Do you “become upset” when you read the Mormon doctrines “belittling and mocking the faith” of Christians ???
Or are you feelings selective ???
Eh ???
OK, you & Hugh Hewitt & the absurd makers of that Constitution/Article VI documentary from the '08 campaign just don't "get it." You & these others believe that Article VI halts the crux of objections to Romney's other-worldly commitments.
Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: You confuse "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution). I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...So, nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
I just recently heard on Fox News from Whorealldough that Mitt’s Great Grand Father left the US because he had 4 wives and that was frowned upon at the time. In Mexico he took a 5th wife who bore him a son.
That son then left Mexico and had a son named George. George as we all know later became governor of Michigan. George had a son called Mitt.
Mitt therefore is entitled to dual citizenship with Mexico. Of course I doubt that he would claim it with the political consequences involved.
The upshot of this is that Mitt would proudly proclaim his Mexican heritage if he were unconcerned about his polygamist heritage.
Second, there is a guy who I just read on Drudge is about to drop from the race and endorse Mitt. That would be Huntsman. Also a Mormon but I haven’t read anything about his multi-generational heritage.
But then you say later on: What little I know of LDS theology doesn’t bother me in the slightest. What people believe in their hearts is between them and God. Only He can see into our hearts. We can see how people act − specifically, whether they treat fellow human beings with kindness. If people form stable families, work hard, are reliable, and keep their word, that’s what’s important − or what should be important.
I guess consistency isn't your strong point, eh?
Let's see...Lds theology labels all Christian sects as "apostates" who are "corrupt" professing believers who embrace 100% abominable creeds. So that's apparently NOT religious "bigotry?"
But if somebody says something negative about Mormonism, that is "religious bigotry?"
If you judge based upon what others say about Mormonism, shouldn't also -- to be consistent -- judge Mormonism by what it says about Christian sects?
And if Mormon beliefs are all a "heart" thing "between them and God," then why aren't the religious convictions that people have about Mormons also a "heart" thing "between them and God."
Can you say you're vying for one of the top foolhardy posts of the year?
Why all the double standards? Is it because you can't think straight, or is it because you can't apply your personal standards evenly across the board?
“But some of these questions are raised by secular leftists who couldn’t care less about theology, but who use it as a club to beat a leading Republican over the head.”
Ironic, isn’t it? Strange bedfellows.
To quote you, “What little I know of LDS theology doesn’t bother me in the slightest.” Either you know little to nothing of mormonISM, or your brand of ‘christianity’ avoids defending Christianity when the spirit of anti-Christ rises. Perhaps you should learn abit more about both MomronISM AND becoming a Christian, the hows and whys, and Whom is the Savior and how He does it.
Well, since the mormon sect was founded as an attack on the theology of the world's Christians My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.” From LDS scriptures and the mormon church continues to send out 52,000 missionaries preaching hatred every day by claiming that the Christian faith is false, a counter-attack is called for.
I am not swayed by the uninformed opinion of a Jew [who, BTW is considered a gentile in mormon belief] on the validity of well-deserved attacks on mormonism. Take some time to discover the facts of the sect you are defending and try again.
This rant smells of a back door attempt to support the Romney candidacy against the wishes of Jim Robinson.
I actually agree with the author’s main point—it’s wrong for liberals especially to criticize Romney for his Mormonism.
However, Mr. Solinsky is COMPLETELY off point when he tries to tie opinion to the US Constitution’s proscription of a religious test. That law, LIKE MOST OF THE CONSTITUTION applies to THE GOVERNMENT as an institution, not individuals.
Part of our freedom as Americans is to hold critical opinions, based on whatever we like—including religious reasons—and vote accordingly.
The idea that somehow the forbidding of a religious test in the Constitution somehow binds commentators and voters from making judgments based on the religious views of someone is ridiculous, and actually contrary the 1st Amendment and unconstitutional itself.
C’mon. The Constitution says the Government can’t pass a Religious test to qualify for office, ie “You must be a Catholic.”
Voters, on the other hand, can use whatever absurd, arbitrary criteria that pleases them. If they are afraid that a Mormon president would turn the country to the dark side and be forced to put up giant statues of Joe Smith and Steve Young in every public square, that’s perfectly acceptable voter behavior.
Don’t sweat it. Religious bigotry is commonplace on both sides. It tends to wash itself out.