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.
LOL!
I'll be sure to politely decline any invitations to dinner. :-)
It is also worth pointing out that 30-61% of American
voters have said in a Rasmussen poll that they will not
vote for a gorilla for POTUS...
FAIRwiki is a site moderated and controlled by true believing Mormons that are loyal to the LDS church. An interesting perspective into how Mormons generally feel about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth can be discovered by looking at this FAIRwiki entry on the Kirtland Safety Society and comparing it to the contributions that have been made to the Wikipedia entry on this same subject. I think the reader can decide for themselves if the Mormons are really openly honest about their history. I don't want to give a bias either way. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirtland_Safety_Society&action=history for a comparison
How do you and your wife reconcile yourself to some of the bigotry and intolerance issues in LDS history? How do you justify belief in a book that says that some people got dark skin for being wicked and others got light skin for being righteous? How do you justify Brigham Young’s teaching of “death on the spot” being the appropriate punishment for disobeying the law of the Lord that will never change on interracial marriage? How do you justify the intolerance and bigotry of asserting that all the other churches are false and abominations in the sight of God, and that all their professors are corrupt? How do you do it?
Alright names please who were they?
What specific religion do you belong to? How do you reconcile yourself to some of the slaveholding, bigotry, racism, and intolerance that can be found amongst your religious forebearers? Until the 60's, nearly every city, town, school, and even church - especially in the South - were racially segregated to some extent. For almost a century after our nation's founding, slavery was legal. So, I guess you can attack the United States of America for the same things you're attacking the LDS Church for.
Keep in mind too that one of the primary complaints against the LDS Church in its earliest days was the fact that the Church was against slavery. Also note that baptism into the Church was offered to everyone of any race. The Priesthood was not offered to blacks until 1978 much as the Priesthood is still not offered to women in the LDS Church and many other religions.
John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...
~”...but there is a constant line of attackers...”~
See, there’s where you’re wrong. There’s no “constant line.” There are only a few. They just happen to be particularly dedicated at beating the gorilla.
The people who oppose this mindset outnumber them by an order of magnitude. But, then, those people aren’t set on imposing their own moral and theological code on others, so we don’t hear from them nearly so much.
~”This constant attack by your side, of calling the detractors haters and bigots, is not going to help your cause.”~
Here, let me try... Ah-hem:
This constant attack by your side, of calling the Mormons cultists and non-Christians, is not going to help your cause.
~”Romney must address those fears and address them adequately or he is toast.”~
This is where you are experiencing the disconnect, CC. By and large, PEOPLE ARE NOT AFRAID OF MORMONS. Your demonstrably strong ideological differences with us do not change this fact.
There may be curiosity about the LDS Church, and people may legitimately wonder how Romney’s religious beliefs will affect his actions as a politician. I agree that if he were to lead them to believe that he would try and impose his religious values, etc. on America, then they would have cause to be concerned, and he needs to take steps to ensure that they understand that this is not the case. But curiosity is not fear.
If Romney is able to satisfy the curiosity and win the nomination, the conservative base will flock behind him in the general election.
So, by your definition, anyone who thinks their religion is the correct and true religion is a "bigot" or "intolerant". I guess Martin Luther was a "bigot" or "intolerant" towards the Catholic Church and its professors. And anyone who split from that mainline Protestant religion and formed their own (Baptists, Presbyterians, etc.) were also "bigots" and "intolerant" towards the previous religions because they decided that a correct and true church needed to be formed as opposed to the incorrect and untrue church they were leaving.
Does your church accept baptisms from every other church on the earth? You mean that they don't?! Well, isn't that "bigoted" and "intolerant"?
Besides, if you don't like what the Lord Jesus Christ had to say about the religions on the earth in the mid 1800's, I propose that you take it up with Him. Feel free to use terms like "bigot" and "intolerant" about it when you see him.
Of course, when trying to find the truth about Free Republic and Jim Robinson, one's foremost source should be Wikipedia (which contains many untrue entries from our enemies) and, obviously, the writings of disgruntled ex-FReepers. Right?!
And I'm sure that your first source for information on Christianity and the teachings of Christ are atheist websites and books by people like Richard Dawkins. Everything else is suspect as it comes from "true believers" and insiders. Am I right?
Your reasoning is absurd.
~”There are some annoying exceptions or stretches of time where it gets out of hand from both sides, however, for the most part and generally, I have admit that you guys can be reasoned with and tend to behave well.”~
What is this?? The seeds of reconciliation and mutual respect? We can’t be having any of that!
.
It's his choice. The press and dems will have a talking point if he doesn't.
~”Those polygamous Mormons are all about keeping women barefoot and pregnant, aren’t they? ;-)”~
And in the kitchen. Let casseroles and green jello with shredded carrots pour forth in bountiful abundance!
The majority may NOT be afraid of Mormons, but it will only take 5% of Republican voters to abandon his ship and he can't win the election. He is a weakened candidate, he shouldn't be our nominee.
If Romney is able to satisfy the curiosity and win the nomination, the conservative base will flock behind him in the general election.
You are guessing, plain and simple. We seriously need to open our eyes and see exactly how many conservatives (especially Christian conservatives) will not vote for him, ever! If the number is too high, then the danger for us as a party are too great to select him as our nominee. We should all get behind a more electable candidate....and if we are willing to send a RINO with questionable conservative ideals, why not just pick Guiliani instead of Romney? He has more support in the polls.
~”This gaffe by Romney is probably the “brainwashed” moment of his campaign.”~
How many of those have we come across by now? Six or eight by my count. And yet he keeps moving forward... curious.
I agree it was a gaffe; it was a pretty boneheaded thing to say. And it won’t be Romney’s last, I’m sure.
So much for the criticism that he’s too slick.
Your determination that this is his “brainwashed” moment is tellingly overoptimistic, CC.
You know, there really is no winning with you. I give you a sincere reply, accepting your challenge on the condition it is done right and outlining my time limitations, and all we get is crap back, a whole book of it. And, you aren’t willing to put any money into it, while I am.
You know, go worship your pagan Gods on Kolob all you want, we know what your credibility is worth.
And you know, given your whacked out response to reasonable requests, there’s no way you would accept an impartial judge. You play the game dirty DU, which is how I’m used to seeing things played by Mormons like you.
So I’m not saying I might not still take up the challenge, because an impartial court will understand Joseph Smith put the humbug in humbuggery, but I’m not going to play the game on your twisted playing field where you have no money to lose, you pick the judges and the time schedule.
And regarding whether I am a “Poser”, I’ll be happy to verify with Jim Robinson dates, times, addresses, people and anything else regarding my supposedly extravagant personal claims. But I would expect you to issue a public apology to everyone on the forum if everything I say turns out to be true (I do know when I hold the best poker hand). Or maybe you’d like to make a monetary bet backing up your slander (talk about blowhards with no skin in the game).
Perhaps. I am often over-optimistic. I'm rooting for Duncan Hunter! : D
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.