Ana Marie Cox: 'I Know Mitt Romney Is Not Himself Christian'

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Ana Marie Cox: not just a snarky ex-blogger turned Time editor -- now a theologian who has pronounced Mitt Romney not a Christian.

The former Wonkette is all over MSNBC today. This morning, as I noted here, Cox [as seen here] cattily swiped at Katie Couric on "Morning Joe," surmising that the CBS Evening News anchor was traveling to the Middle East because she needed rugs.

This evening, Cox appeared on "Countdown" to discuss the Larry Craig matter with Olbermann. Talk turned to the way Mitt Romney (R-Ma.) has dealt with the Craig matter. The Idaho senator had served as Romney's co-chairman in the Senate. Romney was quick to disassociate Craig from his campaign, and Tuesday referred to Craig's behavior as "disgusting."

ANA MARIE COX: [Romney] has inserted himself into this story several times. I think the smart political thing to do would have been to get rid of the guy from your campaign staff, maybe take the [Craig endorsement] video down, but why would you perpetuate the story, why would you involve yourself in this? It really just seems politically inept in my opinion.

KEITH OLBERMANN: Are we again missing something here? Is there some base that he's appealing to by being cruel to somebody's who's in trouble? I'm quite serious about this.

Olbermann lamenting cruelty toward Craig? That's really just too rich. Olbermann is of course reveling in Craig's disgrace, going so far as to have produced a mocking "Joe Friday" re-enactment of the restroom scene.

COX: I think that his understanding of even the conservative base is rather incomplete. I think that someone like Sam Brownback, you may disagree with him, but you really cannot doubt his social conservative credentials, at least has the strength of character to extend Christian mercy.

That's when Cox ruled Romney off the Christian reservation.

COX: I know Mitt Romney is not himself Christian, or [trying to retrieve herself] that's a point of debate, but to show some kind of compassion for somebody who at least there family is going through something really terrible, I think it smacks of opportunism for him to, you know, throw the guy aside.

I wonder if "Time" endorses the view of its Washington editor of Time.com questioning Romney's Christianity?

[MarkBsnr]

So if I have one part Freemason and 99 parts Christian, it is not Christian?

[Reno232]

Interesting. Indeed much of John 17 is directed towards the apostles. But do you really believe that there are things in the bible that aren’t meant for us? There were a number of things that the Lord taught the apostles that were meant solely for them. Those things were not to be uttered by man. For example, we have no idea what was taught the apostles during the 40 day period. That instruction was strictly for them & obviously not us.

I believe it’s a very slippery slope we go down when WE start trying to decide what was meant for us & what wasn’t. I believe you are sincere in believing that John 17 was not for the world at large, but how do you know? Did he state so? My understanding is that the entire bible is meant for all His children. When we have the Lord speaking to Moses, Isaiah, or any of the prophets, & those words were written down, was that meant solely for them or was it for us to learn as well?

Although I respect your opinions, they are very hard to comprehend largely b/c there’s nothing definitive in the scriptures to back them up. I’m still at a loss in re: to the redundancy question. It just doesn’t make sense. There’s no reason for it. He could have just said, I am the Father this is how you pray to me. Instead, He said, I am the Son of Man, this is how I, & you should pray to the Father. Doesn’t that make a lot more sense if they’re different beings?

So, what’s a man to do? all these different opinions & theories about what is what. Are your points valid? Perhaps. Are my points valid? Perhaps. How about the Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, & all the rest of Christianity out there. Do they all have valid points even though their opinions conflict one w/ another? Perhaps.

So, how do we know who’s right? How about asking the author of all this, the Lord. Would He be so insensitive, so uncaring, that He wouldn’t answer the sincere in heart? The bible says very clearly He will answer the sincere in heart.

As I’ve stated in previous posts, I had those questions & tried to find answers in just about every Christian denomination known at the time. It wasn’t until I was taught that I could actually go to the Lord & receive those answers that things became very clear for me. No more wondering who was right or which interpretation to believe. Man had fooled me before on a host of issues & will undoubtedly do so again. In the Lord, I found no such concern. It’s a wonderful feeling. You know somewhat about the Holy Ghost, so you have some idea of what I’m talking about. Thanks for the wonderful discussion. It’s been a nice change of pace. If only all discussions here on the FR could be so cordial & respectful. This awesome board would be nirvana. Have a great one my friend.

[MarkBsnr]

Civil discourse?

There are some debaters here that might dispute that!!!

The reason why Jesus left us the Church is precisely to do what you are struggling with - the interpretation of Scripture. If not, then we have the examples of folks that interpret entire passages in a rather odd fashion. I have had exchanges with two sincere people in the last few hours that have interpreted entire chapters in a manner that clearly (!) goes against two millennia of teaching, as well as logical comparison and analysis.

That is why we have the thousands and thousands of differing Protestant churches, as well as the millions of individualist churches-of-one that are getting so popular in this, the Scriptural LaZBoy age.

I believe that in the 72 books of Scripture and in the teachings of the Church, we have the Word of God as close as humans can get. I wish you good fortune in your further understanding, and possibly some further exchanges.

Mark

[ChiefBoatswain]

I don't know about your ratio, but I can imagine that some would say: "Yes". If the ratios were reversed, I'd have to guess that you'd say yes as well. So, then, how much non-Chritian content is enough to say "no"?

And consider this. What if it were 1 part "pagan". Would that be different? Or 1 part Islamic?

I have a feeling that if an actual ratio were derived, it'd be substantially higher than 1 part. Not sure what, and I'm not saying one way or the other if any Masonic content does or does not make it Christian, just that it needs to be considered.

[nowandlater]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XoDJX5dACs

[MarkBsnr]

Fair enough. I’m sure that we have our share of paganism in the country now.

I’d probably put it this way: there was Masonic influence, rather than foundation. The extent of Masonic influence was probably greater then than now, due to the institution concentrating over the last century more on secrecy than on propagation. The average age has got to be close to 70 now.

[sevenbak]

I have known many Masons who are very honorable, men who believe in God and are very faithful to their churches; yet it has been shown and proven that Freemasonry cannot be compatible with Christianity.

Hey, I know it's hard to have a conversation when I'm not online, but I've been real busy. I'll try to catch up...

Well, considering our entire constitution, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Bill or rights, etc, yes, even our very foundations of government were established by many Freemasons, I tend to give them more benefit of the doubt about whither or not they were Christian, and that the two can coexist, even work together for the benefit of man.

Here is a list of Masons at the time who had a hand in founding this country:

GREATEST NAMES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

John Adams - (Spoke favorably of Freemasonry - never joined)

Samuel Adams - (Close and principle associate of Hancock, Revere & other Masons)

Ethan Allen - Mason

Edmund Burke - Mason

John Claypoole - Mason

William Daws - Mason

Benjamin Franklin - Mason

John Hancock - Mason

Thomas Jefferson - (Some evidence of Masonic connections)

John Paul Jones - Mason

Robert Livingston - Mason

James Madison - (Some evidence of Masonic membership)

Paul Revere - Mason

Colonel Benjamin Tupper - Mason

George Washington - Mason

Daniel Webster - (Some evidence of Masonic connections)

_______________________________________________________________________

SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Known Masons (8): Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Joseph Hewes, William Hooper, Robert Treat Payne, Richard Stockton, George Walton, William Whipple

Evidence of Membership And/or Affiliations (7): Elbridge Gerry, Lyman Hall, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Nelson Jr., John Penn, George Read, Roger Sherman

Summary: 15 of 56 Signers were Freemasons or probable Freemasons.

It’s true that this represents only 27% of the total signers. But this 27% included the principle movers of the Revolution, most notably Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, the primary authors of the Declaration. The former was a Freemason, the latter a deist and possible Freemason. If one were to analyze the Declaration, he would see their humanistic influences.

_______________________________________________________________________

SIGNERS OF THE CONSTITUTION

Known Masons (9): Gunning Bedford, Jr., John Blair, David Brearly, Jacob Broom, Daniel Carrol, John Dickinson, Benjamin Franklin, Rufus King, George Washington

Evidence of Membership And/or Affiliations (13): Abraham Baldwin, William Blount, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Lansing, Jr., James Madison, George Mason, George Read, Robert Morris, Roger Sherman, George Wythe

Those Who Later Became Masons (6): William Richardson Davie, Jr., Jonathan Dayton, Dr. James McHenry, John Francis Mercer, William Patterson, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer

Summary: 28 of 40 signers were Freemasons or possible Freemasons based on evidence other than lodge records.

_______________________________________________________________________

MASONIC INFLUENCES IN EARLY AMERICAN HISTORY

- Lafayette, French liaison to the Colonies, without whose aid the war could not have been won, was a Freemason.

- The majority of the commanders of the Continental Army were Freemasons and members of “Army Lodges.”

- Most of Washington’s Generals were Freemasons.

- The Boston Tea Party was planned at the Green Dragon Tavern, also known as the Freemasons’ Arms, and “the Headquarters of the Revolution.”

- George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States by Robert Livingston, Grand Master of New York’s Masonic lodge. The Bible on which he took his oath was from his own Masonic lodge.

- The Cornerstone of the Capital building was laid by the Grand Lodge of Maryland.

[MarkBsnr]

No problem.

The thing is that at the time, Freemasonry was becoming a substantial fraternity and a good place to go for a men’s night out and some serious libation. You got to meet good friends and discuss many items; you got to practice exclusivist practices and keep all others away - to the point of mounting an armed guard at the doors - and you got to get away from your wife for the evening.

A social reason. Did all of them believe and understand and really compare Masonic beliefs with Christian ones? Were all of these men seriously religious to begin with? Certainly not all.

Now why is Freemasonry incompatible with Christianity (and not just Catholicism)?

http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=4151 says that:

However, there are some elements of Freemasonry, which are perennially incompatible with Catholicism and indeed with Christianity. In his initiation ceremony, a candidate is given a copy of the V.S.L. (Volume of the Sacred Law). Inscribed therein is the following admonition: “As a Freemason you are charged to consider the V. of the S.L. as the unerring standard of Truth and Justice and to regulate your actions by the Divine precepts it contains.” For a Protestant, who believes the Bible to be the final authority, this statement presents, at first glance, no problems. However, for a Catholic this statement is problematic since Catholics believe that oral tradition and the magisterium of the Church are essential elements of the matrix of authority.

What, though, is meant by the “Volume of the Sacred Law”? The “Volume of the Sacred Law” is the religious text of the religion of the candidate. Thus, for a Jewish Mason, it will be the Old Testament, the Christian the Bible and the Moslem the Koran. Masonry thus teaches indifferentism, or the belief that one religion is as good as any other religion. Leo XIII’s condemnation of Freemasonry on the grounds of indifferentism is thus perennially valid. Christians do not believe that Christianity is as good as any other religion. In St. John’s Gospel, Jesus states, “I am the way, the truth and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through me.” Whilst it is true that following Vatican II, the Catholic Church’s attitude towards non-Catholic religious bodies (especially non-Christian religions) has been modified, in that it sees some positive elements in other religions, it still nevertheless firmly teaches that all the redeemed are saved through the person and work of Christ and that Catholicism teaches the fullness of God’s revelation.

Perhaps equally incompatible with Christianity is Freemasonry’s raison d’etre. According to the initiation ceremony, the candidate about to be presented is in a “state of darkness.” Through his initiation ceremony he enters a state of light. The truths of Freemasonry are revealed only to the initiated and are given to him to lead him to the light. This belief is reflected in the blindfolding of the candidate for the first part of the ceremony. Wilmshurst, in The Initiation Ceremony: Analysis and Commentary states “For every Candidate, the Initiation Ceremony implies that whatever academic or scientific learning he possesses, whatever philosophical ideas he holds, whatever religious creed he professes, prior to Initiation, there remains something more — indeed something vastly more — for him yet to learn and to which the Craft can help him.”3 Whilst Masons may claim that this is only one Mason’s opinion, a careful reading of the initiation ceremony indicates that Wilmshurst accurately reflects its tone. A Christian must ask the question: what more is required than Christ? Or, what state of spiritual darkness is there that can be illumined apart from Christ? A central Christian image of Christ is of Jesus as the “light of the world.” According to Christian beliefs, a person casts aside his spiritual darkness and enters a state of spiritual light through faith in Jesus and baptism. In the Catholic Rite of Baptism, the candidate is asked if he rejects “Satan, the father of sin and prince of darkness” and is given a candle with the words “receive the light of Christ.” In the Australian Anglican baptism rite (AAPB 1978) immediately after the baptism, the minister says the following to the newly baptized: “You have been called out of darkness into the light of Christ.”

By contrast, Freemasonry’s raison d’etre mirrors those of mystery cults: all persons are in a state of darkness except members who have been brought to a state of light through participation in the mysteries of the cult. As membership is open only to adult males, does this mean that women, as a result of their gender, are doomed to perpetual darkness?

What are the means Masonry reveals to its members to find enlightenment? Masonry seems to teach that the Mason, through practicing the virtues, gains enlightenment, or to rephrase it, humans, through their own efforts can achieve salvation. This position is known as naturalism. According to naturalism, religions are useful insofar as they teach morality, but are not essential. Leo XIII’s condemnation of Freemasonry on these grounds is perennial. Naturalism is incompatible with the doctrine of original sin and the belief that the Christ event was necessary for human salvation: indeed, whilst Freemasonry commends its adherents for trusting in God it makes no mention of the necessity of belief in Christ and him crucified. From what is taught in a lodge a Mason could well come to believe that all that is required of him is that he be a good person and do good works.

Whilst only two elements of Freemasonry have been analyzed in detail above, it is largely for these reasons, namely indifferentism and naturalism, combined with a total lack of reference to the person and work of Christ that Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity. It is thus interesting to note the growing number of Protestant churches, who traditionally either approved of or treated Freemasonry with indifference, who have stated publicly that membership of Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity: indeed, Hannah argues that all denominations which have seriously examined Freemasonry’s claims have condemned it.4 In an era in which many young people who come from a Christian and particularly a Catholic background believe that one religion is as good as another religion and that all that is required of them is that they be good people, the Christian community as a whole must restate the fundamental differences between itself and Freemasonry.

[sevenbak]

I don’t think it says anywhere that they are mutually exclusive.

[sevenbak]

Right, he certainly had the Holy Spirit with him, he could not have seen Jesus or God the Father if he hadn’t. (which btw, seems to be contrary to the orthodox belief that no man can see God and live)... but that still doesn’t mean Stephen saw differently that what is said plainly and simply in the scriptures, that he saw, one standing on the right of the other.

[sevenbak]

To discount the words of Paul is problematic to the argument. He specifically says there woudl be a falling away first, before the 2nd coming could happen.

He was God’s servant, God’s tool, and became one of his most chosen servants. It’s not necessary to discount his words, for they don’t counter the other scriptures.

[sevenbak]

Yes, Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, but what does that mean in the context of his times? Let’s look at what Wikipedia has to say about it... very enlightening:

“It is also important to note, Deist was a synonym for Unitarian at the time. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were Deists (or Unitarians) but that means they just didn’t believe the supernatural parts of the New Testament, or that God was part of a trinity.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

In light of his other statements about an apostacy from the original church, I can hardly blame him. Let's look at what he said again:

Happy in the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity, I must leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mythologists of the middle and modern ages.—

Thomas Jefferson (H.A. Washington, ed.,”The writings of Thomas Jefferson,” vol. 7, pp210, 257)

[sevenbak]

Yes, I believe it was their opinion, but when you have the opinion of both the founder of the Methodist Church and the founder of the American Baptist Church both saying the apostasy occurred, what does that say? And what does that say about the subsequent organizations that they founded claiming no such apostasy ever happened?

[sevenbak]

sigh...

Wrest the scriptures all you want, you won't change their meaning.

[sevenbak]

Do I look like I'm joking?

Did the Fathers I quoted look like they were telling a joke or a humorous anecdote?

[sevenbak]

No it’s not scripture, but just for you, I’ll temporarily go back to my old tagline...

[sevenbak]

Well said, well said!!

[MarkBsnr]

No, but it’s kind of a long commute, especially in those days, from SLC to rural Missouri.

[MarkBsnr]

Never doubted what St. Stephen saw. It’s just that there is an another explanation that is lucid, with equally as much logic.

[MarkBsnr]

I do not discount the words of the second greatest of all the Apostles. I do not blame the Marcionists on Paul. I blame them on, well, them. Those who misinterpret Scripture for one reason or another, will do so at their own peril.

Arguably speaking, there are several candidates for that falling away period, including the Reformation, the Restoration, and the entire 20th century, with religions and cults multiplying like rabbits.