Posted on 08/08/2007 8:00:00 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Mitt Romney's own Republican Party has made religion fair game, and Romney will be asked how his faith would affect his policies.
-SNIP-
But Mitt Romney is a serious contender in 2008, rich and disciplined, and he's running in an era when presidential candidates are virtually expected to parade their religiosity. This is particularly true in the Republican camp, where religion and politics are now routinely intertwined; indeed, candidate George W. Bush upped the ante in 2000, when he said that his favorite philosopher was Jesus, ''because he changed my life.''
So it's no surprise Romney is facing questions about his lifelong devotion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the breakaway theology that considers itself humankind's ''one true church.'' He had hoped to stonewall this issue, insisting in a TV interview 18 months ago that ''I'm never going to get into a discussion about my personal beliefs.''
But today word is circulating that Romney will discuss his faith in an autumn speech - and seek to disarm the skeptics much the way John F. Kennedy in 1960 dampened fears that a Catholic president would take orders from Rome.
Romney is dealing with potential hostility, fair or not, on several fronts. Many Christian fundamentalists, particularly southern Baptists, dismiss Mormonism as a cult (thereby imperiling Romney in the GOP primaries, particularly in pivotal South Carolina). Many secular voters are uncomfortable with the church's passion for proselytizing and its superior attitude, particularly its scriptural insistence that all nonbelievers are worshiping ''the church of the devil.'' Pollsters say that at least 30 percent of voters won't back a Mormon.
Romney's biggest problem is that skeptics are simply weirded out. They cannot quite envision having a president who believes that a man named Joseph Smith dug up a book of golden plates, long buried in a hillside, with the help of an angel named Moroni in 1827; that these plates, written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, spelled out the precepts of the true Christian faith; that Smith translated these hieroglyphics by wearing decoder glasses and burying his head in a hat; that Jesus visited North America after the resurrection; that the Garden of Eden was really in Missouri.
-SNIP-
Some questions do seem appropriate. First, the Mormon faith puts a high premium on ''faith-promoting'' information, sometimes at the expense of unpleasant facts. As a high-ranking Mormon leader said in a famous 1981 speech, ''Some things that are true are not very useful.'' Would Romney be able to assure swing voters that he would not merely perpetuate the faith-based thinking, and the rejection of empirical reality, that has trapped us in a ruinous war?
Second, since the Mormons consider themselves stewards of ''a quintessentially American faith'' (Romney's words), and since Mormons believe Jesus will return and rule the world from U.S. territory, does this suggest that a President Romney might wave the flag a bit too fervently, at a time when we need to repair our relations around the world? The Mormon faith is heavily rooted in what is commonly called ''American exceptionalism,'' the belief that we are special and we know best. Would Romney govern accordingly, and, if so, would that be a help or a hindrance in the war on terror?
-SNIP-
What matters, in other words, is not whether he really thinks Joseph Smith met an angel in 1827. The crucial issue is whether, or how, a devout Mormon would apply his faith on the job in 2009. His supporters have suggested that any such questions are symptoms of religious bigotry, but it is the Republican Party, over the past several decades, that has put religion front and center. They have made Mitt Romney fair game.
da da da da hey hey hey, goodbye
Romney may need to answer questions
about his religion, but others do not -
and cannot, apparently.
:-)
arguments from silence are not very convincing...
...perhaps there is an internal “burning” involved
to fill up the space that would have been devoted
to Biblical evidence.
“But I believe it anyway! Just because it supports
what they taught me!!!”
-mormondude (sorry Elsie, had to borrow him)
Am I the only who with the sense that this “All” thing is a tad pedantic?
tant,
I think it’s silly
ampu
I'm still waiting for FR's "Yes, Fred Thompson needs to answer questions about his religion" thread. For that matter, substitute ANY other name in there: Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani, Clinton, Obama . . . . What do we get?
* * * crickets * * *
But the candidate who has led a sterling life free of personal scandal, who has been married to only one woman for over 35 years, whose children are all well-mannered, respectful, successful, and who adore and honor him?
He generates months of unending bigoted conjecture that his "weird religion" has ruined him, that he "explain" it.
Mitt Romney's unblemished life is an open book. It is all the "explanation" that is needed about the impact of his religion on him.
JC,
You can say his life is the only explanation needed
- and that may wash with some voters. Heck, Clinton
supporters willingly turned a blind eye to his personal
life. I guess that is evidence that your opinion is
correct regarding some... but those some are a different
some than would vote for a romney.
For most americans, mormonism remains a fringe religion
(numerically). All they know is what they see knocking
on their front door, what they see when they drive
by a “Free Dorothy!” temple, what they know about polygamy,
and the few snippets they hear about holy underwear.
I have no beef with Mitt’s personal life. I know of
nothing about it that raises red flags - unlike Clinton’s.
He will have every potential inconsistency rooted out
and held up to spotlights. That’s what it means to run
for President.
He will address the mormonism thing publically at least
once. Hopefully, for him, the public will turn the internal
“alarm” switch to the “off” position. Or it may take further
efforts. But it will be addressed. Hiding from it and
purposely not discussing it will only carry him so far. I
bet he wants to go all the way to the nomination and POTUS
enough to bite the bullet and have the talk.
Some will buy it. Some won’t. I think his best shot would
be a hillary candidacy and even better for him a third party
shot by another liberal group. Failing that, he has a long
road to convince many Christians that he is normal, despite
his connection to mormonism.
ampu
Yes, it's much like Hermione saying: "I am not an owl" to Ron. Silly, yes, completely, but I'm trying to make a point, if there are ears to hear.
Every Christian in the world is a believer stemming from either choice or birth. The devout ones become choice regardless of a parent's belief. What exactly is your point?
Not at all, it's way more than a tad. It's a sad tad.
Things like this:
That’s a dumb question. There isn’t an adult in this nation who isn’t a member of their faith by choice.
Works for me!
[Restornu doesn't want me to ping her.]
As a member of the FlyingImamImitators, MD is happy to be channeled by the Ones who are Deserving!
I've taken to posting to myself.
When SOMEONE doesn't want to be pinged, yet what was posted just REEKS for response, I do not wish to fill up peoples TO box with stuff that doesn't concern them.
So, I post to myself.
At least in DOES get posted.
If SOMEONE doesn't like that; well, unless it's slanderous, or goes against FR rules and recommendations...
Luke 18:9-15
9. And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10. Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
And this repy is so lame that I won't respond to it; either.
You know my point.
Was a person brought up in a certain faith, being filled with it's defences against outside claims so that it's hard to see the forest for the trees; or have they come to their 'choice' by a balanced look at other claims?
And this:
There were so many outright lies and inconsistencies, that I didn't’ even bother to respond to it.
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.