Yes, Romney needs to answer questions about his religion

Mitt Romney's own Republican Party has made religion fair game, and Romney will be asked how his faith would affect his policies.

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.

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?

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.

1) I have severe (and I mean severe) time constraints for about one month.

Yeah, and I have all the time in the world to deal with posers.

I have to admit the thought that you might be delaying what you know will be an unwinnable case in hopes that everyone will forget you made a statement and refused to back it up. Please prove my suspicious side wrong.

What you suggest really requires going to archival material, some of it hidden in Mormon hands (the bank ledgers that showed up).

If you had done the research to make your statement with certainty, you would already have done this research. I did a little before issuing my challenge, you should have researched before making your comments. The burden of proof is on you, put up, or shut up and be ridiculed. I'm to busy to back up my words will not fly here.

So while I am not opposed to taking you on, it will have to be a month from now (there are $125 million in properties I’m involved with, so my mind really is elsewhere).

If you post on FR on the topic of the church while you should be answering this challenge, you are and will be labeled as a poser. If you are not to busy to post, then you are not to busy to respond.

2) There has to be “skin in the game”. At least a thousand bucks, maybe more.

LOL, sure, if you want to put up $1,000.00 US, I'll take it when I win. And in that case I will insist that this challenge happen immediately. /Humor

As for "Skin" your reputation as a "Truthful person" on FR is not worth anything to you? Well, mine is, that is my "skin". I only have one login here, I have a reputation, and it's important to me. You can't buy reputation, or taste.

3) There would have to be an outside judge. You believe Smith was God, I’m sure not going to accept your judgment.

I do not believe Joseph Smith is God, never have never will, it's not part of the religion, it's statements like that, inaccurate, assuming you know what I personally believe that make your other posts questionable, and why I am saying "prove it".

I said in the court of public opinion, there is a judge and a jury, they are all of FR. (which is why a Cash pay out s a ridiculous idea.)

The nomination of a "Judge" is a delay tactic, again, where did you study law?

Because of my time limitations, it might be better to suggest two teams to oppose each other. Maybe up the ante too. What you are discussing, to do it right, would require an audit of not only the Bank, but Smith’s speculative land dealings and the dealings of his followers and bank investors too. That requires quite an amount of historiography.

Good law school tactic, when you can't prove your case, broaden the trial and try to get some thing else on your opponent, like perjury on Scooter Libby or something.

Unfortunately for you, I have dealt with too many lawyers, no, the charge was that Joseph Smith committed fraud, fraud has a specific meaning:

deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

You must prove your charge true, you may not expand your case to other people or other charges, or I will ridicule you unmercifully for being unable to defend your statements.

If I seek to do the same, I expect no less from you. I will not be bearing my testimony to you, nor will I invoke revelation that he is innocent, however, he is innocent until you prove him guilty. Good luck, you're going to need it.

You made the charges, you called names, you back them up, not some committee, not some group, you, your reputation is what is on the line, as is mine, I called you on this, I am not expecting anyone to take up my defense, I am not expecting anyone to "save me", I do think it is reasonable to expect that you and I will both receive FM from people on "our side" of the issue, and since it could not reasonably be prevented, I recommend that it be specifically allowed, so you made statements with out evidence to back it up, and now you need research done that you don't have time to do, ask one of the "Ati Posse"^(TM) to do it for you.

You are complaining about time, well, you had the time to make the charge, FR is not a time limited commitment. you should have had the evidence before you called names, request for a continuance denied. Any lawyer who files a charge is supposed to have the evidence before filing or they would be be disbarred.

Shall we start calling you Fast Nifong?

So, I’m not saying no, just laying out some of the geography of such a challenge.

So, you consider trying to "Buy" victory part of the geography of the challenge? Start laying out your evidence or admit you can't support your accusation.

I’m all for “put up or shut up” challenges, but have found they are often hard to judge and take lots of time.

Yeah, you seem to be all for Put up or Shut up when it's aimed at somebody else, right now, to me you look like you are trying to delay until no one will remember or care. Then you will drop out, and hope no one will notice, nice try.

I shouldn’t be here right now in fact, I only come here when my mind is too numb to work.

Please do not tempt me with "Mind numbing" jokes right now, I am going to be a serious as I can about this, If you don't have the time, admit defeat, and walk away, otherwise, present your evidence.

FR is waiting to see if you have any evidence at all.

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.