Posted on 01/23/2007 5:52:17 PM PST by NotchJohnson
For Republicans, Mitt Romney’s an attractive candidate. He has a good track record as head of the Salt Lake City Olympics and governor of Massachusetts. And, thanks to a convenient, pre-presidential conversion, he’s now anti-choice, anti-gay rights and anti-gun control. There’s only one problem: He’s a practicing Mormon.
Should Romney’s religion be an issue in politics 2008? It already is. Indeed, given the basic tenets of Mormonism, there’s no way Romney could escape it.
Most of us only know Mormons from two experiences: either having zealous young missionaries knock on our door; or watching HBO’s hit TV show “Big Love” (under political pressure, Mormons officially rejected the practice of polygamy in 1890). But few of us know what they really believe. Here’s my brief, unofficial synopsis:
The Mormon Church is an all-American creation, founded by a man who taught that all Christian doctrine developed after the crucifixion of Jesus was a whopping lie. Mormons believe the angel Moroni first appeared to founder Joseph Smith in 1823 and directed him to a set of gold tablets, buried on a hillside near Palmyra, N.Y. Wearing a pair of magic glasses, given to him by Moroni, Smith translated those tablets, originally written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, into what became The Book of Mormon. He founded the church in 1830.
According to the Mormon Bible, American Indians descended from an ancient Hebrew tribe, the Garden of Eden was located in Jackson County, Mo., Jesus came to North America shortly after his resurrection, and it’s only a matter of time before he returns to America (hence the name Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). Meanwhile, God speaks directly to each Mormon prophet, and the president of the church is accepted as the contemporary mouthpiece of Jesus.
It’s no surprise, then, that, both in print and on the talk shows, the debate about the significance of Romney’s Mormon faith is already underway. Several prominent evangelicals have said they could never vote for a Mormon.
In a recent cover story for The New Republic, Damon Linker challenges: “ Romney . . . needs to convince voters that they have nothing to fear from his Mormonism while simultaneously placing that faith at the core of his identity and his quest for the White House.”
Writing for Slate.com, Jacob Weisberg says there’s nothing wrong with refusing to vote for a believing Mormon: “Objecting to someone because of his religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage, race or gender.”
In the Los Angeles Times, Tim Rutten says they’re both wrong. Romney’s record is fair game, argues Rutten, but his private religious conscience is not.
Holy smoke! What to believe? Is it fair to make Romney’s faith be an issue in the race for president? Absolutely. But only in one sense. Not on the basis of his religious beliefs. The First Amendment, after all, gives every American the right to believe, or not believe, anything he or she wants. And for those who think finding divine gold tablets buried in a New York hillside defies serious belief . . . have you heard about the virgin birth? Or the miracle of loaves and fishes? Or raising Lazarus from the dead?
No, the only religious question fairly posed to Mitt Romney is the same one posed to Catholic candidate John F. Kennedy, back in 1960: Where does your loyalty lie? Since Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope, many Protestants were concerned about potential conflicts between what the Constitution demanded of a future-President Kennedy and what the Pope might tell him. In his famous meeting with the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, Kennedy said he believed in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute: “I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”
It’s important that Romney make a similar Kennedyesque statement. The sooner, the better. Once he does, any further probing into his religious faith is out of bounds — for reporters and political opponents.
In the end, Mitt Romney should be treated like any other candidate for president. His fitness for office should be judged on where he stands on the war in Iraq, health care, the environment, education and other major issues facing the nation — and not on what nonsense he happens to believe in the name of God.
I'm confused, wouldn't that be a personal attack? The last resort of one losing an argument?
No calling someone a retread, is a familiar, and much loved FreeRepublic term.
You have won nothing. But that certainly would be a cheap win to claim, I must say.
Oh, thought it was just a typo.
As for cheap wins, I go with my strength!
Would you vote for a socialist?
LOL
To Lady Lawyer et al. --
Here's a cogent response to Press's distortions.
http://www.theunion.com/article/20070126/NEWS/101260167
IF you REALLY want to see what the Church beleives as its doctrines of Christ, then read what the President and the 12 apostles of the Church say in their own words. Then we can talk...
http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=83ad2eb2162eb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
OK, I'll take a look. Thanks.
When Bill 'I love only democrats' Press asks such a question, it is designed to attack the beliefs of the candidate in such a way as to negate his utility. The clinton goon squad probably directed him to work something up right away, before Romney catches any momentum.
I wonder what Jesus would think of your statement when he said to "Love One Another!"
Would Jesus think if man for no reason talked like about his neighbor that they would be one of Jesus?
Matt 7
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Already have.
Of course, the alternative was a horrid Democrat harpy, who "just happend to be" a votary of Sappho. (Not that that last fact influenced my vote, but it might have helped Mitt. Her sexual perference was not a campaign issue.)
You are so right, me too.
I voted for him in MA too. He didn’t impress me with his ability to deal with the entrenched corruption in this state, so how can I expect him to effectively cope with the scum that he has to encounter on a global basis?
His “religion”, such as one might refer to it (rather than as a “cult”), has nothing to do with his ability to be president!!!
Say what you will about Romney, imagine if Shannon O’Brien had been in the corner office.
For instance when Imanutjobiden visited Harvard, he smoked out the Dems by order State Police not to provide security.
When the tunnel roof collapsed, he seized the opportunity to fire Fat Matt, forthwith. Only his legislative buddies had allowed him to cling to office.
I’m take Matt over ANY, ANY Democratic politician in Massachusetts and any running for president.
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.