Posted on 06/10/2007 7:24:29 PM PDT by Reaganesque
Sally Denton uses today's Los Angeles Times op-ed page as a launching pad for the movie based on her book, "American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857," and as a means to propagate more anti-Mormon bigotry at the expense of Mitt Romney. Denton insists that Romney has to respond about the nature of his faith if he expects to win the nomination for the Presidency -- and uses a lot of 19th-century examples to "prove" her case:
MITT ROMNEY'S Mormonism threatens his presidential candidacy in the same way that John F. Kennedy's Catholicism did when he ran for president in 1960. Overt and covert references to Romney's religion — subtle whispering as well as unabashed inquiries about the controversial sect he belongs to — plague his campaign. None of his responses so far have silenced the skeptics.
Recent polls indicate that from 25% to 35% of registered voters have said they would not consider voting for a Mormon for president, and conventional wisdom from the pundits suggests that Romney's biggest hurdle is his faith. Everyone seems eager to make his Mormonism an issue, from blue state secularists to red state evangelicals who view the religion as a non-Christian cult.
All of which raises the question: Are we religious bigots if we refuse to vote for a believing Mormon? Or is it perfectly sensible and responsible to be suspicious of a candidate whose creed seems outside the mainstream or tinged with fanaticism?
Ironically, Romney is the only candidate in the race (from either party) who has expressed discomfort with the idea of religion infecting the national dialogue. While his GOP rivals have been pandering to the evangelical arm of the party, Romney actually committed himself (during the first Republican debate) to the inviolable separation of church and state.
First, Denton is hardly an unbiased pundit in this regard. She's flogging a book and a movie about an atrocity committed by Mormons 150 years ago. For Denton, 1857 is relevant to 2007, but for most Americans. The suggestion that Romney needs to answer for Brigham Young would be as silly as saying that Democrats have to answer for Stephen Douglas or that Lutherans today have to answer for the anti-Semitic rants of Martin Luther.
Denton first off would have people believe that all Mormons are "tinged with fanaticism," but does nothing to advance that case. She discusses the beginnings of their church in great detail, but her history lessons appear to end at 1857. In the only mentions of any connection to the present, she uses the HBO series Big Love and Warren Jeffs, neither of which has any connection to the modern Mormon church or to Romney's faith. Both the fictional account in Big Love and the unfortunately non-fiction and despicable Jeffs involve polygamist cults -- and in the TV series, are showed as in mortal opposition to the Mormons.
Denton includes this helpful instruction at the half-way point:
It's not a church's eccentric past that makes a candidate's religion relevant today, but its contemporary doctrines. (And it's worth noting that polygamy and blood atonement, among other practices, are no longer condoned by the official Mormon church hierarchy.)
So what contemporary doctrines does Romney need to explain? Denton never says. Instead, she spends her time writing about how Joseph Smith once declared his intention to run for President -- in 1844. She discusses how John C. Fremont's candidacy died on the rumor that he was Catholic -- in 1856. She mentions 1960, in which John Kennedy dealt with anti-Catholic bigotry, but only barely notes that he prevailed over it -- and that was almost 50 years ago.
Denton then frames the question that she feels Romney has to answer:
Do you, like the prophet you follow, believe in a theocratic nation state? All the rest is pyrotechnics.
Unfortunately for Denton, Romney has answered this question every time it gets asked. And somewhat incoherently, Denton appears to forget that she herself acknowledges this near the beginning of the column:
While his GOP rivals have been pandering to the evangelical arm of the party, Romney actually committed himself (during the first Republican debate) to the inviolable separation of church and state.
Romney has no need to enter into the field of religious apologetics in his campaign for the presidency, no more than does Harry Reid in order to run the Senate. He certainly has no guilt to expiate on behalf of a massacre committed almost a century before his birth, and for people like Warren Jeffs who do not have any connection to the Mormon church. In other words, Denton has taken up space at the LA Times to exercise her bigotry and to not-so-coincidentally sell a few books and movie tickets. She and the LA Times should be ashamed.
UPDATE: One commenter suggests that people opposed Keith Ellison on the basis of his religion. Er, not quite. We opposed him on the basis of his association with the notoriously anti-Semitic group Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan, and his association with CAIR, which has supported terrorist groups like Hamas. If Romney had spoken at Warren Jeffs' compound for political donations, then the analogy would be apt. Ellison's problem isn't his religion but the company he keeps, politically, a fact that he and his apologists like to wrap in a false cloak of religious antagonism.
Not really, no. I would ask that you read your interlocutor's claim again. "Don't do as I say" etc. is an adage in the form of a moral critique. It suggests hypocrisy. What your interlocutor actually wrote is more akin to "I don't know--or cannot precisely articulate--what great art is, but I know it when I see it." Rather like the supreme court justice who famously claimed that he could not define obscenity, but he knew it when he saw it. This may sound odd on its face, but a lot our knowledge about the world reduces to these sorts of un- or pre-articulate responses. A specialist--say, a theologian or an expert in canon law--may be able to articulate the case more precisely. But we can't all be specialists, and just because we are not specialists does not mean that our judgments and verdicts should not count.“I don’t know with absolute certainty that what I believe is correct, but I know with absolute certainty that Mormon beliefs are wrong.”>>>> TG A20's rejoinder: Very closely akin to ‘don’t do as I do, do as I say’.
re: 304
I have asked questions about the so far unproven opinions concerning the “heresies” you claim against Mormons.
Is this a ONE way street??
Will you now...
...asked questions about the so far unproven opinions concerning the “heresies” the LDS members claim against Christianity?
>>>> I asked you people for clarification and the foundation (proof) of your accusations: nothing more. So far nothing.
As to the “heresies” the Mormons allegedly claim against Christianity, you have to ask a Mormon. <<<
re: 308
“So much for turning the other cheek!”
>>>> HAHAHAHA Right! I gave up on that one years ago. I just couldn’t see letting rude and viscious meatheads get away unanswered with their arrogant, bullying behavior: it just a’in’t my style.
re: 309
re: You’re right there, too.
re: 313
Then how come the attacks on me for asking questions and for proof of the accusations being flung around? Not that I care, but it makes me wonder when someone is going to come up with something other than opinions.
I have an ides!!!! Why don’t we compare histories of some churches and their behavior? Maybe we can get somewhere with that, instead of going around in circles with only opinions and seemingly unpalatable definitions.
re: 315
No truer words wsere ever spoken.
re: 317
Maybe you’re in over your depth....friend.
>>>> Oh no!! Not another Asclepy baby. Let the games begin. <<<
FWIW-
>>>> which is zilch> <<<
re: 321
Get lost.
Get lost.I would ask that since you have nothing to contribute to this discussion that you please--and I write this with all due respect--consider participating elsewhere. "Get lost" hardly constitutes a contribution to the sum of human knowledge, nor does it address any of the points or issues that I or your interlocutor raised.
If you are genuinely seeking discussion of the ‘alleged’ heresies, it would be vital to have a concept of what you acknowledge as authority from which definitions of doctrine and orthodoxy arise ... let me know your foundational orthodoxy and I’ll gladly address the hereseis I perceive, relying upon the orthodoxy you acknowledge. If you will not share that piece of data —what you acknowledge as source for authority— this exchange process will be nothing more than you reacting in sniping fashion to what you perceive as bullying rhetoric.
Why don’t we compare histories of some churches and their behavior?Here is the problem, as I see it, with your proposal: it does not address any of the issues raised in this important discussion. Please try to follow me: The most perfect and upright moral exemplar stands as proof of precisely nothing. For example: You can be a good and upright atheist. Does it follow that atheism is in some sense true? Well, no, at least not on its face. Doctrinal issues must be addressed on doctrinal grounds, wouldn't you say? Therefore: I think what we need to do--IMHO--is to try to focus on issues that address the question at hand, and try to avoid distractions like the one you suggest.
Been underwater many times myself.........
Maybe I'm wrong.....Wouldn't be the first time.
let me know your foundational orthodoxyI addressed this in my first post to this thread. First, I am a Jew, raised fairly secularly but now baal tshuva (my family and I are trying to become more observant). But as I understand it normative (or orthodox) Christianity discovers its doctrinal foundation in its historical creeds and canons, e.g. the canon of scripture, The Apostles' Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Creed of St. Athanasius. It is on these grounds that I would argue that Mormons are not Christians in the same sense that Manicheans are not Christians. Does this mean that Mormons are bad people, that Mormons have no share in the world to come, that Mormons should be excluded from civic life etc., etc.--certainly not. I'm about as Christian as any Mormon, and I do not believe that I am a bad person, or that I should be excluded from civic life etc., etc. Does this help?
re: 329
“I would ask that since you have nothing to contribute to this discussion that you please—and I write this with all due respect—consider participating elsewhere.”Get lost” hardly constitutes a contribution to the sum of human knowledge,....”
>>>> Look who’s talking. HAHAHAHA All you contribute is lessons on how to be obnoxious. <<<
“... nor does it address any of the points or issues that I or your interlocutor raised.”
>>>> That comes under the heading of NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS — ulesss you own this forum. So get lost, pest. <<<
I asked you people for clarification and the foundation (proof) of your accusations: nothing more. So far nothing.So far nothing that you will not dismiss in advance on grounds that none of your interlocutors can understand. I offered clarification, several others have offered clarification--what we get in response are groundless dismissals, accusations, and insults. Here is the point: The doctrinal bases of normative Christianity and the Mormon confession contradict one another. The two are inconsistent. It is as simple as that. I am left to wonder if it is clarification that you really want, or if you have other motives. Are you trolling this thread perhaps? And for what purpose? This is only a surmise of course. But your behavior invites speculation.
That comes under the heading of NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS — ulesss you own this forum. So get lost, pest.No, I do not own this forum. But I respect those who do. And I respect the people who gather here. So my question becomes this: Why do you insist on disrepecting this site and the people who use it as a place to discuss their different points of view? I wonder if you could at least try to stay on topic, and try to address the issues raised in the discussion calmly, and if not objectively, at least respectfully?
re: 267
“Again, is there any reason to post such ugliness?”
>>>> Ana, again, I’ll say, ‘yes there is.’ That disgusting troll keeps postering me — see # 329, and if somebody can’t get him off my back, things are liable to really get nasty. <<<
see # 329, and if somebody can’t get him off my back, things are liable to really get nasty.#329 is simply me, asking you,--asking you, not telling you--politely, with all due respect, to please try to comport yourself appropriately--not for my sake, but out of respect for this forum. Friend, please understand: I am not on your back as you put it. I want to discuss the issues raised here. And I am not trolling!--of the two of us, who has contributed more to this important dialog? Why, me, of course.
re; 339
Now try real hard to understand this - you are an egotistical, pompous windbag, I find you thoroughly revolting, and wish to have absolutely nothing further to do with you.
LEAVE ME ALONE.
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.