what, if anything, the doctrinal issues -- those most often raised by those who oppose his candidacy on the basis of his Mormonism -- have anything to do with whether he should become the President. My views are further explained here.
I consider Governor Romney a “RINO,” and there are other candidates I prefer. If he becomes the nominee, however, I shall support him as best I can and vote for him; the alternative is probably the reelection of President Obama.
You have at least chosen wisely should he be the nominee.
There are many I fear that do not share your wisdom. OTOH,
the last election we were saddled with another RINO who did
not beat Mr Obama. Hopefully there will be a more conservative
nominee who can win the day.
DanMiller, I think you evince a thoughtful and balanced approach, for which you are to be commended. America is not a Christian country as some think. On the other hand, America is a country founded on Christian values and ethics, or, if you prefer, Judeo-Christian values. This is more than evident from even a brief (but not unserious) examination of our history as a nation. The founders created a secular representative republic that acknowledged the existence of God, and its obligations before Him, but refused to define that God, because they were well aware that that was not the job of government, but of the church.
Thus, in America, so long as one adhered to the principles proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and the fundamental “rules” enumerated in the Constitution, one was to be considered a faithful and loyal citizen of the United States. That would mean, in the case of a presidential candidate, for example, that there is no requirement, explicit or implicit, that he (or she) be a Christian or a Jew (both were around and taken into consideration at the time of the founding of the nation). The only requirement would be that the president would adhere to the founding documents of the nation, of which the chief one is the Constitution. So far, so good.
The only time, historically speaking, that serious questions have been asked is in the case of Alf Landon and then John F. Kennedy, both of whom were Roman Catholic. The problem with them was that the Roman Pontiff had in history claimed to be the supreme head of all government on earth - which had contributed to much conflict and unrest in Europe in earlier times, a problem which was well-known to the founding fathers and which they had tried to defend us from (separation of church and state). That problem, which was not overcome in the time of Landon, was in the time of Kennedy - at least here in the U.S. - who made it known very convincingly that he was answerable to the American people and Constitution first and foremost. Thus, from then on it would never be an issue again when a Roman Catholic ran for president.
In a sense, the case of Romney is similar, but with one huge difference. The Roman Catholic Church has no policy of requiring oaths or vows of secrecy from its adherents. What you see is, more of less, what you get, agree or disagree. But with the Mormons it is different. Every so-called “temple” Mormon makes a vow to keep secret those things that transpire in the temple at his or her induction. And no non-Mormon is ever allowed into a Mormon temple after it has been dedicated and begun to function. So, the question becomes, “What happens behind closed doors?” Was the first secret vow, much of which is known from Mormons who have left Mormonism, the only such secret vow? Or are there further secrets as one progresses up the ladder of the hierarchy? There is no trustworthy and certain answer to this question for the very reason that Mormonism is very good at maintaining secrecy.
Thus, the problem of Mitt Romney is not simply that he is a RINO - and here I agree with you completely, and it is my chief reason for being resolutely against him, but that he is connected to an organization whose oath he has taken to never reveal the secrets of the temple on pain of death (which was certainly part of the vow he took when he became a temple Mormon). Many Christians know this about the Mormons, and remain very skeptical.
The other - and what follows is biased by my own Christian beliefs - crazy, even ludicrous, doctrines of Mormonism come after all of the above concerns. Mitt Romney will never be able to satisfy Christians, and presumably Jews, and perhaps others, until he has come clean on the secret stuff. But, because of the vow, he cannot. Because if he were to do that, then the whole system is in danger of collapse. So, Romney has to fall back on pleas for civility and secularism, which is not really where the problem lies ... and he knows it.
For myself, I could never vote for him until he answers, satisfactorily, as John Kennedy once did. ... but then he’d still be a RINO.
Thanks again for your thoughtful post.