Replies

Part 2

I had a conversation with a relatively reasonable Catholic on another thread who said he would not vote, specifically, for a Mormon. He said the didn't have that problem with Jews or Protestants etc -- just Mormons. If he had said, "I'm voting for Guiliani because he is -ahem- Catholic", that isn't bigotry. It may be a dumb reason, but not bigotry. When he says I won't vote for Romney because he's Mormon, that is bigotry. Most of the comments I've seen regarding Mormons don't say that. They say, "I won't vote for a Mormon." --- period! Not, "I prefer to vote for the Evangelical." The Mormon is specifically excluded --- not by default, but by design.[soccermom]

Well, at least you've stated this better than anyone else when I've thrown out this question; most folks don't bother to address this in the detail you have here (and you've done a good job explaining your position here).

I think the matter we're dealing with is: "Is 'Mormon' just a byword to many evangelicals? Or are there a lot of Evangelicals who actually intelligently know and can unpack what that word means?"

"Bigotry"= "one who holds 'blindly' to an opinion."

Now for say, a FREEPER to "live up" to being painted with that charge, I think they would have to:

(1) First of all, they would not expose their doubts about an LDS as POTUS. The very fact they are openly raising the issue in this forum shows they are willing to entertain sharp feedback and input via ridicule and "correction" they endure. I don't know about you, but my observation of true "bigots" is that they tend to stick to "dark backwoods and alleyways" because they don't want to entertain anything contrary to their viewpoint. I mean isn't that what stubborn blindness is--someone unwilling to consider another point of view?

(2) I think folks who slam doors on LDS missionaries are acting in a more "bigot" type way because they hold the narrow view of being inhospitable reactionaries to folks just because of the badge & white shirt they wear and what that represents to them. My point here is if folks have genuinely found out what LDS believe; intelligently understand many of the basics; and have held many conversations with LDS themselves...again, I don't think that is the general mark of a "bigot." Folks like this have not trod the "blind" pathway at all but have sought to expose themselves (well, not in a literal way :) ) to LDS & what they believe.

Have you ever considered that the "blind opinions" that some folks hold may be on the other foot? Again, broadening this conversation to go beyond Mormonism and more focusing on the religious adherent status of any candidate, I would say thus: Folks who absolutely conclude that "Religion NEVER is relevant or matters in any single way in regard to any given candidate" might just be holding on to a blind (bigoted) opinion in which they won't consider an opposing position.

Suppose you & I searched out a "belief system" that you and I reviewed and openly agreed was an out-and-out deceptive cult; and we found out one of its adherents was running for city council. [Keep in mind now even LDS will label other folks like JWs as "cultists"--so there's some agreement on the term, just disagreement on how wide the application]

I would say that folks who at least did not consider the following points in regard to such a candidate could be considered "bigoted" (holding on to a blind opinion that religion is always irrelevant for public-office considerations):

Point 1: Religion isn't a qualification for public office; but it's certainly is one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc.

Point 2: If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--is an indicator that he might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist!

Point 3: Other-worldly commitments (faith) is a character issue. There's no way around this realization. To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time and time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" and "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).

Point 4: (This especially applies to POTUS and may or may not apply to all races): Bill Clinton was a presidential role-model disaster for our young generation re: the scandal. Any president we as a voting bloc elevate to the highest role model position in our land is giving the highest vote of respectability to the public aspects of what that person stands for. If that person, for example, is an open communist, and we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere. It would fuel their door-to-door boldness and other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!"

Point 5: (Not sure if this applies beyond POTUS). The Bible shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the the true Lord and who do not worship false gods/idols. The OT is replete with such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture. It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" just like the soup kitchen down the street. History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader holds, the more trouble that leader brings to that people during his reign. Kings and presidents need all the grace, mercy, and guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving and directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god and has no true relationship with the living God has less access to the resources God provides; and a nation suffers for that.

Point 6: Let's say the candidate is a open doctrinaire communist. He comes to me (let's say I'm a successful businessman who has benefitted from capitalism) and says: "You are an apostate from Marx. Every capitalistic creed is an abomination before the sovereign state. Your capitalistic leaders are corrupt. There are only two economic systems: the system of the devil (if he exists), capitalism; and the perfect ideal system, communism. I can expect your vote, then?"

Now ya wanna explain how the above is any different than a doctrinaire Mormon who subscribes to the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, verse 19? (LDS cannot just take or leave its "Scripture," ya know...for this verse comes from the very foundation of the church basis--the First Vision of Joseph Smith). Any true believing LDS candidate who approaches us historic Christians are saying: "You are an apostate; I am a restorationist built upon the complete ashes of your faith. Your creeds--all of them--are an abomination before God. Your leaders are corrupt. As it says in the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi, there are only two churches...Ours, the Church of the Lamb; and yours, the Church of the devil. Now, that I've properly inspired you, Mr. Joe Voter, I can expect your vote on Tuesday, then?"

Point 7 (related to Point 6 and applicable only to POTUS): If I, being a cultist candidate, mislabel 75% of my voting base (75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense; and frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party) as being "apostates," I not only show open disdain for them, but betray my ability to inspire confidence that I know how to accurately define a major world religion. If I cannot accurately define a major world religion, what confidence do I inspire re: my ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, and negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?